Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:33, 4 December 2011

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • 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)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

Discussion moved to /WP:V RFC. Timestamp changed to future until the discussion is over. Alexandria (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, this move was made just after I made a comment that I intended to be on ANI. I hope, at least, that those who are paying attention will continue to watch the new page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Closing the RfC at WP:V (a preemptive request)

OK... we are now at 30 days (remember, October had 31 days)... we don't have to close yet, but we could close today if we want to. I could close it myself (as the initiator of the RfC), except that I have certainly been heavily involved (far more than Sarek was) and I don't want give anyone (on either side of the debate) grounds to object to the closure when it happens and cause more unneeded drama. Given the tensions and general bad faith that has permeated the discussion recently, I think we need the closer to be someone who not only is neutral, but also has the appearance of neutrality. That means someone who has not commented at all. So... I thought I would ask...who is going to close it? I would like to announce who it will be, so we don't get a drama fest of closures and unclosures and counter closures when it happens. Blueboar (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Looks messy! 115.64.182.73 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
• You need 3 closers to reach an agreed outcome to avoid further drama. Not me.. :-) Spartaz 07:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Valid idea... although I don't think anyone involved would insist on 3 closers. The point is, a) the closer(s) should be someone who has not yet commented, b) have the clout that comes with admin status so the decision (what ever it may be) is accepted, and c) we need to inform those who have commented who the closer(s) will be (along with a polite request that those involved not add to the drama by closing it themselves). So... could we get some volunteers please. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

  I assume you didn't read ANI recently, as we have an ANI subpage devoted to this now. Over there at least 3 admins have volunteered to close it: User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Black Kite. I personally think a triumvirate closure, like recently on the China RFC is a good idea, but I will leave it to the admins in question to work this out amongst themselfs. I am curious where you got the idea that the an iniator of an RFC should close it? The iniator is by definition heavily involved, so that is always a bad idea. Yoenit (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yoenit. That is all I needed to know (I too am happy to leave the rest up to the admins in question). I got the idea that an initiator could close from reading the instructions at WP:RFC. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Doesn't really matter since I was not planning on doing so in any case. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Safe to archive?

Is the discussion (for now) at WP:V over with? It's hard to parse it at the moment. Alexandria (chew out) 16:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Not over... just temporarily on hold as we wait for a triumvirate of admins to officialy close the the RfC. Their determination this will determine the direction further discussions will take (for example, will we be using the current text as a base line for further discussions and edits, or will we using the proposed text as a base line?) Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal

In nearly five years of editing here on Misplaced Pages, I don't think I've every actually brought somebody to ANI. But I feel compelled to do so now. There has been a long and contentious discussion going on over at Talk:Pregnancy relative to the lead image. In September, an RfC ended with no-consensus. ("If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion.")

Everybody, including HiLo felt the original RfC was poorly executed/run. The last RfC was a disaster, totally confused and confusing, guaranteed to deliver a conclusion that could be misinterpreted. I will not repeat my comments. I don't have the time. HiLo48 24 October 2011 Yet, even acknowledging that the first RfC was a disaster, he chooses to use it as the primary reason not to discuss the subject further. According to him, further discussion is not allowed and any arguments presented should be "deleted" because the "umpire" declared that no-consensus existed.

Well after the first RfC ended, another RfC was opened. I initially didn't like the new RfC so close on the heels of the original, but during over a months worth of discussion, have changed my mind. Numerous new arguments/positions have been added. But HiLo refuses to acknowledge them because according to him we had a "perfectly good" decision already---no-consensus. Since I've chosen to take an active role in this RfC, he now accuses me (and anybody else who posts) of bad faith. He's been insulting and refuses to discuss the issue. I think his own words summarize why he should be topic banned:

• Since the new RfC began I have actually not debated the merits of any of the images. (Surely you've noticed that!) So I haven't said anything about liking any picture. I have certainly discussed censorship. Too many people here seem keen on that.

HiLo has declared that his role is to "persist in highlighting" the bad faith editing by poor losers. He has also declared, "Some people may be prepared to compromise Misplaced Pages's standards and guidelines. I am not. The argument must not be won by those who don't." In other words, compromise is not an option and that he will hold dogmatically to his stance regardless of the process. HiLo refuses to acknowledge any argument that does not conform to his own position. When presented with an argument, he accuses the editor of bad faith and being motivated by conservatism or "anti-breast" campaign. He holds firmly to the mistaken notion since the closing admin of the first RfC found no consensus, that the first RfC "which DID NOT convince the closing admin that the image should change, all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision." This week he declared, "I have not initiated ANY discussions. I reserve my right to treat garbage posts with contempt, as should you." Garbage posts, based on his comments are any that come from the "anti-breast" "conservative" camp---which is how he views anybody who wants to move the image.

Beyond that I want to give you a taste of his contributions to the discussion. He "strongly believe everything have posted on that page"

In closing I want to quote the post I made at 17:47, 19 November 2011:

Perhaps that is why I have found you to be particularly unhelpful in this thread... all you seem to do A) Whine about how this issue was decided (via a no-consensus) !vote in the previous discussion B) attack others for bad faith and other reasons, and C) whine about censorship without actually addressing the issues presented. You've added the most to this discussion without adding anything of benefit.

If he actively engaged in constructive dialog regarding the image, I would not be here... but he has drawn a line in the sand and has declared that anybody who posts on the subject is doing so in bad faith and should be ignored. He has not added a constructive comment relative to the discussion, he merely criticizes the current discussion and anybody who partakes in it.---Balloonman 12:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC) NOTE: It should be noted, that I waited until the RfC was closed before filing this ANI report, lest he accuse me of arguing in bad faith.---Balloonman 12:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing much I can add here. It's not as if you were the only one who noticed the problem.

Your post was full of asterisks where one would have expected colons. I fixed that to make it easier to read. Hans Adler 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had written it with colons to start every quote, but realized that was hard to read when I posted it here... so I did a find/replace in NotePad to make them asterisks... guess, that didn't work ;-)---Balloonman 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad there was such a negative reaction to the nude photo, which was beautiful and harmless. And it's hard to figure why Wales got involved with this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear your opinion on the images but that's not what the AN/I is about. It is also not about the totally uncontroversial close of an RfC by an admin (who happens to be Jimbo Wales). Let's not make additional drama here please.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. What an ungracious win on a Sole Flounder decided RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo, this isn't about the way the RfC was closed or about the image itself, but rather about HiLo's behavior during the discussion. If he contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way, other than to impugn the motives of people who commented, then I would not have opened this.---Balloonman 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the RFC, it's about your fee-fees being hurt - we get it. Show a little compassion for someone that put a lot of heart and soul into a project that he believed was an egalitarian, free, uncensored attempt to broaden the world's knowledge who, found that when the curtain was peeled back, it wasn't quite as egalitarian, wasn't quite as free and wasn't quite as uncensored as he thought it was. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the evidence I do want to say that I find responses like this entirely unhelpful. People need to realize that it is behavior that is or is not problematic not intentions. Surely good intentions can mitigate the response the community has to problematic behavior, but first we need to determine if the behavior was problematic or not. So Hipocrite, while I appreciate your reading of the intentions and emotions involved here it simply doesn't convince me to dismiss the complaint, which appears to be your aim. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The "complaint" is more like a novella. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Side comment. On pregnancy there were two alternatives: either keep the image in the lede; or move it further down in the article to a more appropriate place swapping it for the other image of the lady in blue. The image has been deleted and not moved; presumably someone can fix that. As for topic bans, I think that is a more general issue with several users, providing too much unconstructive and disruptive input on images (mostly on pregnancy and Muhammad). I am not sure that can necessarily be decided here, although it's worth a try.

While not disputing Balloonman's evidence, could he please find a more condensed way to present it? At the moment it is tl;dr. Perhaps a summary with details collapsed for readability? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SF certainly reviewed the RFC when closing it as replace one image with another, remove replaced image entirely, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's supposedly at 26 weeks, so I placed it in the second-trimester section. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. It should not be removed.---Balloonman 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, I went back and hatted all of the quotes/supporting evidence. The key points are now highlighted.---Balloonman 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a minute or two. I was just going to collapse all the evidence in one collapse box, but your way works just as well. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The evidence would be a lot more condensed if OP didn't split/duplicate single posts and place them into different categories. For example:

1. And that is a bad faith post. 18:36, 10 November 2011 (In response to a post explaining an !vote)
2. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants18:36, 10 November 2011

• These are part of a response to Balloon: "And that is a bad faith post. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants, for several reason, least of which is that there was no reason for it to even start... "-10 November 2011

1. Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:45, 13 November 2011
2. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision 02:45, 13 November 2011 {Notice, the "umpire's decision" is a common theme in his post. According to him, the first RfC which resulted in "no consensus" is binding.}

• These two lines are also both from a single response to Balloon: "Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are no more reasons to change things now than there were two months ago. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision." HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? 19:58, 17 November 2011 (Note: He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt.)
2. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
3. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• All from one 3-line post "OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?" HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are more. If we just deleted the duplicated lines and merged the different lines back into their original post then all of this evidence could be shrunken down and be more manageable. Balloon, considering you have spent weeks arguing over the finer points of syntax and the importance of the context wherein you place things I find it more than dubious that you would split a single post into multiple lines, taking them out of their original, intended context, and place them into separate, unrelated categories, and I feel it's hypocritical that you condemn his distrust of your motives for only caring about the subtext/placement of the image while you distrust his motives for editing on the talkpage. Also, if you are going to omit a line from the middle of a quote then you should place an ellipsis(...) in between the two lines your using to indicate that there is omitted content in between them.AerobicFox (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• My only comment here is that my behavior at Talk:Pregnancy was not above reproach and my comments to HiLo should be taken with plenty of bad faith because that was how they were intentioned and made. I made several comments to be WP:POINTY and to cause some editors, including HiLo, to retaliate. Not my finest moments, but I want to clarify so HiLo isn't judged on issues he may have been provoked by me.--v/r - TP 15:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban - To put it bluntly, I'm astonished that this user has a clean block log after all this time. The examples presented above are unacceptable and should not be tolerated from any editor. And, sorry, but there's no way that sheer mass of examples is all a result of baiting by TParis. But most importantly, this is not just an issue on that talk page, where people are provoking each other and things are getting heated, it's part of an overall pattern of incivility, bad faith accusations and otherwise inappropriate comments (which can be easily seen just by scanning their talk/user talk contribs). I've also witnessed disruption on the part of this user at ITN/C, which led to a topic ban proposal against them in August. The proposal received unanimous support, but was never formally closed or put into effect. Anyway, it's absolutely time we do something about this editor, and if kicking them off the Pregnancy talk page is the first (and hopefully last) step, I'm firmly in support of that. Swarm 18:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. My turn. I won't say much. Despite insulting predictions to the contrary, I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have, even though I am disappointed by it, largely because it is clear and simple. Obviously Balloonman doesn't like my style, and I don't much like his, but I actually regard many of the things for which he has criticised me as positives. Unlike others, I have been completely consistent and honest in my position on both the process and the choice of image here. I do suspect the real motives of most of those wanting the nude image removed or moved. I doubt if some realise what is really driving their position. But I will no longer fight that fight. I am not from the same culture as most of those arguing for hiding the nude image. I know that means that my style doesn't always fit the "don't upset anyone" approach that they believe we must ALL follow. I am happy to accept different styles of behaviour, and admit that I do enjoy vigorous debate. I hope that is never stifled here at Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked in to the evidence but personally I would be be mildly opposed to a ban at this time. The RFC just closed, let's see how everyone including HiLo48 moves on from there after a week or two. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The topic is already heated enough from both sides, and since I have issues with this ANI being used as a coatrack of incivilty by HiLo I will bring forth similar behavior by Balloon:

".... Speaking as a sample of one, the thought of natural childbirth never, really never, even crossed my mind till you raised it. I hav to agree with LO. Sorry 'bout that, mate! JonRichfield (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)"

"Wow, can you be any less eloquent in your rationale."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "it expresses one more thing; that pregnancy is also a state of mind"? WTF? Pregnancy is a state of mind? Please show that to me in a medical journal?
• "Now that is pure rubbish... your argument is strictly WP:ILIKEIT."
• "HiLo has essentially admitted that he is not contributing to the discussion on the merits of the image. His contributions are nothing more than 1) this is censorship 2) this was already decided ergo everybody who contributes to the discussion now is doing so in bad faith, and 3) making snide comments about users and their motives. He has added the most to this debate while adding the least amount of merit."

The whole debate on that page just circles around, escalating in tension with each loop. The appropriate response to such circumstances is not to ban/block the first editor to cross the line, that will only escalate tension, generate distrust, and promote back-handed "civil" attacks on other editors while avoiding outright incivility. The correct response should be to try to cool down tensions on both sides, and not just comments on Hilo's talkpage such as "Please don't start trolling". Imagine the circumstances of an editor who is being singled out for incivility that they feel is justified, while others are being similarly uncivil but not receiving such criticism; when this type of one-sided criticism occurs there is a very reasonable and foreseeable possibility of your criticisms being viewed as a dishonest way to attack those who disagree with them, and not a genuine attempt to cool down tensions. Instead a promise to cool down yourself as well, an assumption of good faith, an apology for any misunderstandings, and a sincere request to remove hostility between you two would have been a much preferable path.

Balloonman, there is much you can do to be aware of your own actions and responses to editors, and how that affects the discussion as a whole. You frequently dismiss all the arguments made by the other side as WP:ILIKEIT and having nothing more than WP:NOTCENSOR as an argument, this will no doubt increase the likeliness of receiving uncivil comments. Your rhetoric at times makes it seem as though you are attempting to establish yourself as some sort of quasi-impartial outsider figure; this can make you difficult to work with as you portray accusations of you having a POV as baseless and uncivil, yet you feel fully justified to frequently accuse all those in favor of the image as solely promoting their own POV. The natural outcome of repeated confrontations with people will be misunderstandings, incivility, etc, these are not licenses to dismiss, ostracize or alienate editors, but are something you must accept and work against by demonstrating good faith, because that is the only way that a discussion will move forward. Turning the other cheek and assuming good faith is a requirement for having any chance of making an ongoing dispute productive, there is no threshold of civility that you must maintain up to, but not beyond, civility is something that must be exercised whenever the need arises even if you feel it is more then you should be required to maintain. An ANI discussion won't result in an editor you're having trouble with just being whisked away, it will likely make both parties look bad, bring upon lengthy/nonconstructive arguments about avoidable things, and result in more difficulties with future dealings with said editor who will likely not go anywhere from an ANI. As it stands this ANI is inappropriate at this time.AerobicFox (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AF you are missing a couple of key points:

First, if a person posed an argument, I either addressed the argument or ignored it. HiLo takes pride in the fact that he didn't address the merits of the images. HiLo boasted that his role was simply to prevent compromise and to prevent the otherside from winning. This is not an attitude conducive to wikipedia.

Second, yes, I attacked ideas and posts. If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it shows that pregnancy is a state of mind, then you need to be prepared to support that notion (last I checked it isn't so having an image that shows it is, is not a valid argument.) If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it is the "best illustration... conveys so much emotional and human impact... sterile image... beautiful... meaningful...transcends the actual photo." Then I'm going to call it rubbish and decry it as ILIKEIT. Attacking ideas and positions is one thing. Accusing everybody who posted of acting in bad faith and having low morals/ethics... which HiLo did on a repeated basis... is a different story. He didn't attack ideas/posts, he attacked people. I could live with his attacking ideas/positions, but he didn't attack people for what they said, but rather because they said anything.

Like I said, if he were actually to have discussed the issue, I would not have come here. Hell if he hadn't boasted that he hadn't contributed to the actual discussion I might not have come here. Instead he chose to make his argument based upon making ad hominem attacks against anybody who posed an argument in favor of moving/removing the image. A handful of comments going back several archives, does not equate to the scores of quotes.---Balloonman 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• "No justification has been presented for requiring another decision so soon."
• "There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 08:13, 8 November 2011"

I don't why you think HiLo was unjustified in making comments like these against starting another RfC a month after another one when no significant change has occurred. Many of these comments aren't even impolite, "Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship," "What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards."; I have never seen such harmless quotes brought to an ANI before.

• "And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense 18 November 2011 ("

Why have you characterized this as "he tried to mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument.", this is a perfectly valid argument.

• "I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?"

Your description of this "He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt), is extremely odd, he is not stating he is only there to disrupt. In fact, you have characterized him as stating he is only there to disrupt several times, but I have yet to see any evidence of him stating as much. Reading through many of these quotes I am feeling that you are taking way too much in bad faith on his part. While a handful of these quotes are concerning with their accusations of bad faith and dishonesty the majority of these are completely harmless, and indeed all of this could be handled much better.AerobicFox (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AF, out of over 50+ edits, you pick a few... but let's see... the quote on the 18 was in reference to an issue that had been explicitly explained to him on numerous occassions PRIOR to his making this statement (look up the section where I talked about constructing a film/book/article with a controversial opening and explained how shocking events/scenes can be built up to and thus become acceptable---which he was involved in and is only one occassion of explaining this principle.) Rather than address the new argument/point, he routinely said, "No new evidence/arguments." As for disruption... when you brag that you haven't discussed the merits of any of the images and that you have drawn a line in the sand. That is disruption. When you routinely accuse others of bad faith for presenting an argument, then start saying that anybody who is participating in the RfC has low morals and ethics. That is trolling/disruptive.---Balloonman 05:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban. I don't like his style in any of that discussion and he's pretty annoying in it at times, but I do not think it's at all within policy to topic ban him for the tone in which he asserted his point. The most bothersome aspect of HiLo's behavior is the badgering. HiLo is perfectly free to declare that he will not budge in his position or to muse about motives. The only grounds here I would see for a ban is if the continued reassertion of his position crosses over to disruptive (not just annoying), meaning that it keeps others from having the discussion. Some may say that line's been crossed. That's fine; that's a reasonable disagreement and grounds for a ban. But I do not think it's reasonable to ban based on "civility" or bad faith. It would be ironic if WP:AGF became a ban bludgeon. Shadowjams (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  Civility is perfectly suitable grounds for which to ban someone. We have a policy against it for a reason. We can't have people acting like that in a collaberative community.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  It's more nuanced than that. Our policy says "Civility is a goal rather than an objective standard. Misplaced Pages editors from around the world may have different cultural standards of civility, so a certain amount of tolerance is required. We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." We block for the disruption or the attack, not for the incivility. In the same way we strive to have proper spelling and grammar in articles we strive to have civility in discussion. We don't block for misspellings (I'd be gone a long time ago if we did that). We do block if I go through and purposefully mispell.
  It's perfectly fine to say he's been disruptive, therefore needs to be banned/blocked. But taking administrative action due to his tone is unacceptable.
  I also am unconvinced that bans/blocks like this do anything to increase the level of civility. That's an issue of culture on Misplaced Pages; an issue not helped by extending battles onto ANI or bringing out the threat of ban. That's why I think it's critical that the touchstone of all administrative action needs to be around disruption, and I think longstanding policy backs me up on this point. It's my informal impression but I notice more calls for action based in incivility now than before. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• support some action I took part in the discussion briefly and immediately encountered Hilo and find the characterization above to be quite accurate. It was quite obvious from the start that Hilo was not there to constructively discuss anything. They often ran around in circles, ducked direct repeated questions, and claimed evidence they never provided, all while hurling insults, misdirecting and making false characterizations. Having not encountered Hilo previously, that I can recall, it becomes a question of whether or not this behaviour was limited to Pregnancy or if this is a general editing style on the part of Hilo. The fact that Hilo sees this as positive behaviour in a community is fairly troubling, and gives me no hope that the behaviour won't continue. At the least I'd support a block until the community can be assured that the disruptive behaviour won't be repeated, and clarification can be given as to whether this is a localized issue or indicative of a greater problem with their editing.--Crossmr (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• I had actually intended to bring a proposal to block or ban of HiLo48 on the grounds of his abuse of Misplaced Pages as a battleground. My apologies if any of the following is redundant.:

HiLo48 has been abusing Misplaced Pages as a battleground, waging ideological warfare and attempting to "win" and "beat" the other side. The strident rhetoric is part and parcel of the partisan battle. Some examples from Talk:Pregnancy include

• • Yes, I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America? HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is it so important to hide nipples? Is it an instruction from God? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And there is a point where your argument goes right off the rails. If the picture is offensive, how can it possibly be OK for people to encounter it as they scroll through the article? Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • John Carter - you have failed to state the fundamental argument against the existing image. It is "I CAN SEE HER BREASTS!!!!!" This is often acompanied by comments to the effect that "It doesn't bother me but there are some people I believe it will bother." This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter. It is NOT an argument that says there is anything wrong with the image. Breasts have never hurt anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not here to cooperate with those who want to move Misplaced Pages towards Conservapedia. So shoot me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No That's NOT an acceptable step. It's a win to the conservatives and censors. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Sets the wrong tone" Eh? That'a almost laughable. What discussion are you looking at?It's such a culturally loaded, "I don't like it", pro-censorship statement. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is not sexual. It hurts nobody. This MUST be an issue concerning your conservative values. It can be nothing else. And that means you want censorship, which I will continue to aggressively oppose when it is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And this gem From a related dispute on WT:What Misplaced Pages is Not: Some very popular reliable sources, particularly from the Murdoch stable, feature Page Three girls. A link from that article takes me to The Sexiest 100 Page 3 girls. Breasts and nipples everywhere! I suspect these would be unacceptable in conservative parts of the USA, but are obviously OK in the UK and other countries where they exist. It's impossible to declare a clear, single community standard on this stuff. Do the conservatives really want to ban from Misplaced Pages material that is commonly published in the daily press? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are also numerous and wild accusations of bad faith that I have not bothered to catalog here.

While not nearly the sole culprit, HiLo48 has been ratcheting up the rhetoric throughout this entire (and rather foolish in my opinion) dispute. The pervasive disrespect he's shown others has poisoned the editing environment and corroded the quality of the discussion and the Pregnancy article as a result.

It is my opinion that this behavior is grounds for an indefinite block for disruptive editing in his abuse of ]. If I was not involved myself, I would do that now that now. In the alternative, I suggest something lengthy, around 2 weeks, or a six month topic ban from Talk:Pregnancy and "censorship" related policy discussions. --Tznkai (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I make no comment as to the appropriateness of sanctioning any other user on any side of the discussion. It was widely ugly with a lot of bad behavior. HiLo48 in my opinion, stands out, but I am open to further action, including against myself if needed.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I looked briefly at Talk:Pregnancy a long time ago when the fuss started, but have not followed it, and have only quickly skimmed the long discussion above. However, this comment by HiLo48, which includes "I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have", may be a statement of intention to back away. Perhaps if HiLo48 were to clarify that, this discussion could be closed? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm unusual here, but I when I post something I try to choose my words carefully so that what I say is EXACTLY what I mean. I am not backing away. I am accepting the umpire's decision. This is entirely consistent with a point I have repeatedly made throughout this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you routinely assumed bad faith on those with whom you disagreed. You routinely said that people who commented had low morals/ethics/and operated out of bad faith. Rather than discuss the issues, you chose to make it a battlefield and make blanket statements about everybody who had commented----if that isn't the epitome of trolling then I don't know what is? There was no way to discuss issues with you because you assumed bad faith and refused to recognize any position based upon a previous RfC which was closed as "No Consensus"---and if somebody pointed out that the previous RfC was "No Consensus" you accused them of not representing the truth and distorting the closing admins statement (which clearly said no consensus.) Like I said, in 5 years on WP, I have never opened an ANI case against anybody, but your behavior and desparaging remarks against everybody who posted does not epitomize somebody who was on the page to discuss the subject---but rather to disrupt.---Balloonman 04:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a failure to communicate happening here. You are seemingly not understanding what I am saying. (And much of what I said on the page we're discussing.) You're certainly not responding to the actual words I say. (At least as I intend them to be read.) Maybe I don't understand all of your points either. As I said earlier, it's obvious that we come from different cultures. If you cannot for some reason respond to what I actually say here, there is not point in me continuing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Whatever acrimony was on the original talk page, it's clearly spilled over here. This is not constructive, I don't think there's any consensus for any bans right now, and nobody is looking any better from this. This feels like a continuation of the arguing on Talk:Pregnancy under a different premise. It would be best for everyone if those at odds would disengage. Seems to me it's much better to treat this as water under the bridge than a chance to argue again. Shadowjams (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

^^Agree, there is absolutely no chance of something constructive coming out of any of this. This dispute wasn't productive to begin with and should have dissipated with the failed RfC and not escalated into AnI. Drop the conflict, it isn't worth fighting over, there's nothing actionable and continuing will just make everyone involved come out worse. AerobicFox (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love going out for a bit only to come back and find the discussion closed. These things are supposed to archive after 24 hours for a reason. The "multiple" requests to close were a grand total of 2 made by two people who've already stated their positions as opposing any sanction against the user, no wonder they'd request a close. There did see to be at least 4 users who disagreed with Hilos behaviour and supported sanctions, and others who disagreed, but didn't explicitly state they supported sanctions, and yet there is no chance to go from there to an actionable result?--Crossmr (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What Crossmr said. Two in favor of close, 4 in favor of action...---Balloonman 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks where not nice and did not address the matter at hand, hopefully all will WP:AGF in the future. It is unfortunate that the matter came to this. Believing that images of the breast changes in pregnancy are important I went out of my way to acquire this image which actually shows the changes . Hopefully we can now finally get back to improving the content of this top quality article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only sit back and sadly laugh. Do you guys understand irony? I was reported because of my alleged over-reaction to what I described as some editors failure to accept the umpire's decision. Now we have this topic reopened because some editors failed to accept the umpire's decision to close it, and went off to hassle and annoy the closing admin about it until he did what they wanted. I say no more. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

They're called administrators, not umpires. I have no idea where this umpire obsession of yours has come from. You were reported for the whole of your conduct for the duration of that discussion. Not just the reaction to the closing. Your repeatedly hurled insults at other users, assumed bad faith, made claims you refused to back up despite being repeatedly and directly asked to. All this added up equals a whole big pile of disruptive conduct, which is why it was brought here.--Crossmr (talk) 08:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

...twice. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling out a bad close is not bringing it here twice, nor does it change the way you conducted yourself over a long period of time, nor your apparent inability to see what was wrong with the way you acted. As I asked above, if this is indicative of your interaction with other editors on all subjects, you should probably be blocked. If it's limited to a hot button subject, then a topic ban is sufficient.--Crossmr (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are showing no sign that you really understand the point I am making. I don't know how to achieve that. I spoke earlier of cultural and communication issues. We sure do have them here. I should probably give up. HiLo48 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that "umpires" are infallable and can't be overturned/reversed. You put too much weight into "no-consensus" closes... but that isn't why you are here... it is your continual assumptions of bad faith on the part of others. Drawing a line in the sand and refusing to discuss issues and to attack the anybody who posted a contrary opinion as somebody with low morals/ethics is classic trolling.---Balloonman 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that "umpires" aren't infallible, but they must exist to maintain some order in structures such as this, and their rulings must generally be followed, or we will have chaos. You're part of a group that seems to challenge or ignore decisions you don't like much more than I would. Repeated challenging and/or ignoring administrative rulings, as was done most recently here in this very thread, can obviously be defined as disruptive behaviour. Can you see that perspective? HiLo48 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a matter of how it's done. People are free to challenge and debate all kinds of things. They aren't free to continually and repeatedly insult and assume bad faith of a varied group of editors.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You see insults. I see guesses at true motivations where those publicly stated were pretty weak, because it's important to understand the real goals of those one is discussing a matter with. I'm still not convinced that I guessed wrongly. Oh, and I still believe that starting a new RfC so soon after the closure of the earlier one was bad faith behaviour. We obviously see that matter differently, but hey, vive la difference. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Which are irrelevant you're supposed to be commenting on the content, not the editors. Your "guesses" did nothing to benefit the discussion and only served to ramp up the vitriol and create a hostile editing environment.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• So this got reopened? Really, what do you expect to happen here? Your "scores" of quotes are a handful of quotes spliced into multiple parts, the parts then spread or duplicated in multiple categories, with many harmless(some not even remotely rude) beefing them up. Advertising emphatically that this is your first time ever starting an ANI isn't going to make your post seem more credible as ANI is littered with first time complaints that go nowhere and never should have been started because they will go nowhere. Civility blocks are hugely controversial, and testing the waters with an example so mild is not going to work out, it's going to drag on, make those involved look worse, waste time and lead nowhere. If to you the opinions of myself and another uninvolved editor just don't stack up to 4 editors with personal histories asking for actions from temp topic bans to indef civility blocks then feel free to continue, but if you want to take my advice then I would recommend moving on and not stewing on the past.AerobicFox (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  This is limited not just to uncivil behaviour, but generally disruptive behaviour of which civility was only a part. Balloonman has more than once described Hilo's behaviour as trolling, and I find it to be a rather apt description. Hilo spent a great deal of time doing anything but discussing the actual content, especially for someone who was so involved in the page. Especially for someone who was repeatedly pressed to actually discuss the content and provide genuine support for their position. Despite false claims that they'd provide mountains of evidence to support their position, they instead spent the time hurling insults, making "guesses", and generally stirring the pot than participating in the discussion in a useful manner. Individually, specific issues are not great concern, but added up into the package that Hilo delivered during that discussion it's a cause for concern.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  None of that seems at all different from what many users consider the opposition in long drawn out disputes to be doing. Just about everybody right now at the 740k discussion at WT:NOT would describe members of the opposition as dancing around the issue, repeatedly attacking other editors instead of focusing on content, not being at line with policy, wearing down the opposition, etc. Various points he has brought up are legitimate points, yet have been totally dismissed in bad faith. How is this comment:"If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling?" being used as an example of trying to "mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument." Why did you start an RfC so soon without any clear reason for expecting a different outcome? The only difference between HiLo's behavior and what is commonly is exhibited is that he has made a few off-color remarks about other editors starting an RfC and pushing a tiresome discussion in bad faith which, if communicated more diplomatically, would have been perfectly acceptable comments. You can disagree with the way he discusses things, and you can try to genuinely express moving towards civility with some sort of peace offering, but you can't engage in a prolonged dispute with opponents you repeatedly characterize as trolls with nothing to offer, and then bring them to AN/I the moment they appear to be crossing the line.AerobicFox (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I see plenty of evidence above of disruptive behaviour, as well as plenty evidence that the community tried to warn him against it. And again, it's the total package. Hilo seems to gone above and beyond everyone else in all aspects of the behaviour which is why it's here, and I didn't bring it here, I simply pointed out that I witnessed that behaviour and agree that it cannot happen here. Every discussion can sometimes get a little side tracked, everyone can sometimes make a little sniping comment here or there, everyone can try and dance around the issue when they can't defend their point. Sure, it happens in tons of discussions across[REDACTED] all the time. But the continued degree to which he did so and the way in which he did it are the problem. For a day and a half I had to repeatedly and directly ask him to explain himself and frankly he came up with one of the lamest reasons ever after promising the evidence to end all evidence, with a nice little insult tossed in on the side. At the time I did a quick search on the page and found him to basically be acting the same way in at least a half a dozen other parts of the page, and from the looks of it, his behaviour wasn't limited to the day and a half I spent there. If you think there are some other users who similarly acted up to this degree then feel free to bring them here with diffs to support it, regardless of the side. This kind of behaviour isn't needed or wanted and does nothing to benefit the encyclopedia. More trouble is Hilo's inability to get it despite the editors who have lined up on their talk page, here and I'm sure on the pregnancy talk page to tell them they've been acting inappropriately. That's why I suggested a block. Blocks are to prevent disruption, this is disruptive, and if they can't even acknowledge the problem with their behaviour then there is a very good chance it may happen again.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just about all editors(myself included) have problems with civility and with trusting other editors in heated disputes. Current talkpages across Misplaced Pages are littered with this mistrust. HiLo has made it clear on the talkpage he doesn't trust that your actions in creating a new RfC so soon are in good faith but an attempt to wear down opposition—a sentiment I can assure you is quite common—,but you do not trust him either, so I don't see how his distrust of your actions is different from yours of his. As far as behavior goes he stated right on the talkpage that he doesn't think you are acting in good faith, and you have stated the same thing here in an ANI, does a different forum make the same comments more appropriate, or is it that you can call him disruptive/trolling/acting in bad faith because you are right about him but that he cannot call you these things because he is wrong about you? What you have is a failure to communicate, and I would recommend better dispute resolution over seeking administrative action.AerobicFox (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with disruption in discussions about images lies elsewhere. A reasonable mutually agreed scholarly compromise on the use of historic images was worked out for the article Muhammad, involving careful exploration of secondary sources and current trends in academia. That is normal procedure in developing consensus. But now, after lying low for a period, a single user has reemerged, editing as if those lengthy discussions had never taken place. Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start any RfC. So I have no idea how that is relevant to how Hilo addressed me, or any other user, except the one who started the new RfC. Whoever that was, I don't even think I was participating when that happened. Once again, there is a difference between a distrust of another person's actions and outright insults being hurled around during a discussion and repeatedly failing to answer a question despite it being the main crux of your argument. That is classic trolling 101. I only had about 10 contributions to the pregnancy talk, you're free to scrutinize them. I made a couple of good faith comments , , and then Hilo showed up with his act. He become confrontational immediately, despite my just joining the conversation. , his first reply to my rather benign comment ended with Is that OK with you?. Despite my directly asking him to actually explain and back up what his point was (and a search of the page revealed that he had in fact NEVER explained what that meant, despite repeating it several times). When I again directly asked him to explain his argument, his response was to devolve into insults . Despite his assertion that he could provide mountains of evidence, when further pressed all they would say was "it's the whole woman that's pregnant". No citations, no educational and pedagolical theory as they claimed they could provide, that's it. A day and a half spent trying to coax a coherent point out of him and that's all he could come up with. it was extremely obvious at that point that Hilo was nothing but a giant time sink, with a side of uncivil behaviour to cover up the shortcomings of the argument. The difference between Hilo and your standard person who gets involved in these debates is that Hilo appears to have repeated that behaviour excessively, with many editors and for a long period of time. That was the extent of my involvement in the debate, and I left with a sour taste in my mouth due to Hilo's actions. I've no idea why you keep addressing me as if I'm the person who started a new RfC, or did any of those other things.--Crossmr (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"a giant time sink, with a side of uncivil behavior to cover up the shortcomings of the argument."

Being an uncivl timesink(which I don't believe is the case here) is not a blockable offense. We have had plenty of this, and indeed I could bring forth a stronger case than this here against a few other editors. The fact of the matter is that ANI is no place for such a discussion to occur. I find starting RFC's quickly after a failed RFC to be more of a time waste then arguing against said RFC's(I'm not meaning to imply that you started that RFC), and I find starting an ANI without a clear blockable need to be a timesink. If people are having troubles with an editor then they need to act like an adult, bring forth a civil(but not patronizing) discussion to their talkpage and genuinely try to make peace with said editor, and not start an ANI discussion which will doubtlessly make conditions less civil on Misplaced Pages. If you think HiLo is beyond the point of being able to talk with about things sincerely and without being attacked then I recommend you exert some more good faith, he isn't being a troll this is just the way he is used to arguments being, and if you are having problems with that then you need to address him sincerely and try to work something out.AerobicFox (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly is a blockable offense. It's disruptive and when done excessively enters into tenditious behaviour. "this is just the way he is used to arguments being" is a cop-out. it's not an appropriate way to conduct a debate in a group. It doesn't matter if that is what he's used to. Someone might be used to deleting the opposition and editing warring until the cows come home to get their position into an article, it doesn't mean its okay. The reason this was brought to AN/I was due to the breadth of the problem. This isn't a one on one situation. This is Hilo effecting many many editors, which is what ramps this up from the usual talk page crank to an issue that needs to be dealt with. Hilo is in control of his actions, and despite his disagreement with a new RfC, no one forced him to edit in the way he did, no one held a gun to his head and made him talk to all those other editors as he did.--Crossmr (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Being uncivil or acting not in an "appropriate way to conduct a debate in a group" is not disruptive—you can just ignore him—"deleting the opposition and editing warring" is disruptive because you cannot ignore it. If what he was doing was forcing others to take time to deal with then an ANI would be perfectly acceptable, the fact of the matter is that your constant responses to him either a)means he has a valid point or b)means you feel needlessly responsible to comment on others bad behavior. I see an RFC started with no discernible need as well as an ANI as being more disruptive. Nobody is pointing a gun at your head telling you to respond to a post that doesn't add anything to a discussion, and HiLo is not just posting to be a troll, but is arguing what he believes in and what many other editors agree with. We don't start banning people because they're being impolite, you and other editors are perfectly capable of either trying to work something out with HiLo or ignoring his occasionally pointy comments; unless he actually starts disrupting a conversation by deleting posts or edit warring then there is nothing administrative to be done.AerobicFox (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan

User:Off2riorob has, in the past, expressed rather strong views on who he considers to be a Jew, particularly if they are British nationals (see for example, this statement), and apparently believes "British" and "Jewish" are mutually exclusive (see, for example, this comment). I first ran into this at the Ed Miliband article, where Off2riorob was quite insistent that Miliband was not Jewish, despite Miliband's own explicit words to the contrary, and that no mention of his ethnicity should be made in his biography. He also removed Miliband from the infobox of the British Jews article.

More recently this issue came up again at the British Jews article, where an editor added Daniel Radcliffe to the infobox. Off2riorob was quite insistent that Radcliffe could not be in the infobox, despite the fact that Off2riorob was aware that Radcliffe himself had stated publicly "I'm very proud of being Jewish." Off2riorob also expressed very strange (and what many might consider offensive) views on various Talk: pages; he stated outright that Radcliffe was "not a British Jew" (indeed, that we were "falsely asserting he is a Jew"), that he was a "half Jew" at best, not a "full Jew", and insisted that we must "Get a better Jew for the infobox". As I pointed out on the Talk: page, I was rather surprised to see someone in the 21st century still applying the Mischling Test.

The issue arose again last week, when I copyedited the "Personal life" section of the Miliband article. My editing really was simply for readability and flow; I did not add any material at all, nor remove any significant material. Yet Rob reverted me, with no specific rationale other than it was a "stable version", and that the WP:BRD essay gave him a "right" to do so. In fact, he reverted the article six times in a span of four hours or so, continuing to revert even after being reported at AN/3RR. He claimed to "have repeatedly, to no avail requested talkpage discussion" but notably refused to initiate such a discussion himself, despite being explicitly asked on his User talk: page to do so. He also reverted under the claim that the matter was "Under discussion - on the talk page", despite there obviously being no such discussion on the Talk: page. This seems to have become a persistent behavioral pattern when the issue of Jewish ethnicity of British nationals comes up; edit-war irrationally with multiple editors while accusing them of "tag-teaming" (see e.g. ).

After the 6RR at the Miliband article, Off2riorob was blocked for 48 hours and "retired", but then returned as User:Youreallycan. "Retiring" an account and starting a new one (publicly connecting the two) is apparently not in and of itself a WP:SOCK violation, and his initial edits were reasonably innocuous. Today, however, he started adding information to the Ed Miliband article based on his new argument that Miliband is Jewish, and that his ethnicity is significant and should be highlighted. This is, to my mind, a clear example of WP:POINT.

I think that at this point it is no longer tenable to claim that Off2riorob is using a new account because he wants a WP:CLEANSTART. Furthermore, it appears to me that he is unable to comply with policy when it comes to the topic of Jewish ethnicity. I suggest he needs to take a break from editing regarding it. Jayjg 17:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I strongly support the proposal that this editor be instructed to stay far away from issues that have a Jewish angle. His contributions in this area risk discrediting the encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DIVA much? He's been around for years, he knows how things work. Whilst he's at liberty to swap accounts like this (I'm sure he knows the policy far better than I will ever care to), this is self-centred flouncing of the worst sort. It certainly doesn't reflect well on him, the POV pushing over Jewishness doesn't either. I'm sure that any admin will see right through it in terms of neutrally applying policy to User:Youreallycan, should the issue of blocking arise again, and note that the same editor already has one block for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg and others from the I-P topic area have warred over this stuff for years, basically Who is a Jew? in terms of our usually Misplaced Pages-wars. No one comes here with clean hands when dealing with this topic. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is both completely unsourced, and your usual dig at me - and frankly, it's a bit tiresome. Since you're one of the "others from the I-P topic area", are you stating that you have "warred over this stuff for years" and don't "come here with clean hands"? Please try to make constructive contributions; just because I open an AN/I thread, that doesn't mean you have to come and diss me with vague accusations based on ancient disputes you've had with me. Jayjg 02:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is neither socking nor a clean start because Rob has made no secret that the accounts are linked. At a guess, he changed the old account's password to a random string when he retired and then came back because, like many here, he is a Misplaced Pages:Wikipediholic. He was correctly blocked for edit-warring with several editors over JayJG's copyedit, but I am not convinced that his contributions today were in bad faith.

On the content issues, the Milibands are definitely both Jewish and British. I think that Miliband is rather more than just the Labour Party's chief spokesman but rather the person who does most to set its policy and his speech to conference immediate after election did much to set that policy. The JC is a fairly reliable source on this. On the other hand, I had not really heard of Radcliffe as being Jewish.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else, comparing your opponents to Nazis invoking the Nuremburg Laws is not an effective way to de-escalate the situation. causa sui (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Rob was the guy who started dividing people into "half Jews" and "full Jews", not me. Jayjg 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob has done a lot of great work in enforcing the policies about biographies of living people but is occasionally overly passionate about their views. It doesn't last long and I'm sure this issue will be resolved shortly. There are, however, a couple of subject areas that seem to provoke stronger then necessary reactions from them. This is one, LGBT issues are the other. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• - comment - if there are strong objections to my editing as User:Youreallycan then I will return back to my previous account - right now I am still undecided as to moving forward my what or not contribution position may be. I might decide to rename or to totally stop contributing or to do something else - clearly I have recently been questioning or confused as to if or not or where I want to be contributing to the project but Off2riorob is an account in good standing and I would object to any unwarranted restriction of that account. Youreallycan (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

On moderate inspection...

I do not personally see any violation of the sockpuppetry policy. No attempt to disguise, no good hand bad hand, no skating away from sanctions on one, etc.

I see why people are concerned about your behavior (independent of account status or use) but I think that any discussion of that should be removed from any account-related stuff. As long as you continue to operate within the established account use policy that's not an issue. It may confuse people a bit, but you aren't evidently doing that on purpose. I think the question was raised in good faith, but I'd support putting that part to bed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my experience with Off2riorob on Boris Berezovsky is very similar. It appears that bbb23 and Off2riorob may act in tandem, and their actions on that and other articles relating that BLP were absolutely disruptive. Editors (me) wishing to insert information from scholarly sources relating to the BLP were reverted without question, and I was hounded by Off2riorob, which ultimately led to him being warned about trolling and harrassment by an admin. I can't remember if he was warned about following of my edits, and acting in an overtly battled way. For example, referring to a request to a WikiProject as disruptive, as well as claimed that my report of bbb23 for edit warring was disruptive, and tried to portray my posting to the Russia and Biography WikiProjects, as well as to BLPN, and starting an RFC, as being disruptive, when in fact it is what is suggested editors do when there is a dispute. He obviously also tried to poison the well, by bringing up a 3 year old block of myself as evidence that I was acting in a most disruptive way. Of course, this was occurring after an editor was banned for actually being disruptive on the Berezovsky article, and whilst User:Kolokol1 (with an admitted WP:COI) was whitewashing the Berezovsky article in the lead-up to the court case which saw Berezovsky sue Roman Abramovich. His editing on this BLP showed a complete lack of good faith, and now that I refer back to this discussion, bbb23 was basically insinuating that other editors were adding anti-Semitic information to the article, when that was not so much the case at all, it appears that the 25% expansion on the article done by the now-banned editor was justified by off2riorob and bbb23 based entirely on the "Jewish" angle, and tried to pull the "anti-semitic" card in doing so. Given other information in this thread, some things now make sense to me, but whether it is a wider problem, well that is for others to determine. Russavia 00:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You again and your unfounded accusations. Despite peppering your comments with links, you can't back up just about anything you say, particularly your comment that I "insinuat that other editors were adding anti-Semitic information to the article". What a crock, and it's offensive. See WP:NPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have re-read the thread in question, and it MAY appear that you were talking about the allegedly anti-semitic remarks of Klebnikov. If that IS the case, I will retract that part and apologise. But the rest stands. You and Off2riorob acted in a most disruptive way in that article, tried to assert COMPLETE AND TOTAL ownership over the article, whereby every single edit had to pass your pre-approval, as if you were both some self-appointed article vetters. If this occurs on other articles within this topic area, then I would suggest that Off2riorob either learn to act collaboratively, and don't troll and harrass other editors like he was doing. If this was a one off-case, then it may be excused, (not by me however), but if this occurs time and time again, then perhaps that is something that needs to be looked at. Russavia 05:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why are you even commenting here? You're using a topic as a launching board to resurrect the Berezovsky debacle and to spew your unfounded vitriol that isn't even related to the topic except your mention Off2riorob, but the anti-semitic crap is supposedly related to me, not to Rob, so the only way you get to topic relevance is to accuse us of being alter egos. At the risk of repeating myself, it's all a crock.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is a crock, is that your and Off2riorob's extreme ownership of the Berezovsky article, whereby a 25% expansion by another editor (now banned) was continually wholesale reverted on site over the ridiculous assertions by you guys that Berezovsky isn't Jewish. I am knowledgeable on the subject, and it is a well-known fact that most of the Russian oligarchs are Jewish. There is no anti-semitic notions in stating fact; hell some of these oligarchs have used their Jewish heritage to exile themselves in Israel to escape prosecution in Russia for their shady dealings during the Yeltsin years. But what made it worse, is that your extreme ownership of the article allowed User:Kolokol1, who admitted they have a conflict of interest with the subject, to completely whitewash the article in the lead up to a major court case in the United Kingdom, seeing Berezovsky suing Abramovich for billions of dollars. It was an obvious PR job, and you guys were complicit in allowing this COI editor to completely whitewash the article of almost anything negative of the article, and was done so under the ridiculous guise of BLP; so much so that the article may as well be re-written from scratch in order to get rid of the overt PR hackjob which was done. Not to mention your own continual edit warring on BLP articles, bbb23. Please, leave subjects in which you know NOTHING about to editors who either are familiar with the subject, or are able to use basic research skills to find information on the subject.

Again - all this colloquy shows is that labelling anyone as a particular religion or ethnicity is a major and ongoing problem in the area of biography on Misplaced Pages in general. All of the rest of the discussion above simply strengthens this particular opinion. And seeking to go against any editor for holding such an opinion is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, except that in this case, both Miliband and Radcliffe label themselves as Jews. But that's all beside the point. It's not Rob's opinions that are the issue, it is the fact that he acts on them in violation of policy. The issue here is his behavior. Jayjg 02:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect—I fail to understand. Are you saying that when reliable sources say that Miliband is Jewish, that does not become information that we can pass along to the reader? Why wouldn't that become includable information in a biography on Miliband? Mind you I am not talking about a biography in which reliable sources are in conflict with one another about this. Obviously it is more complex if one good good quality source says that he is Jewish and another good quality source says that he is not Jewish. But what if all sources (that address that point) are in agreement that Miliband is Jewish? Would you still maintain that such material is not proper for inclusion in a biography of Miliband? If that is what you are saying I quite frankly don't understand it. Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect, where is the major problem here? The sources say it, Miliband confirms it, and we include it. End of story. What part is confusing you? Viriditas (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To all: See the discussions about WP:BLP and categorization. This is not just 'my position, but the position of many others. And the it is clear that the issue of categorization is one of the regular issues at WP:BLP/N as you each are quite aware, and the general result is that consensus there opposes categorization. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Collect, are you ignoring the sources?

"Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense."
"My Jewish identity was such a substantial part of my upbringing that it informs what I am"
"And there’s a task for the community to get to know me.. I admire lots of things the Jewish community do: the philanthropy of the community, the generosity of the community, many of the great things that British Jews do for our country."

Aren't we as Misplaced Pages editors supposed to go from the sources? What serious objection to calling Miliband a "British Jew" could there possibly be? Well, as an uninvolved editor who saw this thread on ANI, I decided to have a look. I was surprised to find that there isn't any objection except in the mind of Off2riorob. Unless we have sources that explicitly describe a dispute or objection to this categorization—a categorization that the BLP subject personally declares—I cannot imagine a reasonable justification for removing this information from the article. From where I sit, this appears to be clear case of disruptive editing. Of course, I expect no action from any administrator, since their job is to do nothing. Viriditas (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not forget something else in the mind of Off2riorob: "to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself". This attitude has informed a fair amount of mischief at various articles (Miliband most of all). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The way I see the world is like this: Off2riorob is free to say and think these things. He is not, however, free to continue disrupting encyclopedia articles, and as a result of the evidence offered here, I support a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What's this issue doing at ANI? Anyway in none of the sources you've provided does Milliband appear to categorise himself as a British Jew. He mentions how he has a Jewish identity but not religious and also mentions how he admires the contributions of British Jews to the country. Whether he considers himself a British Jew is therefore unclear from the sources you've provided. If you have sources where he does categorise himself as a British Jew, you're welcome to bring them to the article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC) BTW AFAIK, last time this was discussed the consensus was to add him to the generic British people of Jewish descent cat instead of the specific subcat British Jews (he doesn't need be in both as one is a subcat of the other). It looks like this is the status quo. Again if you have sources where he describes himself as a British Jew, you're welcome to discuss it in the article talk page, but it would be helpful to read the previous discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne—what kind of rationale leads to placing someone who is unquestionably Jewish into a WP:CATEGORY for people "of Jewish descent"? Wouldn't it be more precise to place such a person in a WP:CATEGORY for people who are Jewish? Do you have any source suggesting that Ed Miliband might not be Jewish? Every source that I am aware of that addresses the topic says that Ed Miliband is Jewish. Furthermore—if someone is British and Jewish—can they be anything other than a British Jew? I can't understand how you can raise a question as to whether or not Ed Miliband is a British Jew. How can he possibly not be a British Jew if he is British and Jewish? Ed Miliband says numerous times in sources that he is Jewish. Do you doubt that he is British? Can you please explain the origin of your doubt that Ed Miliband is a British Jew? Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't question he is Jewish in some sense nor do I question he is British. However this doesn't mean he is a British Jew since as many articles on and off wiki atest to it's a complicated term. Even EM's comments themselves attest to this, since in most cases he says his identity is Jewish but not in a religious sense (or something of that sort). The category is British Jews, not Jewish British people. I personally suspect EM does categorise himself as a British Jew, but without clearcut evidence for this, we shouldn't be doing it for him, since it should be his choice particularly with something as complicated with as many possible meanings as Who is a Jew? (Incidentally, while not relevant here you can't draw the conclusion it's best to categorise someone who is A and B as A B. I am Pākehā and a Chinese Malaysian. While technically it may be accurate Chinese New Zealander and European or white Malaysian, and I may use these on occasion, I prefer to stick with my categorisation as Pākehā and a Chinese Malaysian rather then adding the other two.) Anyway I won't discuss this here anymore since it's OT and I don't really care that much. I solely wanted to point out it isn't as clear as Viritidas is saying, as previous discussions on the subject have attested to. Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne—you have not brought a source saying that Miliband is only Jewish in a sense. You are saying that you "don't question he is Jewish in some sense". In fact sources in no uncertain way support that Ed Miliband is Jewish. You are expressing your reservations about well-sourced material pertaining to Ed Miliband being Jewish when you say that he is Jewish "in some sense". Sources do not express any of the reservations that you are expressing. Sources are clear on this point: Ed Miliband is Jewish. No source makes any reference to Ed Miliband only being Jewish in a limited sense. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nearly every single source I've seen which quotes Ed has him saying something like I'm Jewish, it's part of who I am but not in religous sense, or have him referring to his Jewish identity and similar stuff. There are few if any which have him simply saying he is Jewish. In other words, it's EM himself who wishes to be careful with his words, something which I as an editor prefer to respect. You don't even have to leave his article to check, since Viritidas has helpful included them here and it's what I was replying to originally. Although sometimes it's helpful to read the original source rather then just the quotes. Self identification of course is what matters on when it comes to categories, not what other random sources say. Also it ultimately doesn't really matter whether he is Jewish in some sense, or all senses, the question is whether he is a British Jew not whether he is Jewish. As I said, it's not impossible someone could be Jewish, but not regard themselves as a Jew and as it stands, we don't have a source where he self identifies as a British Jew. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne—this is slightly besides the point, because we should be adhering to what sources say, and all sources say that Miliband is Jewish, but you should understand that a Jew is a person who was either born a Jew or who has converted to Judaism, and that "belief" has nothing to do with whether a person is a Jew or not—atheism is a fairly common "belief" among Jews. Furthermore ritual observance is irrelevant to whether a person is Jewish or not—a sizable portion of world Jewry may be nonobservant. Miliband is clarifying, in the quotes you cite, that he is nonobservant. That does not obviate him being a Jew. Furthermore it is axiomatic that a Jew who is the Leader of the Labour Party (UK) is a British Jew. Yes, we require "self-identification" for Categorization purposes as concerns religion according to WP:BLPCAT. But to add to the already established identity of "Jew" that the individual is "British" should not require "self-identification" as a "British Jew". These two identities, or qualities, simply go together in accordance with logic. One quality can be added to the other because no other possible outcome can be arrived at but the considering of them as one combined quality. No source is required that Miliband is a "British Jew". There would for instance be no wp:synthesis involved and this would not be for instance wp:original research. Can somebody be British and Jewish and not a British Jew? If not then Miliband is a British Jew by virtue of those two qualities separately being established. Bus stop (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue at hand: the point of this section is not to discuss exactly how any individual should be labelled, or even Rob's use of two accounts, but rather to address the rather obvious behavioral issue - when it comes to the issue of Jewish ethnicity, Off2riorob does not appear to be able to abide by policy, whether it is WP:3RR or WP:POINT. Jayjg 02:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there any examples of him breaking WP:3RR aside from the time that he got blocked for doing it on Miliband? WP:POINT is only ever blocked for when it becomes disruptive, is he doing something that is impeding others from building Misplaced Pages apart from his having honest content disagreements on talk pages with arguments you believe are not in line with policy?AerobicFox (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, I'm not following you. When source X says Y and Off2riorob ignores the source and says Z, that's disruptive. Based on the above evidence, why is Off2riorob still allowed to edit? Viriditas (talk) 07:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think Rob should be more careful, especially with 3RR, but don't see the need for a topic ban at this time. He has had to resist POV pushes from the opposite side which can drive anyone with an interest in BLP – where Rob has excelled – to distraction. I still remember the mammoth wars last year, both about adding a "Jewish atheist" category and stating "Religion=Jewish" in Milliband's infobox , when Milliband had never self-identified as an atheist, and made it quite clear that he was not a follower of Judaism. Also, let's remember that Off2riorob took Miliband's BLP to GA status. --JN466 16:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I definitely remember the "POV pushes" and "mammoth wars" regarding Miliband last year. Jayjg 23:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• You really can troll on Misplaced Pages for a long time with no consequences, but this seems over the top POV pushing. I support a topic ban of User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan from Jewish-related topics. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: - I hope those who were previously unaware of the scope and intensity of this issue have had their eyes opened a little bit. I think Off2riorob/Youreallycan made some pointy edits and deliberately provocative comments on the talk page, but the fact that the comments here range from dismissal to a topic ban suggestion shows the extent of the polarization in this particular area. This is one of the reasons that I proposed the removal of religion from infoboxes where religion is not one of the reasons for the person's notability (actually, the issue which prompted it was the use of "atheist" as the "religion" parameter, but this is related). These types of debates are ideologically driven and unlikely to be resolved by any amount of reasonable discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

JN466—it sounds to me that you are implying that there are editors disregarding reliable sources and the weight accorded material by reliable sources when you refer to "…POV pushes from the opposite side". I am not aware of the phenomenon to which you refer, but if you are not providing substantiation in the form of links or "diffs" should you be making such assertions? Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

JN466 has already provided a diff demonstrating where someone (you as it turns out) tried to add Jewish to religion in the infobox despite the fact that wasn't really supported by RS at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't too often find myself in agreement with Delicious carbuncle, but I agree with the polarization comments, which I also think dovetail nicely with Collect's comments way above about this being a contentious area and an "ongoing problem". I have many times in the past wished that these fights over religion/ethnicity/sexual orientation, whether it be categories, infoboxes, or the bodies of articles, would go away. Why Misplaced Pages has such a mindset about categorizing subjects (and I mean categorizing in the broadest sense, not just in categories) is mystifying to me. My mystification aside, the fights are interminable and eat up editor resources over and over again. And, frankly, at the end of each fight, we accomplish very little.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• You've missed the point by a mile. This has nothing to do with information and everything to do with User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan's inability to perform research, consult reliable secondary sources, and verify relevant information as fact or fiction. The user is simply incapable of editing Misplaced Pages in an appropriate and accurate matter. WP:COMPETENCY appears to be playing a role as well. At this very moment, the user is continuing to disrupt multiple Misplaced Pages articles, such as Demi Moore. The ongoing discussion at Talk:Demi_Moore#Birth_Name:_Demetria_-_Credible_Sources_and_References demonstrates incontrovertible evidence that User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan lacks the competency necessary to edit Misplaced Pages and should be immediately indefinitely blocked. Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow, your comments are really over the top. Even those editors who occasionally disagree with Rob, believe he has made major, pervasive, and positive contributions to this project. I certainly do. To call for an indefinite block based on incompetence is way out there.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with my comments. To call for an indefinite block based on incompetence is standard and acceptable practice, especially after 12 separate blocks for the same behavior. Enough is enough, and the ongoing disruption and edit warring on Demi Moore and Talk:Demi Moore shows that he is incapable of changing his behavior or recognizing his mistakes. He was supposed to retire and didn't. After seeing him return with the new account, and seeing him engage in the same bullshit in real time, I think he needs a forced retirement. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd have to agree with Viriditas . In his posts at my page, Youreallycan has demonstrated a stubborn and repeated incivility; uninformed opinion in which he claims that an established Time Inc. publication is not a reliable source; and a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the policy WP:SOURCEACCESS — which leads him to believe that such print sources as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are unusable because they're not immediately available online. In his editing, he has demonstrated bias and POV, edit-warring and a degree of WP:OWN. Cumulatively, it makes this editor extremely difficult with whom to work in any productive fashion whatsoever.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• - It's over three days now including Jayjg's "unnamed" report. Its getting boring and generally attacking in nature - a feeling of being bullied and open to public attack over a lengthy period of time and are breaking out as venting for opponents from content disputes resulting in a feeling - the comments here requesting my indefinite ban from the project seem extreme indeed, I am not seeing anything worthy of immediate administrative action - how long shall we keep a thread open here in my name? Youreallycan (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Nothing here looks like particularly substantial. You've been involved in content disputes - so what? Personally, I'd recommend that you maybe leave this madhouse to its own devices for a bit, just for your own benefit, but that is your choice. Hopefully, an admin will come along and close this bit of insubstantial fluff for what it is, so we can all get back to arguing about how many angels can balance on the head of an en-dash... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OBJECTION! That would be an em-dash. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How astonishing - Off2riorob thinks there's nothing wrong with his misbehavior on Jewish ethnicity optics (including the rather obvious recent WP:POINT at Ed Miliband), and his comrade-in-arms Andy agrees there's nothing here and this should be closed. Next you'll be telling me the sun rises in the east. Jayjg 19:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Can some kind admin please put this thread out of its misery...

Given that it is evident that no action is going to be taken regarding Off2riorob/Youreallycan's behaviour, and given that this thread has degenerated into multiple disputes about matters that should be discussed elsewhere (if they actually merit discussion at all, which is questionable), can some kind admin please put this thread out of its misery, and close it as "nothing for AN/I here, argue elsewhere"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it really evident no action will be taken? Clearly you and Jayen466 will oppose any action, as is to be expected. But many other editors, particularly uninvolved ones, support action. Jayjg 17:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. I think it's disgraceful how those two editors clearly have Rob's back. How anyone can possibly miss the behaviour of this terrible editor who has been sanctioned by arbcom regarding this topic area is.... oh wait.101.118.38.7 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Which editor has been "sanctioned by arbcom regarding this topic area"? Certainly not me, despite your snide insinuations - and I appreciate the "courage" you've shown by logging in, so we know who actually made the comments. But thanks for showing up with your "helpful", "on topic", "courageous", and "accurate" comments.... oh wait. Jayjg 01:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy, it's a bit rich to argue that this thread is being derailed and so should be closed when you're one of the ones hard at work derailing it. Serious concerns are raised above about this editor's activities in relation to Jewish topics. Since those topics are as sensitive as you have noted they are, there is no place for trolling or POV-pushing about them, and the arguments for a topic ban should get proper consideration. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then can some kind admin please hat the off-topic portions of this thread, so we can discuss what, if anything, needs to be done about Rob. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are there any indications that these "serious concerns" will result in a clear reason for any administrative action anytime soon? As this thread progresses it appears to get more fractured, off-topic, and less likely to produce a clear reason for any action. Once the argument starts becoming about how "there is general agreement that Demi Moore was named after a 1960s beauty product called "Demetria"", and which several editors including myself all believe "this looks like a pretty bog-standard and good-faith editor dispute provoked by contradictory sources", there becomes less and less reason for this to be taking place here instead of an talkpage except for that critiques of rob are given the appearance of relevance and justification where as they wouldn't on a talkpage.AerobicFox (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The "Demetria" stuff has nothing to do with the issue, and there is no "content dispute". The issue here is 100% behavioral, and is not about any one specific article or edit, or even Rob's 6RR, but rather, a series of edits (including the 6RR) on multiple articles. Jayjg 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Rob's behavior isn't exemplary, none of ours is, but he clearly has not acted in a blockable manner. Two paragraphs of the OP deal with the 6rr issue that he was blocked for previously, other arguments have been insinuating that arguments over what qualifies as a Jewish heritage are anti-Semetic(by insinuating I refer to posts like this "I was rather surprised to see someone in the 21st century still applying the Mischling Test"). This topic appears to be devolving into nothing more than a coatrack of bad examples of Rob which has gone on to the point of fishing into content disputes to find something to criticize. Several editors have already stated to the effect that Rob's actions neither warrant administrative action nor singling out, and I would like a better reason for a discussion centered around criticizing an editor to go on other than that something might eventually just pop up if the discussion continues.AerobicFox (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, you made it clear above you don't think there's anything wrong (while ignoring that actual issues raised). Now you've done the same here. A significant number (possibly a majority) of editors, however, disagree, and they've also been clear about that, stating that in fact he should be topic-banned. Do you need me to quote them? Jayjg 19:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Diffs should be sufficient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you review the comments of Nomoskedasticity, Andy Dingley, Delicious carbuncle, Georgewilliamherbert, Russavia, Viriditas, ASCIIn2Bme, Tenebrae, and Prioryman. While they do not all call for a topic ban, they all (unlike you and Aerobic Fox) recognize that Off2riorob demonstrates behavioral issues on this topic, and apparently on others. Jayjg 01:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I stopped responding to Russavia because my criticisms only inflamed him to greater depths of unfounded, twisted accusations. I wouldn't include him in your list.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Behavioral, not topic-based, problem

I don't think a topic ban is the solution here. Stepping back a bit, I think this controversy demonstrates that there are some serious problems with the way that Off2riorob approaches Misplaced Pages. It's not confined to Jewish-related articles, as his editing of the Demi Moore article illustrates. The following observations are all from my experience and are offered as constructive criticism - I hope he will take it in that light.

• Absolutism. He is often absolutist in his views and appears to see things in black and white. This is problematic as things are not always binary, and an absolutist approach ("my way or the highway") is not conducive to collaborative editing. He needs to accept a degree of give and take in discussions.

• Faulty judgment. His judgement at various times has been questionable. He needs to consider that he might not be in possession of all of the facts. An absolutist approach combined with a faulty grasp of facts is not a good combination.

• Excessive personalisation. He seems to take disputes very personally. If someone disagrees with his views or objects to something he has done, he needs to take it less personally and not take it as a personal insult.

• Excessive willingness to escalate. As we've seen with the disputes over the Ed Milliband and Demi Moore articles, and plenty of other articles previously, he seems to escalate things far too rapidly. He needs to slow down and calm down. His aggressive approach has got him into trouble before and it will again if he doesn't change it.

• Insensitive / confrontational approach to discussions. His comments on British Jews perfectly illustrates this. His choice of words in discussing Ed Milliband and other British Jews was crass and insensitive. I think this due to a lack of awareness of how he comes across, coupled with poor writing skills, as his comments are sometimes barely comprehensible. He needs to pay more attention to how others will read his words and be clearer in his meaning.

These issues won't be resolved with a topic ban and I wouldn't advocate an RfC/U, as such things are pretty useless. Off2riorob needs in general to be more aware of his own impact and he might find it useful to be paired up with a mentor who can offer him advice on how to approach things. Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Hi I will happily take your comments on board as you offered them, in good faith and from a helpful perspective and although I don't expect moving forward to be as regular a contributor as I have been in the past, I will focus on improving the points you have raised. I agree with most although not quite all of them. I have been in a lot of content disputes in my work attempting to keep content about BLP subjects as high a standard and policy compliant as possible, hundreds and hundreds of them, the vast majority about people and topics I could not care about at all. My POV is WP:BLP. I don't see from all those contributions that the diffs being presented here are worthy of any form of topic ban or forced mentoring. I got a two day block - my first block in over a year and accepted it. This project is a hateful and spiteful place sometimes and some of the comments in the discussions above reflect that. I have been punished enough imo and I am not seeing anything worthy of protecting the project from, if similar issues arise I am sure an admin would or could take this report into consideration. Many thanks. Youreallycan (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your positive response. As I said, I don't think a topic ban is likely to be of any use, but I do think you need to take a more measured and reflective approach to editing. I'm not suggesting "forced mentoring"; I think however that you would find it useful to voluntarily ask someone to mentor, or at least advise, you for a period, if only so that you can get some feedback on how you're doing. Prioryman (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would not object to such an arrangement if anyone wants to offer, perhaps via email. Although I am disillusioned with the project and do not expect to be contributing more than occasionally and with a degree of irregularity . Thanks again for your input Prioryman.Youreallycan (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan—you have been using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. This pertains to Jews. You say on the Talk page of the "British Jews" article:

"Perhaps we should have a detail that explains the Jewish status of the people in the infobox - as in , mother Jewish, father catholic, subject is atheist and that such is the scope of the definition British Jew at wikipedia. I am British and as I understand it, (not how a Jew understands it, or how the many different branches of Jewish groups understand it) A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage. People of mixed heritage are just that and do not belong in the infobox of this article unless you explain why they are there in the lede. Is there a shortage of British people with two Jewish parents to add their picture to the infobox, you only need nine ? - Radcliffe is not a British Jew, in Britain he's a British person with a Jewish mother and an Irish father and nothing (including wikipedia) will change that reality."

If you are expressing opinions that are not supported by sources, then you may be using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. I don't think it matters if this takes place in article space or Talk page space. You say in the above:

"I am British and as I understand it, (not how a Jew understands it, or how the many different branches of Jewish groups understand it) A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage."

There is no source that says that "A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage."

You are using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox when you state something that has no basis in sources such as the following: "A British Jew is an immigrant or convert or a child of immigrants of Jewish parentage." Bus stop (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The above shows an appalling misunderstanding of what is meant by soapboxing. Off2riorob has been arguing that Misplaced Pages should not be used by enthusiasts to promote their favorite religion by the indiscriminate labeling of every possible person as a member of that religion. I understand that some may not like Off2riorob's view, but it is the opposite of soapboxing. Attempts at Ed Miliband to add things like "Religion = Atheist (Jewish heritage)" to the infobox (by an IP today) should be opposed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it should -- but not by someone who believes it is "racist" to identify oneself as a British Jew. When we then get "As Miliband is a Jew his comments about Israel seem to be quite important" what we have is a troll, not an editor trying to improve the encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he's a troll, and I do think he is genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia. The problem, as I've said above, is his approach rather than his intentions. Prioryman (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yog(h)urt

At Talk:Yoghurt there is a very long running discussion about what the title of the article should be. Having failed to achieve anything a few weeks ago when invited to the discussion by RFCbot, I went away again (as I really don't care one way or the other). I looked back to see if any progress has been made, only to see some gross incivility from several parties following on from an anon comment (that may or may not have been trolling). I've hatted the entire section , but having been previously involved (and having been accused of bias towards one side on the basis of my nationality) I don't want to get into it any further.

Completely uninvolved admins would do well to at least keep an eye on the page if nothing else. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Having read through that discussion... It's entirely unfunny how a single letter can generate such lengthy and acrimonious discussion. Do they really not have anything better to do :S --Errant 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and leave it the heck alone :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't as simple as that! About the only thing they agree on is that there are no national ties, so the relevant provision of ENGVAR is what title the article was established at. What they can't agree on is which title that is - it was started at "Yogurt" but has been at "Yoghurt" far longer, they do not agree on the relative importance of these facts, whether it is now "established" at "Yoghurt", whether it is (or has been) "stable" at the present title (whether move protection, reverted moves, and/or move discussions have any relevance to whether it is "stable"), or just about anything else. Except possibly that it vitally important for it to be at the right title. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would in fact be why I walked away quite some time ago, almost entirely due to Born2Cycle's atrocious behaviour. The page remained on my watchlist, I saw the trolling, I removed it. And was promptly attacked by Born2Cycle for my troubles. His behaviour really has gone overboard. → ROUX ₪ 21:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

True, B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Has any of the editors discussing Born2Cycle notified that editor that they are being discussed here? If not, please do. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the discussion is not an editor; if you wish to discuss an editor, please open a section with an appropriate title. Uniplex (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• • They hadn't, I have now done so . Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

fwiw, this is a very long-running argument that has long been enshrined among the lamest edit wars ever. Not that that excuses anybody's current behavior, but I thought I'd add some historical perspective. Carry on... Zeng8r (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and this pathetically long history is summarized here: Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. The talk page and subpage look like a huge wall-of-text that I'm not wading into but the clear proof of common name should stand on its own merit.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 06:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle statement

I deny engaging in any behavior coming close to being "atrocious", or attacking anyone, and submit no evidence to the contrary has been submitted, or exists. I admit to reverting and criticizing the removal of one user's harmless comment by a second user in a situation where the harmless comment is evidence that happens to support a view opposite of the position taken by the second user.

I also find Bwilkin's comment above -- "B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist." -- to be a personal attack on me, and completely unfounded. I request that Bwilkins refrain from commenting on what he believes others do or do not believe.

I also note the observation that editors who are genuinely not interested in an issue tend to stop paying attention to it. In general, if someone really doesn't care if an article is at X or Y, he normally does not participate in an RM discussion about whether the article should be at X or Y. In particular, if someone really didn't care if this article is at Yogurt or Yoghurt, he wouldn't participate in RM discussions about whether the article should be at Yogurt or Yoghurt. To participate in such a discussion, and then deride others for participating because "it shouldn't matter" is disingenuous at best.

For the record, I do care about resolving the very long conflict over this article's title. This issue has been debated for eight years now. The article was originally at Yogurt, but then it was surreptitiously moved to Yoghurt about a year later, on Christmas Day. There was an obscure notice about it hidden inside a comment, but no discussion. Within a few months the objections started, and there has never been consensus support for Yoghurt, despite eight years, eight formal RM discussions, and countless informal discussions. I'm sure it seems like a silly issue to many, but the fact is that dozens and dozens of editors have cared and have participated in these discussions over the years, and there has never been a resolution. I sincerely believe that once an admin moves the article back to Yogurt, per WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN (which is designed specifically for a situation such as this - when all else fails return to the variety of English of the first non-stub version), the issue will finally be resolved. I find it ironic that the only obvious solution is the only one that has not been tried, and ferociously opposed by those who claim this is a silly unimportant issue. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As the admin who closed the last RM discussion, and got nothing but endless grief from you, I can confirm your behaviour about this matter is very much churlish, childish and uncollegiate. fish&karate 23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

B2C; over time I have come to the realisation that it really does not matter one jot whether article such as these are at one spelling or another (assuming redirects are in place). If there has been 8 years argument over a single letter I have to ask the honest question; who the hell wastes their time arguing about it? (Also; FWIW the point of RETAIN is meant to be to stop protracted arguments without a clear "right answer" - obviously it failed in this task.. so perhaps a relevant policy might be LEAVEASIS :)) --Errant 23:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Errant, like I said, dozens have participated (BTW, I didn't start even one of the eight yoghurt->yogurt RM proposals - all of which have been decided as "no consensus", and I don't believe there is any person who started any two of them), so it is obviously important to very many, on both sides. We can't say RESTORE_ORIGINAL_TITLE has failed since it has not even been tried. We can say LEAVEASIS has failed because that has been tried, for eight years, and has clearly failed. I suggest LEAVEASIS fails in cases like this - where the article was moved from its original title for no good reason because those who favor the original title have reasonable objections that will only disappear when the original title is restored.

As a comparison, I should note that the similar Iodised salt (though the history of its title is not as long or as contentious) has stabilized now that is back to its original title, and that title was moved from it's original title through a legitimate/formal RM discussion that achieved unanimous consensus in favor of moving among those participating. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

f&k, I apologize for seeming to have been churlish, but I was quite frustrated with your closing and reluctance to explain it. It took you a week before you finally began to provide an explanation, and that only after several editors, including at least one other admin, made requests for you to do so, and you never did respond to my follow-up comment . --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

B2c, a pattern of persistent complaining and berating of administrators who closed move discussions in a way you didn't like seems to be a recurrent thing with you. This is something that should stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Complaining? Sure, once in a while. But berating? A persistent pattern? Seriously? Any evidence of that? I suggest you review WP:ADMINACCT.

Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions.

If you believe I've been uncivil, have been making personal attacks, or not acting in good faith, please cite those incidents and let's deal with it. But these veiled threats about vaguely described behavior with negative connotation that seem to have no purpose but to discourage this editor from engaging in questioning or criticizing administrator actions are highly inappropriate. To characterize civil and good faith questioning and criticizing of administrators as "persistent complaining and berating of administrators" does not improve the encyclopedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please. The only reason I'm not chiming in with diffs here is that I really have better things to do with my time.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:NPA#WHATIS, that's a personal attack: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

90% of Talk:Yoghurt is nothing but your endless rehashing of the same arguments because Something Is Wrong On The Internet, that's pretty solid evidence. The RFC, which cointains much the same contact, would be more. My talk page could be another. It's certainly not a personal attack. The point is that at some point you need to stop trying again and again and again to get the result you want just because you disagree with the outcome. The ceaseless campaigning until you get your own way is, while almost admirable for its ruthless intensity, very tiring for everyone to read, let alone deal with. fish&karate 14:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Would a topic ban from yoghurt and/or page moves/article titles be of value here? Note this is a genuine question, I don't know the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

F&K, so now merely discussing in high volume is uncivil or a personal attack? I questioned and criticized your actions as an administrator on your talk page because I found your close explanation to be worthy of questioning and criticism. You based your decision on the assertion that were "strong arguments" in favor of both positions, but you failed and refused, despite repeated inquires from others as well as me, to identify what the "strong arguments" opposing the move were. Someone else did it again just today. You want to blame your unexplained decision on the "whining" of others? Suit yourself. I'm sorry you resenting having to explain and discuss your decisions, but that's part of the job, per Misplaced Pages:ADMINACCT. No need to take that personally.

As to the volume I've been producing lately, especially since your unexplained close, my efforts regarding this issue have been to help resolve a conflict that has been going on for seven years that no one else has been able to resolve. I'm convinced what the solution to this conflict is. Yes, the solution happens to be the same as what I believe should occur at the article, but that doesn't mean it's not going to solve the conflict. It just means I'm more determined to see it happen. I have pursued this by clarifying and focusing the issues in order to reduce how much reading others have to do. I did this by creating and being the main contributor to both the history of this issue, at Talk:Yoghurt/spellinghistory, and a summary of the arguments at Talk:Yoghurt#Arguments_regarding_article_title. I did my best to represent both sides, and to invite others to contribute to make sure it's fair and NPOV.

Thryduulf, yes, hurry, hurry! B2C might actually persuade enough people so that the position others hold on the issue that "doesn't matter" might lose! Let's topic ban him before that happens, because it doesn't matter! Hurry, hurry!!! --Born2cycle (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that all the discussion on the page to date (most of which is your verbiage) hasn't managed to "persuade enough people" and has resulted in personal attacks and incivility (from all sides), it seems clear that carrying on in the same vein will not result in any significant progress. Also given the statements here indicating others are unhappy with your conduct, it's worth asking the question what can be done to improve the situation. If a situation is characterised by one very vocal person screaming that there is only one way forward, and most other people saying "it's not worth the fuss, let it go" then one thing that might help is to remove the screamer from the area so that other voices don't get drowned out and may be able to quietly work out a way forward acceptable to all of them. However good your intentions are, and whether you are right or wrong, your methods have not worked - it's probably time to walk away from the dispute, before you get banned from it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

B2C has done nothing wrong here. He's not being incivil just because he's talking about stuff people disagree with. F&K's close of the RM was wrong, as he didn't really explain himself (in fact his whole closing statement is a joke, literally). An admin really ought to look at the underlying issue instead of just bashing someone for having strong beliefs. Hot Stop talk-contribs 20:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf, you have not identified attacks or incivility in which I've engaged (unless you're thinking of the bias fiasco - but I thought that misunderstanding was resolved... no?). Yet you imply I'm somehow responsible for the "personal attacks and incivility (from all sides)" that you believe has resulted from my verbiage. Are you seriously suggesting I be punished for the attacks and incivility targeted at me? Wow. That's creative.

Anyway, my efforts to persuade others have only been concerted (compiling the history and argument summaries) since the last RM discussion; barely a month. Given the seven years this conflict has been raging, I suggest it's still way too early to judge whether my efforts have been effective or not. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I know that there is probably very little support for what I'm about to say, and I have only really mentioned this one other time, but this has been on my mind for a while. Even though Misplaced Pages, and we as Wikipedians, do relatively fine, most of the time, using two variations of English spelling, What would be the internal harm in actually splitting Misplaced Pages.en into two separate entities? A Misplaced Pages.en/British, and a Misplaced Pages.en/American. Of course we are doing fine now, despite the occasional edit war and heated discussion over spelling, but there's no real harm in discussing this. I'm not even really sure that it can be accomplished, even if we agree to do so. I have an informal plan in my head, but planning is only half the battle. Implementing something like this may be more difficult than it sounds.--JOJ 17:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating idea, but where would you draw the line? What about Misplaced Pages.en/Canadian, in which Victoria is a city on Vancouver Island; it is the capital of British Columbia, eh? is perfectly acceptable? And then, if perchance our antipodean friends should decide that the definite and indefinite article are optional, Misplaced Pages.en/ANZAC ~ which might read Victoria is city on southern part of Vancouver Island; it is capital of Canadian province of British Columbia. Interesting concept, splitting the community, but truly the best part of Misplaced Pages is that it is a community, a group of disparate people working (though not actually, in most cases, living) together, for a common purpose. Cheers, Lindsay 06:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for reminder about NPA/CIVIL

Here is some evidence that contradicts Thryduulf's claim above that all the discussion (largely my verbiage) at Talk:Yoghurt has not managed to persuade others .

This is important because Thryduulf is the one who opened this AN/I and suggested a topic ban, apparently trying to muzzle me from continuing to advocate a position with which he disagrees. It's ironic and fortuitous that this effort on his part has backfired by bringing attention to the issue and all the persuasive information and verbiage I've produced and organized, so that I can present evidence of its effectivity. What happens when such tactics are used to go after prolific opponents who aren't as fortunate as I am in this case? If someone tries to be persuasive, but the efforts are not yet fruitful, he can be blocked for failing to persuade others? Why is this blatant discouragement of genuine attempts to build consensus through discussion tolerated?

I should add that while several editors appear to agree with Thryduulf that my behavior is problematic, no evidence has been presented of any wrongdoing on my part, and all of the accusers, I believe without exception, just happen to have a history of disagreeing with me on substantive matters. Coincidence? Retaliation? Or am I missing something? You, uninvolved administrator, please let me know.

The allegations/criticisms about me, without evidence, alluded to just above, are:

• "... Born2Cycle's atrocious behaviour" -Roux
• "B2C does not believe that other languages or variations of one should exist." - Bwilkins
• "got nothing but endless grief from you, I can confirm your behaviour about this matter is very much churlish, childish and uncollegiate." - Fish and karate
• "B2c, a pattern of persistent complaining and berating of administrators who closed move discussions in a way you didn't like... This is something that should stop" -Future Perfect at Sunrise
• "Oh, please. The only reason I'm not chiming in with diffs here is that I really have better things to do with my time." (clearly agreeing with unsubstantiated allegations) -SarekOfVulcan
• "Given that all the discussion on the page to date (most of which is your verbiage) hasn't managed to "persuade enough people" and has resulted in personal attacks and incivility (from all sides), ..." -Thryduulf

I should add that I don't necessarily deny engaging in all of the behavior referenced in these statements. I deny that what I did was wrong or inappropriate, but this cannot be verified by anyone because the accusers have only flung accusations at me, without the evidence so others can review. My questioning and criticism of F&K on his talk page for example, is perfectly in line with what is endorsed at WP:ADMINACCT, but he chastises me for it here in this AN/I, as if I did something wrong. How is that okay, especially coming from an admin? I thought admins are encouraged to demonstrate exemplary behavior, not the opposite of it.

These allegations and criticisms (implied if not explicit), because none of them are based on any evidence, are all personal attacks, by definition, per WP:NPA#WHATIS, apparently motivated by a mere difference of opinion, or retaliation for legitimate and appropriate questioning or criticism of them by me.

Therefore, I hereby request that Thryduulf (talk · contribs), Roux (talk · contribs), Bwilkins (talk · contribs), Fish and karate (talk · contribs), Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) and SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) be reminded that making critical remarks about others, in any forum, without evidence, is a violation of WP:NPA#WHATIS and WP:CIVIL. This kind of flippant disregard for the policies that encourage civility needs to stop. These tactics will continue to be used to try to muzzle other editors in disagreements if they are tolerated and those who employ them continue along with no consequences, and Misplaced Pages will suffer for it. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Revised. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

These allegations and criticisms (implied if not explicit), because none of them are based on any evidence, are all personal attacks, by definition, per WP:NPA#WHATIS, apparently motivated by a mere difference of opinion, or retaliation for legitimate and appropriate questioning or criticism of them by me. Quite - which is why you do little to help your case with silly jabs against other users on the basis of their nationality (for little apparent reason other than a mere difference of opinion). Believe me, I have no intention of getting bogged down in this ridiculous saga (let's just say that I don't consider endless weeks and months of back-and-forth about the existence of a single letter "h" in an article title to be a truly constructive use of the Misplaced Pages community's time), but it's clear to me as an observer that the responsibility for the "flippant disregard for the policies that encourage civility" can hardly be pinned on just one side in this dispute. SuperMarioMan 13:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Move request

I have closed the requested move on the technical grounds that it is too soon after the last WP:RM request. We can not have one request after another without a suitable time out between requests, as it is a form of gaming the system and is disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've undone the close. No where in any policy or guideline does it say it's disruptive to post move requests within any arbitrarily set time period. Further, each was started by two different users the archived one by Peregine Fisher and the current by Smokey Joe/Berean Hunter]], neither of whom even commented on the last requested move, so it's not exactly gaming the system as you said. And it probably doesn't help that you aren't exactly unbiased on the topic given your closing summary Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. If the last RM was closed as a keep, based on the arguments, then it would be too soon.But the last discussion was closed as No Consensus. Very proper to continue discussing, and of course there are no arbitrary time limits in the guidelines.--JOJ 14:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And this endless repetition of the same arguments helps the community in what way? There may be no strict time limits, but where there is a trivial issue that is soaking so much time and getting nowhere, surely the best thing to do is for everybody to move on? Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if the debate had been headed off at the start, sure closing it could've been the way to go. But now that it's almost halfway through, I think closing prematurely just makes the situation worse. If someone wants to say that we should take a break after this one, then that's fine. but not while the discussion is still on going (and there's a slight majority in favor of moving at this point, which makes the close look like a super vote). Plus, other admins had voted on the proposal, so I assume they weren't exactly bothered by the timing of it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah at 17-6 for this reasonable move, it would make since to shut down the discussion with so many fresh new eyes on it, on "technical grounds." R. Baley (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the reopening of this. The project is not being damaged under either alternative name. The project is being damaged with the amount of effort put into deciding on what name to use. All of you (and me) have more constructive things we can be doing. There is a long tradition at Misplaced Pages, of pausing between this sort of debate, for RfMs, AfDs and RMs. Also look with disapproval at forum shopping. We do this for the very good reason that otherwise too much effort goes into debates that are stalemated. -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus here for your unilateral action, which has quite properly been reverted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and actually we should be now discussing PBS's behavior in this matter. First the two closings of the discussion, with this edit summery, then the full talk page protection, which was also reverted by another admin. I will ask that PBS's admin tools be relinquished until this matter can be resolved. Three abuses in one day is three too many.--JOJ 20:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• PBS also protected Talk:Yoghurt against non-admin editing with the reason "Page move dispute under discussion at WP:RM", which was an abuse of admin privileges, and I have unprotected the article - the page move discussion takes place on the article Talk page and WP:RM merely links to it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have something to do in the real world for half an hour. But in the mean time I have reverted the change and placed a short block on editing the page until this is sorted out. -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And as I say, I have reverted your block, because you don't get to be a dictator here - when both the wider community and the admin corps are actively discussing this issue, you have no right to cut everyone off and impose your own solution -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Reopen the talk page discussion

The discussion on the talk page needs to either be reopened immediately, or the article should be moved per WP:SNOW.--JOJ 20:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is unbelievable.

1. Most bizarre and self-contradictory close I've ever seen by Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs)
   • I note that PBS has been involved here before and should contribute to the discussion, not close it.
2. Revert of that close by Hot Stop (talk · contribs)
3. Another !vote
4. And another
5. PBS restores his previous close, wiping out intervening !votes and comments
6. That close is reverted by Kai445 (talk · contribs) as "outrageous"
7. More !votes
8. Now PBS protects the talk page! The talk page!
9. Unprotected
10. PBS tries his close again
11. Reverted
12. Now PMA restores the close
13. Reverted
14. Discussion about discussion closing edit war started

Wow. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is what we get when we start trying to avenge eight-year-old cases of "somebody did something wrong on the Internet": revert wars between admins. I tried (once) to get them both to stop, but Boing! said Zebedee has blocked PBS in addition to revert-warring with him. I trust this will be reconsidered shortly.

I found PBS's action odd, but can understand it. After all, this argument has been on WP:LAME about as long as the Gdanzig stupidity, and is even more unreasonable. We can get back to discussing it when he is able to explain itself; in the meantime, we have guidance that move discussions like this are disruptive and pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You found his actions "odd"? They were egregious. -Kai445 (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I write this the talk page and move discussion are both open. Whether the move discussion should be closed is debatable, but a snow-close as "move" is not appropriate. For starters, although there are more "move" !voters than "don't move" !voters (however expressed) the latter have sufficient number and strength of argument that it's not snowing. Given also the controversy surrounding this and accusations of gaming the system (whether there has been (attempts at) gaming or not, the accusations have been made and were not "laughed out of court" (for want of a better phrase)) it's better to be seen to be playing by the letter of the rules so that there is no impression of any underhandedness. Regardless of all that, edit warring is never appropriate, and edit warring over the closure of a discussion intended to stop edit warring is truly WP:LAME-worthy. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

"Idiotic crap"

In response to my having explained to a third user that a section title was the same since 2007, User:Jean-Jacques Georges arrived on the talkpage for the first time, and chose to call contributions by other users "idiotic crap", among other things. Here's the full quote

If some idiotic crap remains on[REDACTED] for years and years - as unfortunately, it often happens - that does not make it less ridiculous. I support any attempt to correct the repugnant piece of POV-pushing that has been inflicted on[REDACTED] for far too long.

--DIREKTOR 17:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem? --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And what do you want done about it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

20 lashes? Keelhaul 'em? Wait... we're allowed to refer to each-other's work as "repugnant crap"? Good to know. I feel so liberated right now :). --DIREKTOR 18:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The NPA rule applies to people, not their work. If an article is shit, it's not a personal attack to say so. Now, there are possible civility issues if this is maintained or unjustified, but as it is this is not an admin issue. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm. One must point out that "idiotic" unambiguously implies the person who wrote is an idiot. It is a personal attack. --DIREKTOR 18:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got a wart that has been the same since at least 2007 - does that make it good? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, but that's hardly the issue (the title is sourced by three sources).

If I were to say your post above is "moronic", or that only a moron could write such crap as your above post, you would not consider that a personal attack? (not that I am saying anything of the sort of course, heheh :D). P.S. I'd recommend cryotherapy for that thing, apparently it works like a magic wand, and HPV isn't a joke :) --DIREKTOR 18:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't - you might have a point ;-) But seriously, applying such an epithet to a recent comment might well be seen as a personal attack, but I think it's very unlikely that a comment about some content that has been there for 4 years would be seen as an attack on its author - I think it's unlikely the commentator even has any idea who wrote it. Whether it's a personal attack or not largely depends on the motives behind it, and I think it is unlikely that comments on very old content are intended as attacks on past writers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, in that case the piece of the puzzle that's missing here is the fact that that guy hates my guts with a passion and refuses to even talk to me :). --DIREKTOR 18:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I guess there's more here than just the actual comment - sounds like a long-running personal thing that I'm afraid I don't really have the time to help with, sorry -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@Direktor: Disagree with you on that. The adjective is applied to the content, not the editor. You're seeking offense where none was intended. Ascribing an ulterior motive to another editor, on the other hand, may be considered a personal attack and a violation of WP:AGF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's understandable if someone marches into an article talkpage and calls the article crap or similar, that the editors that have worked on said article would feel insulted and take it personally...in light of that, I see no reason an administrator can't ask the offending editor to tone it down and offer evidence they have references that might make the article better in their eyes...otherwise, it's just talkpage trolling.--MONGO 18:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. The comment comes just after no less than three separate sources have been provided in support of the old title (which was only recently removed). The user has not provided any reason to even remotely justify such an offensive tone, and in light of our history, it seems the motive is to insult my position with the most obscene language that is borderline permissible by WP:NPA (i.e. WP:GAMING THE SYSTEM: "you're not a moron, but everything you do is moronic" etc.). --DIREKTOR 18:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Admins have no extra powers in that arena - any editor can make such a request -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, but something tells me I might get laughed at if I were to do so. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the user described said request on my part as an idiotic piece of bullshit.. :) --DIREKTOR 18:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• If I am allowed to say, we are talking about a content which was contested and which DIREKTOR edit-warred 80 times (I actually counted his reverts, a round number is a coincidence, it is actually 80!!!) to keep in place. Now, with regard to the comment, the user who did it is all but a "newcomer" to the discussion, as he was actually a mediation participant on this issue. If we notece, he made a general comment explaining how the time an edit stays in place is not evidence of quality, however, DIREKTOR, perhaps aware of his own weaknesses, understood the comment as directed to him and to his editing... FkpCascais (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase a quote from Floquenbeam: "Calling someone's work 'idiotic crap' is uncool, but fairly minor in the grand scheme of the universe, and probably best handled by letting it go." Unless someone wants to propose we reduce Jean-Jacques Georges's pay to admin's wages, I really don't see what you want us to do. As Boing points out above, any uninvolved user can step in here, which is precisely why we have innumerable dispute resolution forums. There is no administrator intervention warranted here. Swarm 18:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There is in fact, idiotic crap, repugnant POV pushing, and whatever the third thing was on WP. Pointing that out does not violate policy, though it certainly could be phrased more constructively. ⇒SWATJester 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the Chetniks article is completely devoid of any kind of merit whatsoever. I have the same opinion about other yugoslavia-oriented articles, whoever may have written them, and my opinion is not likely to change until they are decidedly improved as was done with Draža Mihailović. I don't know about other users, but I am utterly indifferent to personal issues. In June 2010, I already expressed exasperation about a number of Yugoslavia-oriented articles : Direktor promptly took offense (apparently considering himself to be the ONLY author of ALL those pages) and accused me of personal attacks and "meatpuppetting" because I had been talking about those issues with another editor (an experienced editor, I might add, who was quite unlikely to become my "meatpuppet"). If Direktor hates my guts, that's his problem. I do find him to be agressive and uncivil (and I'm not the only one : please take note that he was banned for one month from Yugoslav-themed articles because of his agressive attitude : not towards me but towards everybody who disagreed with him). But, as I said, I couldn't care less about him and am only concerned about the state of the articles, which I happen to find deplorable. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Direktor's background is irrelevant to the point he's trying to make. Whether or not referring to other people's work as "idiotic crap" is a blockable offense, it certainly doesn't help create a positive environment. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If someone's work sucks people should be able to criticize it without the person who did said work running screaming and crying and waving their fists to WP/ANI to demand that said criticizer be blocked. Being able to evaluate the content of an article is a pretty basic step in being able to improve said article and if we can't meaningfully do so then there might as well not be quality standards. Jtrainor (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Cuza edit warring

Saturnian (talk · contribs) is edit warring, canvassing, and leaving insinuations of racism in his effort to change the "defamatory" Alexander John Cuza to Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Can someone keep an eye on his edits and take action if he doesn't clean up his act himself? Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

There's also an issue at Talk:United Principalities, also instigated by Saturnian. Both of these issues are predicated on Saturnian's desire to impose his will of what should be used as article titles the English Misplaced Pages as opposed to what the accepted usage per policy and guidelines are in reality. In Cuza's case he wants to use Romanian spelling, and for the Principalities item, he wants to change the name to what appears to be a lesser-known term. MSJapan (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Guys, can you please step back and take a break from all this scandal. It is not helping anyone. I understand that you can give a hard time to Saturnian based on Misplaced Pages policies, but he made a huge set of contributions on both Romanian and English WP around ancient history, particularly Roman Castra documentation. Look at all this tremendous work and give the guy a break. Ultimately Ioan or John are the same thing...--Codrin.B (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Codrinb's is an attempt to poison the well, and make it seem like Saturnian is somehow being harassed. I urge administrators to look over the linked discussion, and especially over Talk:Alexander John Cuza; they will note perhaps who was doing all the harassing, and how Codrinb's participation in it is the result of Saturnian's canvassing. As for the "tremendous work"..., not that it carries any weight when Saturnian is under scrutiny for quite serious breaches of behavioral and editorial guidelines (from canvassing and sock-farming to repeated personal attacks and taunts), but his contributions are actually the very questionable additions of unformatted bot-like stubs on subjects that may not even be encyclopedic. Like so (all of them here). I will not comment any further on this issue, but I felt it was important to note that Saturnian is not the experienced editor of Codrinb's account. That defense is a smokescreen. Dahn (talk) 12:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note that Saturnian has been using sockpuppets: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Saturnian. WilliamH (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Frederick G. Clausen

Doncram (talk · contribs) recently created the article Fritz G. Clausen. He then proceeded to dump information about Clausen, his son, and a current name for one of his firms into the article. When I removed all the extra information, he promptly moved the article to Frederick G. Clausen and associated architects‎. This is getting a bit ridiculous -- can someone please explain to Doncram that articles are about subjects, not indiscriminate lists of information? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It's a legit article about an architect and associated firms. In this case, as in others that I have created, SarekOfVulcan asserts that there is an item in the included list that doesn't belong, but he chooses not to say which, or explain why. That should be discussed at Talk page. I don't care to create separate articles right now about the son and the son's associated/successor partnership; I happen to think one article suffices. Split could be proposed at Talk, however. If the article is not legit, that should be discussed in an AFD. Frankly, i am building the[REDACTED] and SarekOfVulcan is disrupting, IMHO. --doncram 20:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This situation is similar to the situations with Charles L. Thompson and associates (Charles L. Thompson was perhaps the most important architect in the history of Arkansas, but instead of developing an article about him or allowing others to focus the article on him, Doncram renamed it to encompass a jumble of content related to Thompson, everyone he ever worked with, his son-in-law, and everyone subsequently associated with the firm that Thompson retired from in 1938 and its successor firms) and Architects of the United States Forest Service (originally "USDA Forest Svce. Architecture Group" because that was the entry in the computer database that Doncram relied on to start the article), which is a similar jumble. Talk page discussions are unproductive, because Doncram makes it clear that he WP:OWNs these articles and is willing to talk to death anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. --Orlady (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Doncram has a very bad habit of creating an article at one name, then dumping the kitchen sink into it and claiming that that was his intention all along. How about knowing what article you want to create _before_ you create it, huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(And I love the way he was so anxious to revert me here that he reverted himself as well. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Umm, i did not revert myself in that diff. I removed a commented-out section and replaced it by better formatted new material. Also the diff is confusing because apparently i accidentally deleted one sentence and a citation, which Sarek has restored (thanks). Are you implying I originally added that citation? It is not formatted as I would have formatted it. For this you post to ANI?! --doncram 22:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally, huh? And I'm heartily amused by your attempt to claim this is thread about you reverting one citation, instead of starting an article about an architect and claiming it was actually about everyone he ever worked with. Again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What I saw in edit mode when I was adding and removing a lot else, was a sentence fragment "Normand Smith Patton and Grant C. Miller" with some following stuff that I assumed, too quickly, was an unformed reference. I thought it was a stray fragment that should be removed, while I should have gone back to the prior version to check. But I was in the middle of a big edit, and needed several follow-on edits to address ambiguous links that my edit added. I am sorry that I removed it and didn't remember to go back and check that bit. And, I do resent your implication (edit summary "nice try") that I am misrepresenting that it was an accident. Why on earth would you think that it was really intended? Please tone it down. --doncram 23:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify -- it's very clear from looking at my last diff that what you say you did above is not actually what happened. To have restored the categories and underconstruction tag, you went back to your last "good" version and edited that, to save yourself the trouble of removing my changes manually. If you were just "removing a sentence fragment", you wouldn't have reverted every change made since May 10.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it further, Sarek seems RIGHT about one thing but WRONG about his main point that I "self-reverted". The edit I made does appear to have been implemented against a previous version that I must have been looking at, which explains why the UC tag came back in and some categories changed and that referenced sentence got dropped. But the main point of my edit was to add in a list of works, which it did, while dropping them from the And, my making those other changes was accidental. It was not intended. Okay? So what, i made a mistake in editing, accidentally losing a little bit, that has all been added back. And I made a mistake in reconstructing what must have happened, in explaining it here. So what, Sarek was wrong in his assertion to start this subthread. --doncram 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him before for unco-operative behaviour, but really this needs confirmation that a group of people agree with you guys. Is he actually edit warring to support his WP:OWNership? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Are the people referred to in the "jumble of content" notable in their own right? - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell, because almost all of his articles are built off NRHP listings, with minimal other refs tossed in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, the recently-created James B. Cook. The sole reference is the NRIS database. No evidence is given that all the James B. Cooks who built these buildings are the same person -- and indeed, Doncram has gotten it wrong before, to the point of essentially inventing biographical details.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, some of these people in those jumbles of content are independently notable, while others are probably pretty anonymous. In the example of Charles L. Thompson, I reckon that the "associates" named Frank Ginocchio and Theo Sanders are notable, but I don't know about everyone who might be treated as an "associate". The history there is (apparently) that Doncram identified Thompson as a prominent architect, (apparently) searched the National Register database for entries that included "Thompson, C.L." (or some variant) in the "architect" field, then created an article-space page for "Charles L. Thompson", into which he dumped the database output (in raw form). When he realized that not all of the properties in the database were designed by Charles L. Thompson, he added some other architects' names to the stubby prose section of the article.
While Doncram endured his extended block, the Thompson article existed in a trimmed-down form as an article that was just about Thompson, but shortly after his return from the block he went back to the article, re-added his massive list (by then at least semi-formatted) and invented the new title "Charles L. Thompson and associates" (not the name of an actual business, rather, it's essentially original research) for the article.
Back to notability: You couldn't tell this from the current article, but there's enough information available for a reasonably good biography of Thompson -- who designed a huge number of notable buildings on his own, without "associates". Ginocchio designed the Arkansas capital (not when he was working in association with Thompson, AFAIK) and some other significant buildings, so he's independently notable, although I've not seen much in the way of biographical information. The story on Sanders is similar to the story on Ginocchio. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. It looks like there should be separate articles for some of these people. Any verifiable linkages can be done via See Also; anything else should be binned. The fact that this is not immediately apparent to someone without extraneous knowledge is probably indicative of dubious organisation etc. It is not, btw, just architects who often have multiple collaborations: numerous other professionals go through these cycles and unless the partnerships are notable in themselves then they should not have articles (inherited notability would be the objection).Does this seem reasonable? Can this be discussed at the talk page or, as people have intimated, is it going to lead to another bout of WP:OWN? If it would lead to the latter then is WP:DRN a suitable venue? - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a standard at some point for writing articles about interrelated architecture firms. For example, the firm of Long and Kees in Minneapolis practiced from 1884 through 1898, producing some nice works like the Lumber Exchange Building and Minneapolis City Hall. But after they disbanded, Frederick Kees partnered with Serenus Colburn and designed buildings like the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Advance Thresher/Emerson-Newton Implement Company, and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company Building. Meanwhile, Franklin B. Long teamed up with his son, producing the Pence Automobile Company Building, and then they added Lowell Lamoreaux. You can't really try to tie all of those architecture firms into one article and say it's about Franklin B. Long or Frederick Kees.

In Doncram's case about Frederick G. Clausen and everyone he's ever worked with, I don't think this is a case of WP:OWNership, so it's not an AN/I issue, but it's a case of sloppy editing, thin stubs, and/or dumping poorly formatted tables into an article. We've all complained to him about this before, but those discussions have gone nowhere. It might be useful for the rest of us at WP:NRHP and perhaps Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Architecture to figure out how to write timelines about architectural firms, so we can sort out how to write these things more clearly. That still won't solve the issue of data dumps, but at least I can write the article about Long and Kees and Colburn and Long and Lamoreaux and Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice.

By the way, Doncram, I sure hope you aren't accessing any of my NRHP query tools at www2.elkman.net. Since you accused me of about four different forms of lying three months ago, consider yourself unwelcome to use my server. --Elkman 23:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the creation of article pages like Frederick G. Clausen is not a case of WP:OWNership, but the reaction that ensues when anyone else dares to touch those pages (or criticize them) is. --Orlady (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Non admin: It seems odd that the OP requests that someone (an admin?) "explain" something (policy?) to the user in question. Unless I am missing something...and god knows I probably am...this looks like a content dispute amongst editors who have butted heads before, and should probably be hashed out on the talk page, or specific policy-related boards (or an RFC). Not ANI. Quinn 01:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

cf. Elen's remarks above. This has come up at AN/I several times. In short, Doncram continues to use an editing style that a number of others have found problematic in the past and this has been communicated to him. This has long since graduated from a content issue to a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Choess (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The current title is wholly misleading as it isn't about a firm called Fred Clausen and associates. Can I recommend that someone Boldly move it either back to Fred Clausen, with the list of buildings under a subheading (notable buildings Fred had a hand in), or to List of notable buildings designed by Fred Clausen. I do find Doncram's behaviour extremely disruptive at times, and am tempted to suggest that he be required to go through some kind of process whereby he dumps his data onto article talkpages, and other editors pick through it, as he seems to have no mechanism for reviewing his own edits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate text dumping as noted here was one of the basic issues that underlay Doncram's three-month block earlier this year. It's not a simple content dispute. Incidentally, these articles don't demonstrate notability for the architecture firms. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to all the separate bits above, as this is not the place for it. Content discussion about the Clausen page should be at its Talk page. But there is no real notability question about the Frederick Clausen article (or about any other architect article that I have started, as far as I recall). I am not doing "indiscriminate" work; I have usefully created many pages about notable architects, or added to existing pages, and linked them well to existing NRHP bluelink articles and also correctly linked them to redlink NRHP article topics. I have a damn good idea that a person or firm is notable every time I have started an architect article. There have been AFDs opened for a few, and I believe that they have all closed KEEP (or no consensus to delete). If there is a real question about Clausen, open an AFD which will be closed SPEEDY KEEP. There is room for discussion about what is the best title for the existing article, but no doubt that there is a notable topic.

Sorry I won't expect to respond here a lot more due to other commitments. --doncram 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. If I had a nickel for everytime you've said "I don't have time for this discussion" I'd... well, it wouldn't be much, but at least I could get a coffee. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... once again, a lot of this could be avoided if Doncram would simply draft his articles in user space before bringing them "live" into article space. This would allow him to create stubs, "dump" material to his heart's content, organize that material as he sees fit, figure out exactly what the subject of the article should be, and generally get the article into decent shape ... without others jumping on him for (once again) creating a poorly thought out stub... a stub that he must then "defend".

Which brings me to an underlying issue here... Doncram does seem to have a knee-jerk instinct to ardently "defend" his work... even when that work is considered problematic. It is his ardent "defense" that leads to the incessant charges of WP:OWN and disruptive editing. It was his need to "defend" his work that lay behind his conflict with Elkman six or seven months ago (and which led to his being blocked). That is an ongoing behavioral issue, not a content issue. And, it is that issue that ultimately must be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I fixed up the article (quite pleased with that) and Doncram was really quite co-operative (with me at least). However, the fact remains that this was not suitable to be released into mainspace, and Doncram was unhelpful when people tried to fix it up. The correct place to put data that you haven't yet managed to format into useful content is a sandbox, not tip it into mainspace. this is fine - yes it's a two line stub, but it hasn't got any unsorted crap in it, which was the problem last time when Doncram got blocked for 3 months, and he was running Elkman's script without doing any checking as to what he was dumpting into the article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Can an admin look at Edinburghgeog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a clear duck of Edinburghgeo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) give both username and editing of G5 (education) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), also can they consider if Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/G5 (education) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should be deleted CSD G5 ? BTW if it is retained, I will !vote Delete but wish to give an admin the chance to WP:DENY. Mtking 02:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Obvious duck. Blocked. Elockid 02:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this also a clear case of conflict of interest, with the editor having a fairly blatant connection with the University of Edinburgh School of GeoSciences and somehow seeing the very existence of the G5 article as against the interests of the University of Edinburgh.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the page Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/G5 (education) should be deleted CSD G5 given both the Block Evasion and suggestion of WP:COI Mtking 02:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This user is still at it; two more socks overnight. Frantic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (already blocked) and now Maria1357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (SPI outstanding) - Do think that the whole AfD is in total bad faith and should be deleted WP:G5. Mtking 20:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've blocked a couple of ranges for a bit, so that should stem the abuse of multiple accounts. I definitely think the nominator has an axe to grind, but it's incongruent to speedily close the discussion when you have posted a good faith !vote. WilliamH (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing personal attacks by Phoenix and Winslow

Despite frequent requests to stop such behaviour, Phoenix and Winslow has been continually referring to and misrepresenting a past dispute with me on another article as a means to discredit not only my comments but those of other editors who support me in the unrelated Ugg boots article and the current noticeboard discussion regarding that article.

• WLRoss
• Phoenix and Winslow
• Bilby
• Daveosaurus

Several of the edits in question , , , , , and .

The instance that prompted coming to this board was this post on an admins Talk page on November 27, where it was particularly inappropriate.

I have posted asking Phoenix and Winslow to refrain from bringing up the past dispute to discredit me here and here.

Bilby took the matter to the Wikiquette assistance board on October 11, where Phoenix and Winslow was advised to strike out the comments and refrain from further mention of the previous dispute. Phoenix and Winslow did not post in reply but a SPA anon who always supports Phoenix and Winslow’s edits did and not only repeated the accusations but made further accusations that had previously been discredited on another board. Phoenix and Winslow ignored this request to stop the behaviour and continued bringing up the dispute.

Daveosaurus has posted asking Phoenix and Winslow to refrain from making these personal attacks here. On Phoenix and Winslow’s Talk page. And again here.

I previously posted this case on November 27. Despite receiving notification, Phoenix and Winslow decline to reply and the case was archived (728) after 24h. I have brought it back from the archive due to the behaviour continuing in this post. Wayne (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) Wayne: I also asked you to stop allowing yourself to be baited by P&W's behaviour but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

Admins: the underlying issue here seems to be that Wayne is Australian, and P&W has an aggressively disparaging attitude towards anything Australian, including people. See numerous comments along the lines of "intimidated by the massive wall of the United Australian WP:OWN Defense Force." ; "edit warring and Talk page remarks by various Australian editors, there is still a large group of editors who believe that Australia is more important than any other country" ; "swayed by an AU/NZ cultural bias" ; "Not outside of Australia and New Zealand, where 99.5% of the population of the world resides. Please try to overcome your cultural bias, Bilby, and see the worldwide perspective." . (These diffs all just from the last few days). This has all been in the context of an article about an Australian popular-culture item (Ugg boots) where P&W (and puppets) have for over a year been edit warring in an attempt to turn the article into an advertisement for an American manufacturer. I do not believe that someone who displays such attitudes towards Australia and Australians really has any business editing articles about Australian content, let alone edit warring (edit warring primarily on his/her part has led to the article currently being locked) armed with a mind-set that sees any actual Australian as being guilty of "cultural bias" when said Australian writes on an Australian topic. Daveosaurus (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to avoid being baited but he has been doing this for over a year now and although I do get hot under the collar at times I have still refrained from attacking Phoenix and Winslow's editing at the other article and generally AGF when dealing with him. However, Phoenix and Winslow is now attacking me in replies to other editors and by extention attacking them as well.

• Quote: six people with a cultural bias, who are owning the article, and have adopted as their new de facto spokesman a person with a long history of fringe theory advocacy and POV pushing, particularly evident where admins stubbed a lengthy article that was loaded with his misrepresentations.
  Despite Phoenix and Winslow taking the edits to three different boards none of my edits were found to contain misrepresentations. My long history of edits is open to admins to check and they will find nothing to support Phoenix and Winslow's claim. But how many editors reading his false claims will check? He is also making tendentious claims to support his edits:
• Quote: At one point, Johnuniq supported my removal of certain POV-pushing on behalf of the Australian manufacturers:
  In fact this was over a year ago, it was removed as trivia not POV and none of the Australian editors objected. But how many editors will check?
• Quote: At another point, User:MONGO supported the version of the article I've proposed, and has previously remarked on the advocacy of fringe theories by the opposing de facto spokesman on other articles.
  Mongo, an editor canvassed by Phoenix and Winslow, actually supported the version of the article he "thought" Phoenix and Winslow had proposed. He made a mistake, he didn't realise it was the version after Phoenix and Winslow's edits had been reverted that he was commenting on. Phoenix and Winslow also brings up my 911 editing again despite no evidence I have ever been an "advocate" of anything...but it still sticks because editors will not bother to check whether the claim is true or not.

This behaviour has been ongoing for a year and must be stopped but no admin seems willing to do anything. Wayne (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposing community ban on Marquis de la Eirron

Marquis de la Eirron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a prolific sockpuppeteer (confirmed socks, suspected socks, SPI page and archive) and violator of copyright, and I beliee it is time for him to be community banned.

Although the Marquis de la Eirron account was only created in 2010, his use of the semi-static 81.110.220.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) dates way back to 2008, and in September 2008 he received a clear and umabiguous warning about not copying and pasting from other websites. Marquis de la Eirron also had problems with copyrighted images, see for example his image upload logs where every single upload has been deleted. This trend continued with his sock Comte de Mountstuart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). With his next sock Political Observation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the problems with copyrighted text continued, articles he created The Essex Rebellion (1601) (moved to Essex's Rebellion before being deleted) and Sir John Davis (Conspirator) both being copyvios, and multiple warnings about copyright were given, and removed by Political Observation. The copyright problems continued with new sock Jack Wills It (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see for example the history of Sir William Luce which he created, and removed the copyvio template (another warning, and removal of copyright notice from his talk page).

So he's clearly had problems with copyright, and received multiple warnings which he's obviously seen as he's removed them from his talk page. So now we'll look at the problems caused by the articles created by his most recently blocked sock, Daily Blue91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Julie James is a copyvio from here, and Daily Blue91 even restored the copyvio after it was removed by another editor. Mark Drakeford is a copyvio from here. Thomas Megahy is a copyvio from here and here. Ken Skates is a copyvio from here.

I am sure there are more problems with copyright in this editor's length history of disruption from multiple socks, and will be creating a contributor copyright investigation shortly. That said, the evidence above shows a clear sign of not getting it with regards to copyright despite many, warnings. Add this to the persistent sockpuppetry, and I believe it's ban time? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 09:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support indefinite ban, per above and repeated warnings. This guy knows that what he's doing is wrong, but just this morning I confirmed another sock. My support is without prejudice to an unban if somebody can talk him into sticking to the one account. AGK 10:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support its gone beyond warnings, It was I who first took a request to SPI back in August 2010, the type of edits that user:Marquis de la Eirron makes are very hard to spot unless they are spotted quickly because they often involved subtle changes to a person's title (eg adding a "Sir" when reliable sources do not use the title) without any supporting cite. If not spotted quickly then the history of an article has to checked thoroughly and it is very time consuming to find such errors. Marquis de la Eirron has spent a year and a half of using socks to continue to edit despite a block that is more than enough rope. I support a ban. -- PBS (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban. Editors of this sort are a menace to what we are doing here. He is clearly beyond warnings or attempts at reform. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban. Unfortunately, Marquis just doesn't seem to get it. We cannot allow him to contribute to this site so long as he doesn't take copyright laws seriously. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - there is no room for mercy in my heart for prolific sockers, and there is no room for mercy in my heart for prolific copyright violators. To have both in one package makes supporting this especially easy. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support - what Sven said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• I've just blocked 81.110.223.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which resolves to the same location as the IP above, after they asked at WP:REFUND for restoration of articles by the Daily Blue91 and Rocking the Boat socks, actually claiming to work for the subject of one.. I'd support a formal ban.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline

Please see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 27. It points out the problem of a non-admin close of a category deletion/renaming discussion. It also illustrates the problem of an admin initiating a category deletion/renaming discussion, and then the same admin initiating the sequence that allows the bot to go around and delete/rename categories on hundreds or thousands of pages.

This allows the idiotic mangling of category names basically by any non-admin who chooses to close a Misplaced Pages category discussion. I have seen the problem of non-admin closes on article deletion discussions also. In the last case the non-admin closed the article deletion discussion in favor of keeping the article. I did not mind that as I and nearly all others wanted the article kept. But it felt wrong for a non-admin to close the discussion prematurely, and it was reversed by others, and people let an admin close the discussion in favor of keeping the article. And the admin did a much better job and used Misplaced Pages guidelines, and did not make up rules.

On the Wikimedia Commons we have these type of misguided category deletion/renamings that occur by people who don't understand English very well. They are usually corrected or stopped because you can't easily invent completely new meanings for English terms and phrases.

But this is English Misplaced Pages, and this category guideline creation method is idiotic where a non-admin can create a new Misplaced Pages category guideline that bans or allows certain phrases, prepositions, or category names without wider Misplaced Pages discussion. You don't invent Misplaced Pages category naming guidelines in an obscure Misplaced Pages category discussion, and especially by a non-admin. But I know better than to expect logic from many deletionists and their followers. So I point out the problem here with little expectation that admins will do anything about it. Misplaced Pages is going to hell lately. Deletionists again. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I should point out that the complainant was the only editor to oppose the change being referred to here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• I feel this is a problem with the perception of admins on[REDACTED] – they have no elevated status on[REDACTED] which privileges them more qualified to direct discussion; they're simply a set of users who have proven themselves trustworthy and have thus been granted access to special tools. There's no reason that an admin should be more qualified to close the kind of discussion mentioned above than any other experienced user. Indeed, I could point to the many extremely experienced and productive members of the community who have chosen not to apply for adminship; are we to exclude them from lending their expertise in administrative tasks? Basalisk ⁄_berate 02:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This thread has just been pointed out to me. With apologies if it is considered to be tangential, I'll hang my category renaming/moving question here, copied from User_talk:Qwyrxian: "I do not spend a lot of time working with categories. Is the type of behaviour described at User_talk:Good_Olfactory#India_categories usual? In particular, the lack of notification/discussion. At least with CSD of articles there seems usually to be some sort of notice, or is that just because I use Twinkle?" - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

CfD, neither the normal process or the speedy, does not require notification of the category creator, and Twinkle does not provide notifcation in its function for nominating either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I started the thread Sitush has linked, and I wasn't intending to raise a complaint, exactly, but I am hoping to find out how to pursue the undoing of "speedy" changes to the names of categories: if someone who understands these things better than I do could let me know it would be much appreciated. It is a pity these processes do not require category creators to be notified, as explained by The Bushranger, and perhaps it would be better if they did. Can someone please say where we can discuss that? Moonraker (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I have the same question Moonraker does. I understand that, in a certain sense, these renames are basically the same as a page rename, and thus can be done boldly when there is good reason to believe that they are in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. The example Sitush sites, though, are definitely not in the encyclopedia's best interests, as the represent a POV change. How do we undo these--by making another request at the speedy rename board, and then, after the bot renames them, the initial editor would be required to start a discussion at CSD? Or is there some other better process? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Punitive Block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per TopGun's request. 28bytes (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I was subjected to this punitive block after reverting/warning/reporting an editor making contentious edits to an article right after the consensus was established on not doing such. Even if I do agree that I was editwarring, I had made it very clear in the WP:AN3 report that I filed that I was not going to revert, unilaterally stopping edit war (although the other user still continued to make edits on top of that which were even more contentious). Both of us were instead given an equal length of 48 hour block which I appealed twice but the reviewing administrators (like the reviewing one) did not stick to WP:EXPLAINBLOCK and even more so I was given the impression that this was based on WP:COOLDOWN.

Two of my review appeals went this way with only (debatable) explanation of a part of the appeal while still not explaining how my block was preventive. Infact all the explanations (to the editwar part) given by the administrators are clearly pointing out that it was a punitive block. A third appeal was left unreviewed till the block expired.

Further more, the block archive has proofs given that I pointed out some of the obvious vandalism (on other pages) during my block (from my watchlist) and that was the only thing the block prevented me from reverting (as well as my first revert after the block was previously noted vandalism to pages). I don't see how by any means was this block preventive?

Archive page: User talk:TopGun/Punitive Block
Permanent link:
Permanent link of WP:AN3 report:

Involved adminstrators:

Blocking: User:Bwilkins (blocked on basis of editwar to which I had made clear I would not participate anymore)
1st review: User:Boing! said Zebedee (gave a one liner decline reason only addressing editwar)
2nd review: User:JamesBWatson (gave a similar reason as the 1st review but later acknowledged that I had a case for the block being punitive)
3rd review: (left un-answered)

(Incase I shouldn't be filing on this noticeboard, then please give me the right link.)

Users notified. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Has there ever been a time when it turned out well for a user whose first action after being blocked is to come onto WP:ANI and complain of admin abuse? Especially when 3 different admins were involved? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. There's always a first time. I don't think there has been a time some one did this before. And my reasons are very clear and obvious. 3 admins vs 1 user should still not involve prejudice as far as I know. Actually, my first action was to revert obvious vandalism after the block expired, which I couldn't due to the block though I still pointed out some on my talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Having never given a punitive (or even cooldown) block in my life, I'm not sure how to answer.

I responded to an AN3 report. Both editors had been equal partners in an edit-war, one claiming they had the right to do it, because of past consensus. As both parties were equally involved in the edit war, in complete fairness I blocked both for the identical period of time: 48hrs. Those who report at AN, ANI or even AN3 know full well that their own actions in the incident will always be taken into account. I revisited Top Gun's page once or twice afterwards due to my monitoring of unblock requests. While there - although I did not obviously action the unblocks - I corrected some of his misbeliefs surrounding the WP:DR process, most especially when he claimed loudly that he asked for WP:RFPP. He should have requested Protection before engaging in the edit war. This was an attempt to better engage him in the DR process, and prevent future recurrence. Nothing punitive here - all preventative, all within policy, and I actually cannot fathom how anyone could claim "punitive" based on the obvious circumstances. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me add that clearly I have no issue with the editor. This past AN3 filing that involved him was closed rather differently. I have no need/desire/background in "punishing" this editor, and the previous AN3 handling pretty much shows how level-handed and fair I have been on these regarding Top Gun (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bwilkins on that and his previous fairness. Although the fact that he was lenient with the case above which included trivial personal attacks but not where I declared of not continuing before any hint of block does not help me be any less indignant. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing that I should have reported at page protection instead of AN3 (which I cleared that I indicated protection in AN3 report - which you replied to as this one clearing your side on that - fine) but after I already made it clear (with proof that I did not revert again with the other user further escalating) how was this block preventive is the fact I have not been made clear to. Not then, not during any of the appeals, not now. The point you made about me being too late to report at AN3 since I was already in an edit war, is itself an indication of the block being punitive, I did get your point of RFPP which you clearly explained but that couldn'tt be undone then and there was no reason of blocking on those basis. To be more simple, I edit war (claiming a violation of consensus - which is not the topic of discussion here) and then I report to AN3 saying that I won't edit now, and I get a block. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The OP seems to have a misunderstanding of what constitutes an edit war. Looking at the article history I can see how Bwilkins would've been preventing further warring. Also, the OP's assessment ofJamesBWatson's review is seriously over-simplified. Tiderolls 15:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of edit war has been made clear to me by the three admins now, and that's something I would be more careful about in the future even if I do have consensus, maybe I was confusing it with "revert, warn & report" which was due to the violation of consensus I claimed (to be neutral here). But all that is not what I filed for, I've not simplified the admin's review discussion (since I added the link to the original piece), rather I included only the part relevant to this report. Which is, no explanation given, the block giving impression of a cooldown block and obviously being (with proof) a punitive block. I don't know if I can include the fact that it was accepted as a punitive block by the blocking admin after expiry. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins explains how the block was not punitive above. I do not see where the acceptance to which you allude is stated. Another misunderstanding perhaps? Tiderolls 17:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, he didn't explain it and he didn't state how it was preventive even in the replies below. Here is the acceptance after expiry "accept reason here (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)" on this page. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The edit summary explains that Bwilkins was simply closing an expired unblock request. "accept reason here" is an unblock template parameter. So you see, a misunderstanding. Tiderolls 18:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So that is the default text after accepting an unblock? If not, his text contradicts edit summary. Incase what you say is the case, it stands cleared that he didn't accept it and we can continue with the rest. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no unblock; the block had expired. Tiderolls 18:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I got it, he didn't replace the default parameter while removing the request. Probably should have been careful since this report was already filed when he accepted and it was to be taken as text by me or any unaware readers. But no harm done. Refer to my bottom comments for the rest. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note: To be clear, my report here is not about the editwar itself, but rather on the blocking being punitive/non-preventive and unexplained on that after repeatedly asking for it till the block finally expired. In short, how did the block prevent me from doing something I had declared not to do before getting a surprise block? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

But, it becomes about the edit war itself - the block and the edit war do not exist as separate entities. Just like your own actions in the EW became important to the the whole AN3 report, your actions in that edit war are the true antecedent to this ANI filing. They will always be looked at in toto. You're not the first person who was blocked similarly at AN3 - indeed, there's a template that states "both users blocked" - it happens a few times a week. When two independent admins both decline your unblock, you've already got your answer. After all, what exactly are you hoping to get from this report - the block is expired, you've learned a few things, nobody is going to be desysopped ... all you've gained is additional eyes on your edits for awhile. Not sure it's worth it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As a reference, yes sure it can be related to that edit war and I'm sure it happens every week. The fact that three admins decided to keep me blocked for 48 hours is not a justification of block itself. You have to come up with a real explanation somewhat less equal to "I was edit warring because I was being reverted" from a user side. Let me quote this:

"Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested."

I hope you take blocking as seriously as I do. This is not a vandalism only account that I wont mind being blocked at any time. I've been using[REDACTED] from this account only since 5 years (probably reading more than editing) and I took the unfair block seriously. Why is it that after the block itself and 3 appeals (two attended) and this report with a wider attention, I've not been told how did the block 'prevent' me? Is it the fact that people usually quit or leave so as not to mess with admins? Seems a bit oppressive to me. I've been answerable to all my edits at[REDACTED] and I think so should be others, even the admins. I have no problem with additional people reviewing my edits as far as they are not wikihounders, so that's fine by me. My point here is the block was disruptive itself and what was that worth? You accepted my block reason after the expiry, so the block was wrongful. I don't know whether this ends up into desysoping or just an appology (so I have no specific motives here), this has to be corrected. I do want a record in my block log that this was not correct. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Your block was was wholly and fully as per policy. I didn't accept your unblock after its expiry, I merely actionned it because the block was expired, and the unblock request was therefore invalid...it was also not on your talkpage, it was in a subpage - and was therefore showing up oddly in the list of unblocks requests. When 2 or 3 additional, unrelated admins review the same actions and decline your unblocks, you honestly have your answer. I anticipate not needing to say any more on this matter, as others have also said the same thing. Move forward with the positives you have learned from this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TopGun, I'm not an admin and so maybe you will not consider me qualified to answer, but as a completely uninvolved editor I'll try to and say it as I see it, and maybe that'll help.

By your own admission you were edit warring, and[REDACTED] policy indicates that those engaging in edit warring should be subject to a block to prevent further disruptive editing from damaging the encyclopaedia. If, after this has been established, the guilty editor claims "sorry I definitely won't edit war anymore lol", that does not make them exempt from the block. If this were the case, then any editor could use this method to avoid a block for just a little longer, and then continue edit warring against their promise. Though you made a statement that you would discontinue edit warring, no admin can be sure you are being truthful – they can only consider the facts. In this case, the fact is that you had been edit warring and this warrants a block per policy, in order to prevent you from edit warring further, particularly in light of the fact that you've been warned for such behaviour in the past. I can appreciate your frustration; we've all had to deal with idiot editors who refuse to get the WP:POINT and it's sickening to be tarred with the same brush as them in terms of a block. But instead of nurturing bitterness here on ANI it would be a lot better for you to take this one on the chin and learn from it; you'll be better at handling troublesome editors in future because of what happened to you in this case! Hope this helps in some way. Basalisk ⁄_berate 18:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

BWilkins, I cleared that with Tiderolls above that you merely added the default parameter so it seemed that you 'accepted' the block (refer to comments above), but that still doesn't tell how the block was preventive. You have just repeated your reason here to which I objected. It is no justification that my block was kept by three admins so I don't deserve a proper explanation of the block which inherently doesn't seem to prevent me from anything. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Basalisk, I appreciate your input in this. I admit editwarring by defination (and I also pointed out that wikilawyering applies both ways since my intention was not to editwar - even in that case to I do admit that I reverted three times and I explained why). If I say that I won't revert here again, I file at AN3, and I don't revert while the other editor still makes top on edits, it means that I wont revert. The "lol I won't edit war" case doesn't apply here. At worst the admin didn't assume WP:GOODFAITH or give me the benifit of doubt and at best, he just got rid of both the editors giving me a negligent block along with the other one. I assume you reviewed the AN3 report. I'm not nurturing bitterness here. The fact that the admins after 3 unblock appeals ignored a part of my unblock requests and only explained the editwar part and that the blocking admin still stands on the point that the fact 2 other admins kept the block is a 'reason' or an 'explanation' of my block tells they have no answer to it. Neither is the fact that I editwarred and they think I might edit war again, because I made that clear. Yes you are right, it's bad to be tarred with the editors not adhering to WP:POINT and the block was wrong and amends should be made, that's all I asked here. They're telling the newbies to assume good faith and not ready to take the word of an old editor for not reverting again, that is not preventive in anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I said I wouldn't respond further...but if we followed your argument, since you supposedly weren't going to revert again, then the editor you reported wouldn't need to revert again either, and therefore neither block would be needed, and indeed your AN3 report was completely unnecessary. Either that or you were asking someone to punish one edit-warrior but not the other. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Now, you are talking on it. No, the other editor still continued to make edits. That was the purpose of the report, and I did indicate protection along with it. So I was only asking for, whichever, preventive measures. And I'd make the point yet again, it was not 'supposedly' I showed it by not reverting him during the report's own processing. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so as you say they kept editing not reverting therefore although you expect good faith that you had stopped edit-warring/reverting, you were not extending the same good faith to the other editor. Got it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, editing after a warning in the edit summary (which I explained I didn't make at talk for given reasons - another debate since the editor saw it). This only proves that he would still revert me because he reverted me then while I stopped after that and said that I wont. There's difference between loss of good faith and assuming good faith. Even so, I left the decision making on you clearly pointing out that protection was an option so it is not that I really still lost good faith in the other editor (although he was editwarring after consensus). Please don't wikilawyer on it just as you wouldn't expect me to wikilawyer to claim my self clear of an editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TopGun, I understand your frustration. You did the right thing by (1) agreeing to stop edit-warring and (2) reporting the edit-warring to an admin noticeboard, and you got blocked anyway. It seems punitive to you because you cannot see any preventative aspect, since you agreed to stop reverting. But that's not really what's meant by "blocks should not be punitive." Punitive, in that context, means retaliatory, disparaging, etc., as in the blocking admin "had it in for you" or wanted to make you look bad. From my perspective, the blocking admin simply wanted to ensure that the edit war did not restart, thus from their perspective, the block was preventative, e.g. preventing additional edit-warring. Sometimes the blocking admin will take into account statements that the edit-warring parties won't resume or continue the edit war; sometimes they discount such statements. In either case, an edit-warring block is not to punish you. You may disagree that the block was necessary to prevent additional edit-warring, but that doesn't make it a bad block according to policy. Again, I understand your frustration, but please consider that the reason for blocking might appear very different to the blocking admin as it does to you. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Being one of the few persons who are actually reasoning here, I accept your reason, but even by doing so the admin did not assume good faith on my part. Lets assume that everything was done right. What about my next two appeals. The block was stale, a discussion at the article talk page was started (which is almost at its conclusion hours after the blocks expired - along with our participation). There was no point in keeping the block in the next two appeals. It's not like I asked to desysop them. I only asked to make amends at the least that could be done is to correct my block log for the wrongful block. And the blocking admin has actually helped me once before so this is not at all personal. But in the previous case he was quite lenient with the editor who was making personal attacks on me, no hard feelings - it actually settled, but comparing that to this - this block comes out to be non preventive. I hope you understand my point like you understood the rest of my arguments. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I do understand your point. I don't agree that it was a wrongful block, though. Blocks are a standard admin response to edit-warring, sometimes even if the edit-warring party or parties say they'll stop, or even have (recently) stopped. Does that mean that sometimes good-faith editors such as yourself get a block log entry even if they are completely sincere about stopping the edit war? Unfortunately, yes. But it's not the end of the world. Many well-respected editors have an EW block or two over the course of their careers here; it's not the end of the world. All it means is they happened to be caught up in an edit war. It happens. Heck, one of our current RfA candidates has a block log, and he's overwhelmingly passing his RfA. But to your other point: realistically, we don't typically "correct" block logs except in the most extreme of circumstances. Realistically, I think the most you can ask for here is an acknowledgement that your concerns have been heard and understood, and I hope I have done that for you. 28bytes (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

28bytes, I didn't take it as end of the world. I only meant it on the basis of fairness. You got the rest of my argument right. About the block log, the blocking policy that I cited gave me an impression of such practice when an editor gets a wrongful block. However, I don't think the involved administrators (except probably JamesBWatson) even gave the acknowledgement of understanding the point which you have given. From whatever I got from the blocking policy, blocking is a serious matter, but it's only taken seriously while implementing it. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can see TopGun's point of view, and I do fully understand why they think the block was punitive. I thought long and hard about whether to accept an unblock request, for that reason. However, I decided against doing so. The block was stated to be for edit warring, and TopGun did indeed say that they would not continue to make the same reverts. If that were all there was to the case, then I would agree that the block was punitive, and would have unblocked. However, that was not all there was to the case. In fact had I made the block I would have given the reason as something like "disruptive editing, including edit warring". There were other problems before the block too, such as abuse of claims of "consensus" which might well have been included in the block reason. Also, TopGun's comments following the block included denying that they had been edit warring. How much faith can we have in a user's assurance that they will not edit war if at the same time they deny that something is edit warring when it plainly is? If someone says that they will not edit war, but makes it clear that their concept of what "edit war" means is at odds with the way the term is used on Misplaced Pages, then it seems reasonable to give less weight to their assurance than would otherwise be the case. Another point is that I have seen cases where an editor deliberately and knowlingly edit wars up to the point where they think they can go without being blocked. (Usually they stop at 3 reverts, because for some reason there is a very widespread belief that it doesn't count as edit warring if you don't break the 3 revert rule.) Often such people get away with it, but sometimes they don't. Time and again I have seen them complain that they were unfairly blocked, because they didn't edit war, and sometimes they also say "even though I didn't edit war, I won't continue to do what you wrongly call edit warring if you unblock me", which is what TopGun wa saying in this case. Alas, however, my experience is that such people very often do go on to do the same again, perhaps not in the same dispute, but later in other disputes. It is perfectly clear from TopGun's comments, both at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring before the block and on their talk page during the block, that they had deliberately stopped reverting at the point where they thought they wouldn't be blocked because it didn't count as edit warring. To unblock under those circumstances would have conveyed quite the wrong message, namely "yes, you are right. It is OK to edit war as long as you carefully avoid trangressing the 3 revert rule. Being blocked under such circumstances is wrong, and if it happens you can be unblocked. So feel free to do the same again." It was essential to leave the block in place to convey instead the message that such actions are not acceptable, and to deter such behaviour in the future. Thus it was preventive, not punitive. Please note that there is no assumption of bad faith here: I am 100% sure that TopGun truly believed in good faith that what they were doing was not against policy, but they were mistaken. So, to summarise: (1) There were other problems, apart from edit warring. (2) The repeated denials of edit warring were themselves problematic. (3) Edit warring exactly up to the point where you think you will not be blocked and then stopping is not acceptable, and any editor who thinks it is needs to learn otherwise. If they persist in denying any wrong doing then the only way to deter them from doing so again is likely to be to show them that doing so means they will be blocked and stay blocked. For that reason both the block and the declines of the unblock requests were preventive, not punitive. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson, the real mistake I apparently seem to have made here is warned the user in edit summary, a revert solely purposed to give the warning and not on the talk page. I explained this on my talk page unblock discussion and I'll explain it again with more clarification here. I edit articles which are most likely to get disputes and contentious editing by users most of which act weirdly since they are editing with a nationalistic agenda. I've yet been told by 5 editors who quoted TPG that I can not delete comments from my talk page and would edit war and start to flame till I would quote back the opposite from the same page only to be later on hounded by the same or unknown IPs. I've experience with such editors, they don't like even the standard template warnings. This is how it starts (being easy in this case and then escalating) . Look at the transcluded discussion from WP:NPOVN at Talk:Taliban (the article where the editwar took place), the user's comment's length made it clear that this user would definitely take that to a personal level. I just chose to warn in edit summary instead and report right after that. Also I did accept my part in the editwar but the fact I stopped it (since I've explained the warning part now) means that I wouldn't have edited. It is presumptuous. Yet, I accepted that it constituted an editwar - but just not in the stricter sense, isn't this wikilawyering being applied in reverse to me for being mistaken in this complicated case instead of being explained to? No, I clearly know the meaning of editwar other wise and do not take it to the brink of 3RR when I'm the one being reverted and always use talk page warnings when I'm reverting others. I was warned once before on another topic and I took heed right away after explanation. And that was by you too. So no, the block does not seem to be preventive. If I agree for the sake of argument that the block was preventive, was it explained? No, only the label of editwar. About the "repeated denials of editwarring", since you do acknowledge that these were good faith misunderstandings your text could have made that clear too. Actually as per that statement itself, that I was editing in good faith but mistaken, to correct a mistake giving a block is by definition punitive. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) In the last two months, you've had two blocks for edit warring, and one more close call (where Bwilkins could have blocked you, but instead cut you some slack when you were in a fight over a talk page's archive settings). In both of your blocks, you've been insistent that everything is the other party's fault. Warning another editor about edit warring when you're in the process of edit warring yourself () seems to demonstrate a certain lack of self-awareness. Using your third revert to warn another editor about edit warring demonstrates chutzpah, but not a firm grasp of why Misplaced Pages has a policy against edit warring in the first place.

The block here was earned, and letting it run to its full length seems quite justified. If nothing else, the full-length block was preventive because it might encourage you to consider alternatives to edit warring when you're on your first revert rather than your third. It's to prevent the next edit war, not necessarily the resumption of the current one. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, you just checked my block log but failed to contrast my editing history to it. All my major edits started after that block. Most of the constructive work I've done is in these two months (it was just typo corrections probably most of the time without logging in before July). So I never even understood the meaning of edit war back then and I would not count that to it. But this time I knew what I was doing and the only complication was the consensus which got me mistaken along with my assumption that giving a warning in the edit summary instead of a talk page would probably prevent a flamewar. And have you even seen the talk page archiving scenario? The user was deliberately trying to get the slow discussion archived by giving it a time of 5 days to archive which I properly warned and reverted and instead the user started to make personal attacks. Bwilkins, was not going to block me on that but him. So thanks but no thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I declined an unblock request that claimed the user had stopped edit-warring. When I checked the article history, I saw that TopGun had been ahead in the war at the time - so I didn't feel I could have a lot of confidence there (everyone stops when they are in the lead). I also saw there was a previous 3RR block, which meant TopGun should by now have been familiar with WP:3RR and WP:EW. I felt the continued block was necessary not just to make sure the current war really was stopped, but also to get over to TopGun that if you edit-war you get blocked, period, and thus prevent future repeats of edit-warring. I'm happy to accept the edit-warring was done as a good-faith mistake, and I hope TopGun now properly understands that 3RR is not a right, and that you can't edit-war up to the 3RR brink, then report the other guy, and escape yourself with no comeback. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee, I think you would get your answer from the above replies. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Dang, really? ... ok, here's a real life example: TopGun, you and I are in a bar. I pick up a barstool and smack you across the back of the head with it. I have no intention of hitting you again. You pummel me with your fists 4 or 5 times. Which one of us is the barkeep going to throw out? BOTH. He wants to prevent additional fighting in his establishment...doesn't matter if I argue that I was done hitting anyone. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly why I said this is (1)Punitive, because real life anger of a bar keeper doesn't apply to the admins who like us are supposed to assume good faith. (2)You would then just stick to the letter of rules punishing/preventing-from-stale-case a good faith editor who has backed out of editing;wikilawyering. And as I made it clear, you were actually really helpful to me in a previous conflict of personal attacks and I don't want anything other than acceptance that I was wrongly blocked (preferably which would constitute a block log). You did understand that I was not going to edit again after that, didn't you? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You PERSONALLY forced the other editor to edit-war, reported him, and have the further belief that you could get away with it by claiming you weren't going to do it anymore? Are you listening to yourself here? YOU BOTH GOT BLOCKED for your edit-war. Don't do it again ... easy as that. Your complete lack of understanding of WP:EW, WP:BLOCK is becoming disturbing. If I had only blocked you, then you might have had a case for some kind of argument about something ... but no, BOTH got blocked. I clearly have assumed too much good faith for too long, but WP:IDONTGETIT is a tiring argument (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not force him, I removed a contentious edit, he reverted. That did constitute an edit war (for both of us). But I did stop. And I proved it that I wouldn't revert. I wanted preventive measures, uninvolved parties have already pointed that out. I indicated protection (yeah too late?). I do get what you say, but do you hear what I explained? Didn't I accept I was editwarring just now? If you had only blocked me, that would have been a case of bad judgement. I didn't know that we had to send in written statements to prove that we were making a good faith revert or that we wouldn't make a revert again. "Don't do it again or you would get blocked" is preventive, blocking and saying "you got blocked because you did it" is punitive. And I can read without the WP:SHOUT here, even I didn't resort to that when I was under a block for 48 hours. Now would that constitute a 'preventive' block? --lTopGunl (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Administrators are trusted by the community to exercise their judgement and impose blocks when necessary. Users can appeal these blocks and even have them reviewed, yes, but this is turning into a whine-fest. You were blocked. Two admins reviewed the block and declined the appeals. The involved admins have tried to explain themselves in detail here, and other users have tried to sympathize with you while explaining how it was a legitimate block. This was clearly an appropriate block, and there is no agreement, or even debate, over whether it wasn't. Most users would start to "get it" by now. We're getting to the point where you're just beating a dead horse. Drop the stick and move on. Swarm 01:44, 4 December 2011

TopGun, again, I believe you misunderstand the word "punitive" here. Bwilkins and the admins who declined to unblock have clearly stated they blocked and declined to unblock to prevent a continuing edit war. That you believe the block was unnecessary to achieve that purpose does not turn it into a punitive block. A punitive block is something else entirely. 28bytes (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason that is frustrating here is that just because three admins decided to keep my block and explain it now that too starting with "because you were declined by two other admins that's a good reason". Well since there is no use of wasting everyone's time here and I've made my point, and you've made yours (and yes I did get your point the first time, explaining mine doesn't mean that I didn't). I'll end it here myself. Thanks to those who did understand my side. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Ceoil and User:Truthkeeper88

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No action - this is to everybody's advantage. All heat no light. We are building an encyclopedia here - don't look that focus. Everybody behave better in the future or I will get really angry. Behaving nice means talk nice to and about each other. If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.

are edit waring with me over my own talk page. Ceoil has been making vicious attacks on me for weeks. Someone please help. Alarbus (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I gave you an olive branch. You threw it away. I tried to strike. That's all. Let it go please. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not all by a long shot. You, meh; Ceoil should be removed. Alarbus (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus, you're not innocent in this. I would suggest both you and Ceoil drop the stick and back away from both the horse carcass and each other. This is counterproductive. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've disagreed, expressed myself in a civil manner. Ceoil, along with Modernist, and Moni3, have relentlessly insulted me, edit warred with me. Pages to see would be Template talk: Ernest Hemingway, Talk: Ernest Hemingway, User talk:Ceoil, User talk:Kafka Liz, User talk:Diannaa; my talk. Enough. Alarbus (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus, calling someone a "rolling barrel of bile" (for example) is not civil; Ceoil has also been uncivil, agreed. Now, based on what I see on those pages, I could justifiably block both you and Ceoil. I would prefer that that not become necessary. Can you both not just back off? Your involvement in the Hemingway article is at this point not helping anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this particular "discussion" is futile and echo Nikkimaria's suggestion. This thing is bad enough on its own, and more than a little discouraging to the bystanders. For the record, I don't see any attacks on Truthkeeper's part. There's a lot of tension here, but from what I see, she is trying to de-escalate things. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

He said far-worse, and many, many more times. Truthkeeper only edit warred with me on my talk. Alarbus (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to strike the comment and said as much in the edit summary. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you want an admin to do, Alarbus? I would start with warning you to make your comments on Talk:Ernest Hemingway about the content instead of the contributors. Your passive aggressive commentary as what I saw last night on Truthkeeper's page is problematic. You encourage an editor who worked very hard to leave Misplaced Pages and insult her. Then you include something else about content in the middle of all your bluster about Truthkeeper's role in writing the article. It looks to me that your primary objective is insulting another editor and you mask it with minor mentions of minor article issues. Truthkeeper88's behavior is not problematic here. --Moni3 (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ban Ceoil would be a start; admonish you for calling everything I said 'Asshole-language'. You people gang-up like flies on shit. Alarbus (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Asshole language referred to the person who wrote about me on an external website, calling me a neo-nazi, premenopausal nun and linked to pornographic images. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And to handle your behavior what would you suggest? --Moni3 (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't do this stuff. I can diffs about your behaviour but I won't. If the ani crowd decide to block me and Ceoil and back you then we know where we are. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Moni3, an admin could block both Truthkeeper and Ceoil for edit warring on Alarbus's talk page. If Alarbus wants to remove comments, that's his right, per WP:TPG. Alternatively, an admin could block Ceoil for disruptive editing (see this edit summary) and incivility (see previous edit summary and this comment). At a minimum, everybody needs to back away from each other and stop the edit warring and attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: I don't mean to say that Alarbus doesn't also have poor behavior that's blockworthy; I've only looked at what's happend on Ceoil and Alarbus's talk page so far. What actually started this mess? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It started here. This began over TK reverting structural changes done per WP:HLIST over a colour preference. She and the others have been all over me ever since if I comment anywhere about anything they think related. Like the navbox talk on Liz's page. Too many edit conflicts on this page, and I have to go. Alarbus (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, he's also removed comments from other pages, not just his own. I would strongly disagree with blocking TK here, and would suggest that if anyone is to be blocked, it would be both Alarbus and Ceoil. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I remove Ceoil's trolling, that's all. Alarbus (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"Remove me"; thats lovely, but will it be a gentle bullet to the head or a loving stab in the shower?. Get a grip. If we followed your reasoning to its logical conclusion all wiki editors should be "taken care of" because they dont know mark up as well as you, and are thus "a problem". Ceoil (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I started putting stuff together; it's incomplete.

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:14, 3 December 2011

  Alarbus: proper structure: new section

• Long post to Kafka Liz that makes no reference to Ceoil

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:37, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: proper structure: lord jesus the work you could have done in the time it took to type that
• GET.A.LIFE.

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:45, 3 December 2011

  Alarbus: remove trolling

• removed prior post

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:47, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: i beg your pardon

• restores "GET.A.LIFE."

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 05:52, 3 December 2011

  Alarbus: Yes, I called you a troll and removed your personal attack

• removed prior post

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:30, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: re lith; O and dont worry about the tool below; it takes all sorts to make the world spin.

• 'tool'

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:32, 3 December 2011

• Alarbus: 'tool'; tool yourself. You're just a rolling barrel of bile.

• nibbles at the bait

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:37, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: zz; I can go worse than tool if you wish, prick.

• 'prick'

• User talk:Kafka Liz, 11:38, 3 December 2011

• Ceoil: s; No, I'm just exhausted by agressive but essentially simple people like you.

• 'simple people like you'

Kafka Liz makes an alternative offer to calm things to Ceoil on his talk:

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:11, 3 December 2011

  Kafka Liz: Past noon: new section; ... so beer for you. Darker or lighter is available, of course.

• beer for you

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:14, 3 December 2011

  Ceoil: Past noon: not enough; Coffey would suit me better at the moment. I was robbed blind by childhood friends and their wives at a poker table last night. Strong black coffey, a plan and a gun is what I need. Do you have any of these.

• a plan and a gun is what I need

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:14, 3 December 2011

  Kafka Liz: Past noon: don't bring your guns to town, son; Ask and ye shall receive. Coffee is available chez Liz. As for the other two... I don't know if it's the plan you had in mind, but it's a plan. ;)

• don't bring your guns to town

• User talk:Ceoil, 12:14, 3 December 2011

  Ceoil: Past noon: bonny and clyde; This my plan: we'll go in and shoot everybody. We can figure it out after.

• we'll go in and shoot everybody

Alarbus (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I will explain what started the mess but can't because of edit conflicts. Will come back later when things calm down. Alarbus has been extremely uncivil to me since before Thanksgiving. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec again) For instance, I note that Alarbus was removing comments on User Talk:Kafka Liz, which xe should not have been doing (for the same reason that Truthkeeper and Ceoil shouldn't have been trying to make edits "stick" on Alarbus's talk page). Maybe all 3 or 4 or whatever of you need to spend some time away from each other for awhile. If you can do that voluntarily, then there's no need to make any of you involuntarily spend time away from[REDACTED] completely. Anyone willing to just back away? Qwyrxian (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really willing to back away; Alarbus is dangerously stupid and a problem. At the very least I'd like to make a big deal to wave a flag for others unfortunate enough to come across him. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

He won't discuss. Twice I've offered olive branches and which have been reverted. It's about the Ernest Hemingway page and the FA crowd who are so full of themselves, according to him. I've just put back the page after more than 200 edits that four editors made to improve it. He didn't agree with the improvements and is willing to pull me to An/I. I'm not willing to put up with this. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss Hemingway? I gave up on that; drop it. I made two minor edits to the article. But I don't agree with you, so you can't drop it. Alarbus (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

And yet this morning the first thing I see when I log into Misplaced Pages is a disparaging remark on the Hemingway talkpage. Please discuss your issues in a substantive manner instead of going around saying that editors, who by the way have made over a thousand edits to a core article, have ruined it. Please. If you can't discuss and you want me to be blocked for a single revert with a very clear edit summary then something's very wrong here. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I just said, I have to go. Question is, really, why should I stay? This place is awful. Alarbus (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I notice how most of your quotes are out of context, and were examples of friends just flirting/bantering. Game often, liar. Ceoil (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• (several ecs). I concur here - I've been trying to say that I don't think anyone here needs an enforced break. Kafka Liz (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil does; he's been pure troll to me. Alarbus (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

TCO you must be so proud! Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Ceoil, I know the words, too. Alarbus (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking a rather enforced wikibreak for at least 2 of these editors. For Ceoil to actually state "Alarbus is dangerously stupid and a problem" right here on ANI when they have a block history as long as my ... erm ... for exactly the same behaviour? Alarbus should realize that although someone else's incivility may explain your own behaviour, it never excuses it! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I may have said a few rash things, but nothing compares to Ceoil's invective. Alarbus (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bwilkins you obvuosly havn't read the half of it and dont know what the fuck you are talking about. But here's re cap for your plesure. Alarbus is a troll with a small amount of knowledge of html and java script. And nothing else. He has balooned the fact that he know html, in his mind, to degree that code trumps content. And anybody who says actually, I'm he's a troll that needs to be taken to the internet hell of wiki/ani, policed by mostly mornic idiotios just above the complaint's iq level, needs to think. Ceoil (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That would explain why my most edited page is MediaWiki Talk:Common.css, where I've made a lot of helpful suggestions to User:Edokter and User:WOSlinker about getting all the navboxes fixed to use WP:HLISTs. And all the template edits. Just my misfortune to step into your group around Hemingway. I only like a few of his stories, anyway. Alarbus (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet somehow, what you did that set all of this off well before Thanksgiving-- which was more uncivil and damaging to editors and articles than any "invective" used by anyone-- hasn't even come up. hmmmmmm ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Background. Alarbus has been consistently aggressive and refuses to discuss. Now, because of him, two weeks of work by four editors has been wiped out. Please consider the reasons for why people are upset. Because of him, I have no interest of being part of this project anymore. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Just to add - I could have brought this to ANI myself much earlier. I can find many diffs of Alarbus' incivility and aggressive behaviour but have never resorted to AN/I and won't start now. That Alarbus believed he needed to bring this here when I left an olive branch on his page to try to open a discussion astounds me. And the bottom line is that this is all about TCO's "report" and what Alarbus perceives to be the "attitude" of FAC writers. I'm willing to meet him half-way and hear his point-of-view, but he has to understand that people can only take so much. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats a good summary. Its iornic that the edit war that brough us here was a post on his talk titled "Olive brach". Ceoil (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I had not realized that Alarbus was a relatively new user, when he started making his conspiratorial claims about fiefdoms, etc. (only caught this now based on a statement above). Strange conclusions for a new user who mostly works on templates. Should we be looking at meatpuppetry with TCO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), returning user, or some other such thing that admins deal with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil's behaviour pre-dates the release of TCO's report. Here are seven diffs from 19-21 November:

• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• diff of Template talk: Ernest Hemingway
• Diff of User talk:Diannaa
• Diff of User talk:Diannaa

--Dianna (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I can give as many or more diff regarding Alarbus, but that's a timesink. And you Diannaa are very much involved here. Just fucking block me and put me out of my misery. This place just sucks. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am posting merely as a victim of Ceoil's bile, not as an administrator. --Dianna (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Opportunist; my dismissal of you, and your bad faith trawling for ref incosisenticy in the Hemmingway article SO YOU COULD SPITE TK, is a worse thing. At the end of the day I called you on substance and formed the opention that you are a petty, no interest in content, motivated by the small things tool. And here you are now capitalising. Nice. Hang me so. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we've got a pretty toxic situation when experienced editors are asking to be blocked because they're so sick of what they've had to put up with here. This just highlights the problem that editors who are not collegial or collaborative can do far more damage here than any "invective" or foul language employed after tempers have boiled. And that some offenders are likely to get off with not even a warning, in spite of block logs as long as Ceoil's and equally offensive language, edit warring and name calling, and misogyny and personalization. The same ole same ole at ANI-- if you have a block log already, it's used against you, only depending on who you are and how many people are watching you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is a Pot calling the kettle black and should be ignored or handled per WP:BOOMERANG. Alarbus initiated a conflict with Truthkeeper, who was attempting to improve one of our important articles hassling her with irrelevant objections condescension. This behavior is the most detrimental to the project since it is what causes productive editors to leave. Alarbus should have supported Truthkeeper's efforts but chose confrontation from the start. Ceoil stepped in to support Truthkeepers efforts against Alarbus' aggressive approach. He should be commended for this. I am not going to defend the way in which Ceoil supported Truthkeeper88, but it is immensely important that he did it. Alarbus's behavior here represents the most problematic aspect of wikipedia: Some editors apparently derive pleasure from harassing working people, and when they get back in kind what they stash out, they run to ANI to start a debacle. This shouldn't be encouraged. There are only two sensible options for proceeding here: Either no action is taken, or Alarbus and Ceoil are told to find a better form of interacting. If anyone is to be blocked it would fall back on the original poster - who has caused damage to the project by disrupting on going article work, and continues to do so by wasting our time here. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, you can't seriously think Ceoil should be commended for this kind of behaviour. --Dianna (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I heartily commend his intentions which may have prevented[REDACTED] form loosing a valuable editor, although I don't condone the way in which he acted on those intentions. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No, let's commend TCO and Alarbus instead. Nice work! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bad language is one thing, but incivility takes many forms. Some examples in the past week:

• Over consensus Diannaa lectures that there's so much work to be done on Misplaced Pages
• Diannaa decides to do a mini review of citations and refuses to engage in discussion
• Diannaa tells me to practice a Buddhist sense of zen after challenging citations on a Featured article
• Alarbus incivilty about me on another talk
• Alarbus blanks an attempt to engage in discussion
• Alarbus blanks an olive branch message repeatedly
• Uncivil and unnecessary comments from Alarbus to my talk
• Continued incivility from Alarbus on Ernest Hemingway talk

I think Alarbus and Diannaa need to understand what they've done here before casting aspersions. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I can't claim to have examined all these diffs carefully, in principle I agree with Maunus. (To Dianaa, I would point out that Maunus specifially said I am not going to defend the way in which Ceoil supported Truthkeeper88.) Might I propose (as a minimum diffusing of the situation) that TK and Ceoil agree not to post to Alarbus's talk page; that Alarbus agree not to post to the talk pages of TK and Ceoil; and that TK and Ceoil further agree not to discuss Alarbus on their own or each other's talk page. Again, I agree with Maunus's overall assessment (and while I thank Ceoil for introducing me to the word fuckwit, I think I shall practice using it offsite). Cynwolfe (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As I read Maunus's comment, he is concentrating on substance rather than style. As an aside, I sincerely wish that Maunus or some other admin would put this topic out of its misery, take action or no action, and close. I also wish Maunus would use different colors on his userpage (very hard to read). :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would go further TK and say that admins like Diannaa are the problem, and waste the time peoples with content to add with games. Lokk at her "contibus" to the EH talk and wonder, what the fuck? I see only spite and I'll get ya, which is even even too kind a view. Here today you have her nursing trolls, who even a fool could see through, for spite. I respect Cynwolfe, but to say that the timeline is such that the troll reverted multiple times on our talks before we brought it to him. But yeah, I'll back off, with gravy. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was hatted. Since Ceoil has been blocked I'd like to be blocked to. Any admin willing to do that? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh and talk page revoked too. Let's just shut up the troublemakers. Seriously, if no one on who read this thread is will to mete out the same judgment to all parties involved, I'll find someone who will. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take a wikibreak, don't request a block, blocks are not handed out on request. You can use the wikibreak enforcer if you really need to, tho I'd advise finding some other solution. Snowolf 20:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't need a wikibreak - I need the wiki hypocrisy to stop now. I'm willing to take my first block for it. If there are any admins here who have enough brain to read the thread above, that was hatted, and stand by Ceoil's block, then I want to be blocked. If you can't figure out the logic, then none of you deserve to be admins. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about that "blocks are not handed out on request"; they sure were for TCO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (revolving block and RTV door there, returning to launch this whole matter, why not for others who request an enforced break from the lunacy?) Perhaps someone can help me understand the different applications of the tools by different admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... maybe someone kicked the plug out on the Misplaced Pages Hive Mind Generator and every admin is using her or his own personal temperment, intelligence and experience to interpret the rules as best they can? Or perhaps they're not clones of the WikiMaster Admin after all? I dunno, it's hard to figure out just what might be going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Block Duke of Mantua

Please block this user; their history shows a number of vandalisms done to the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Duke_of_Mantua Rucha58 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, reports like this should go to WP:AIV instead, but thanks for bringing the user to our attention. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Adult supervision needed on Talk:Fisting

There is a rather heated discussion occurring at Talk:Fisting#Image of Guy Getting Fisted following an edit war in the now-protected article. The issue is about whether or not to include a photographic image of a man with a gloved hand inserted into his anus. The two main participants have strong words and the discussion has now attracted trolling well-meaning IP editors. Can someone with a strong but gentle hand try to settle things down? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "strong but gentle hand" is an unfortunate phrase choice. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up, a banned sockpuppeteer is also there. I've blocked the account. Elockid 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me we haven't violated WP:NOTHOWTO on this specific article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, parts of the article violate the policy (the Techniques section, for example). But I admit to being biased as I hate these sorts of articles and I hate reading them - it's hard to see what encyclopedic purpose they serve, except at the very outer margins.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed an unverified paragraph, and a paragraph advocating Crisco but not based on reliable sources. I guess I could have added a cn-tag for the lubrication sentence, but at least I hope I won't be accused of OR by not having tagged it. I haven't looked at the list of editors but I did note that Carlos Sanchez was seriously overstepping some boundaries on the talk page; Bbb23, thank you for having warned them--it seems to have worked. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting a history merge

On September 2 2010 User:Plasma east cut the then current contents of Arctic Patrol Ship, and pasted it over top of Arctic Patrol Ship Project -- previously a redirect. They then turned Arctic Patrol Ship into a redirect.

I believe this kind of cut and paste is counter-policy as it violates the rights of contributors prior to September 2nd, 2010. We release most of our rights when we click "save". But we retain the right to have our contributions attributed to us -- and that it obfuscated with this kind of cutting and pasting.

Here is a diff of the two versions -- except for one small paragrpah they are almost identical.

For what it is worth, I believe this was a good faith mistake on Plasma East's part.

I request an administrator merge the revision history of Arctic Patrol Ship, prior to the cut and paste onto the revision history of Arctic Patrol Ship Project.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, but next time please use the Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut-and-paste moves process rather than posting it on ANI. Cheers, Number 57 21:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

I wasn't familiar with {{histmerge}}. I'll use it, if there is a next time. Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threat by Doktorb

I am noting that a Misplaced Pages article about me (Rhys Morgan) had been nominated for deletion by User:Doktorbuk on the basis that it was/I am a "sophisticated hoax" and that I am a "mythical character" (http://twitter.com/#!/doktorb/status/143027459384815616). I made no contribution to the AfD nor the actual page (aside from posting on the talk page to correct an error) as I understand that this would be a massive conflict of interest. Nor did I incite people to take part in the AfD discussion.
Since then, I tweeted to someone saying that it was clear he hadn't read the article, given that there were numerous reliable sources underneath confirming that I am neither a hoax nor a mythical character: http://twitter.com/#!/rhysmorgan/status/143009818666475521
In response, User:Doktorbuk told me to revert the claim or his "lawyers talk": http://twitter.com/#!/doktorb/status/143037703787778049
I don't think anything really needs to be done about this, but was told that this was the right place to let someone know about it.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewelshboyo (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's not on-wiki, ergo, it's not really our business. Maybe Twitter has a comparable policy. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to this page. I understand and comprehend the seriousness of the issue, and withdraw any such threat which I made in the quoted tweets. I stand down from this issue and will make no further edits to any articles connected to Rhys Morgan or his work. I will make a public comment on this matter, to Rhys, on Twitter. doktorb _words 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a good idea. Sounds to me like this is common courtesy, and I wish you had thought of that before (that is my off-wiki comment--I guess I should tweet it). Sheesh, these AfD debates: I wonder when the first AfD victim is listed in the papers. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to give the background to this: Yesterday, Doktorbuk started a deletion debate, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rhys Morgan. The deletion nomination claimed that Morgan was both non-notable and a completely made-up hoax. The reason for the latter claim was based around what Doktorbuk claims to be strange editing patterns of Penglish (talk · contribs) and Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs). There has been some controversy about the deletion, and it got taken to WP:DRV after a non-admin attempted to speedy keep the AfD. I'm slightly concerned about some of the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT going on with the "hoax" claim. An influx of SPAs !voting keep doesn't justify ignoring genuine concerns from long-standing users that undermine a key plank in the rationale for starting the deletion discussion—myself, User:Krelnik, User:BrainyBabe et al. If the user had been more willing to listen to fellow editors and withdraw this hopeless deletion, perhaps it wouldn't have escalated to the point where off-wiki legal threats were being thrown around. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In the past, off-wiki behavior that is intended to have an effect on on-wiki behavior and/or people has been judged to fall under the procedures and norms of Misplaced Pages. Doktorbuk has withdrawn the comments, however, so I think we should let it slide with no further action being needed here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Legal threats block - assertions of libellous edits and repeated mention of the police

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

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

Swinton Circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Swinton Circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Alan Harvey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subject account with a D is apparently a sock of the older account without a D; claims to be (and probably is) Alan D. Harvey, founder of the Swinton Circle, and author/subject of the now-deleted article Alan Harvey. He doesn't want Misplaced Pages talking about the Circle, because he doesn't like what we report (he objects to our sources). All recent edits are to articles about persons previously or currently associated with the Swinton Circle, and his edit summaries and talk-page posts are generous in their use of the term "libellous". Additionally, edits to his talk page include repeated references to certain matters as "now being in the hands of the police", which led me to a legal threats block. Could somebody take a look at this one with a less jaundiced eye and see if this needs to be handled differently? Obviously, a lot of WP:BLP issues are also involved here. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a legal threat equivalent to me. Not sure why the master account isn't blocked as well ... ? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Master blocked also to prevent further legal threats. -- DQ (t) (e) 05:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Escalating harassment by User:Night of the Big Wind

Night of the Big Wind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Early today I placed a notability tag on an article created by User:Night of the Big Wind. I had found the article in new page patrolling and had never encountered this subject matter or this user before. He responded with an annoyed post to my talk page . OK, no problem. But when I responded politely in disagreement, he latched on and his posts to my talk page got angrier and angrier, culminating in this personal attack. He asked him to desist.. He rejected my request, saying that I was "hammering an article that is clearly notable." . (I had made one edit to the article, the notability tag.) In a post to another party he said , referring to me, "the stupidity of this guy really made me angry."

OK, so far, just routine personal attacks. Nothing serious. The reason I'm here is that he has started to follow my deletion nominations around. See this talk page post, this one, and this AfD cooment. I cautioned him to desist. He responded by telling me to "feck off" and then deleted my request as "bullshit." He also posted this on one of the PROD'd article talk pages, and this "warning" on my talk page.

This guy is escalating, and frankly is getting to be a little scary. I think that a short cool-off block might do the trick. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no such thing as a "cool off block" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, then perhaps he should just be blocked for harassment, or at least warned to stop. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

NPA warning given, at least - accusations of being a troll are absolutely personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The user also refactored a post of mine from an AfD at which I pointed out that he had been following around my edits, which he obviously has been doing.. Note also the comment below. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You are escalating the case. This is a clear PA, written to damage my name and fame. It is ScottyBerg who deserves a block. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, and you refactored another editor's comments, which is not allowed. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a PA, this is allowed. You have just placed a second PA. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I reinstated the talk page post that you removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the warning, but is remarkable that mr. Berg has seen several of my edits that I had already removed as being written while angry. But I repeat, it was mr. Berg who was escalating the case. I don't think it is a strange request to "review" a notability-tag placed on an article about a TWO starred restaurant with independent sources.

About the trolling. Please look at this and this edit about mr. Berg accusations of trolling. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you defending your comment "Go get a hamburger and stay away from real restaurants. You clearly have not a clue about the value of Michelin stars."? ScottyBerg (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I should have written it more politely, but I defend the meaning of it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about your personal attacks. I am concerned with your harassment. I asked you to stop following me around to AfDs and PRODs I have created, and you told me to "feck off" and removed my "bullshit" request. It is not a "bullshit" request. What you have been doing is clear harassment. That is why we are here. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to say "feck off" to the both of you. Is this type of behaviour from BOTH of you what we would normally expect, or is it just late on a Saturday? I don't see harassment or wikihounding... maybe some wikipoodling, but you're both looking at interaction bans perhaps being the best option. "Go eat a hamburger" is a PA? Crikey! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You see nothing wrong with his following me to an AFD and two PRODs within the span of a few minutes? I thought I made it pretty clear that I was here because of that, not because of his comments.ScottyBerg (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, mr. Berg, calm down. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: you'd be better off not getting baited by NotBW during your ANI post. Any time that an ANI looks like a tit-for-tat kerfuffle, uninvolved parties are apt to stay clear of it. NotBW: allegations that ScottyBerg is in the wrong here are pretty transparently disingenuous. Along with refraining from the petty retribution which brought this here, you'd do well to stop doing that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So while he is hounding me, I get all the blame? Nice way of problem solving. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I advised both of you how to de-escalate this trivial bit of drama. The next step is to observe whether you both take that advice. Should either party fail to do so, the required administrative action will be much clearer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and would favor hatting this, but it is not resolved. See (removing my AfD post subsequent to Chris' remarks above). He had previously done the same thing., and was told to desist. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See also further baiting here, and here. This user was given a final warning for NPA by The Bushranger, but it doesn't seem to have deterred him from further baiting and harassment, and he won't let go.ScottyBerg (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I had opened a new case, but was told to go back here. Okay, so here I am. <start copy> ScottyBerg (talk · contribs) keeps restoring a personal attack, although I told him that I would not tolerate other insults or accusations. PA's: , and . Warning to stop with that: . Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The removals of the PA were conform WP:RPA. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion: I did notify mr. Berg, but he did not like that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

<end copy>

Is it bad to have abandoned user pages?

Like if I am too lazy to memorize those templates for asking for an admin to delete old sandboxes...so I just delete the link to them and they are out of my mind...but still floating in space somehow. Is that wrong?TCO (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No. 28bytes (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Woot! TCO (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, it's just {{u1}}. Not that hard to memorize. ;) Swarm 02:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And the pages are easy to locate with the "Subpages" link to Special:PrefixIndex/User:TCO at the bottom of your contributions page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That helps. copied that link to my page.TCO (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A POV pusher

This user User:VVPushkin has been a POV pusher and has not been adhering to a neutral point of view. Like, should we as a wikipedian community block this user indefinitely? Abhijay /_Deeds 02:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not without evidence, no. You're going to have to explain your case. Also, you have an admin userbox on your talk page, but you're not an admin. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That said. VVPushkin is making some pretty unusual edits... Nearly all of them are pushing the Soviet Union over Russia. For example, replacing Jewish with Soviet, changing a sentence from "collapse of communism" to read "the 'so-called' collapse of communism (), and

Excellent call with the indef. Swarm 06:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TY. The Cavalry (Message me) 06:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Block review for William S. Saturn

I blocked William S. Saturn William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) 24 hours yesterday for edit warring and he subsequently used an alternative account William Saturn (talk · contribs) to edit through the block. I have therefore blocked William for a further 48 hours as a consequence of sock-puppetry and indefed the alternative account. I invite review. Spartaz 05:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful if someon else stepped in as William is now threatening to repeat his action. . Spartaz 06:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think he definitely means well; his attitude, though, leaves a lot to be desired at present. — Joseph Fox 06:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block to me, although I agree with Fox. Edit warring goes through all 4 diffs with the same content being removed. And if he's evading, then yep, increase the time. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, edit warring is bad, and the approach totally incorrect (and reverting vandalism while blocked is not permitted), but William S. Saturn is correct about the content issue: this edit introduced two red links that are essentially promotions of unknown candidates in Template:United States presidential election, 2012 which is transcluded into lots of articles. I would hope that a gentle discussion might salvage the situation, and a clear indication that the alternative account will never be used in a similar manner might result in it's being unblocked. Johnuniq (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Please don't block William Saturn and William S. Saturn differently. Indef blocks for socks are meant for people who use them to sneak around blocks/bans or for people who have been banned from using multiple accounts; it's a wrong use of an otherwise legitimate account. Extending the block was definitely the right thing to do, but both blocks should expire at the same time. Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Considering that it was a short block for edit warring he evaded solely to make one vandalism reversion, I would match the alt account's block duration to the main account's. As for doubling his block duration, it's certainly "standard procedure", though I'm not convinced even that is necessary. This is about the most harmless form of block evasion I can imagine. Swarm 06:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Agreed and modified as so. -- DQ (t) (e) 06:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Copied the following three-comment dialog from User Talk page on request... (-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC))"

Does IAR even mean anything? I ignored a rule preventing me "from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages" yet I remain blocked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See also WP:LAWYER — Joseph Fox 06:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, that is not my intent. Also, please note that the 3RR block occurred 28 hours after the incident, after it was already settled. And I used an account that redirected back to my main account to do nothing else but revert vandalism. Why is this looked down upon?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Considering that a) There was nothing covert - the alternative account redirects to the user's main one, and he openly stated what he did, b) The second account was not used to further the edit-war, c) All he did was a single edit to revert blatant vandalism, d) The original block was 28 hours after the edit-war had ceased: Is there not a case for leniency here? I'd support shortening both account blocks to time served, as they are already over the original 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the "I'm right and therefore rules don't apply" argument. There are probably thousands of unresolved cased of vandalism on Misplaced Pages at any one time. There is no particular urgency in fixing any particular one. In this blatant yet harmless case there was no reason to assume that anybody would have been misled, and a good chance that someone else actually reading the article (as opposed to routine maintenance visits) would fix it. WP:IAR is a good and useful rule, but it should not be involved frivolously. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The right way to handle it would have been to make a note about it on his own talk page, to remind himself to fix it once the block expired and/or to alert someone else to fix the item. Socking should not be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know why it should not be allowed. The block was placed to stop edit warring. The alternative account did not hinder that in any way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand the above points, but I see someone who was just a bit pissed off at being blocked a full 28 hours after the edit war in question had stopped - and I think I would have been too. It was right to block the second account, but in the circumstances I don't think the extension to 48 hours was necessary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Right" is never a reason for either a) 3RR or b) block evasion - I'm not sure how many hundreds of times that's used to decline unblock requests, etc. A user like William S. Saturn should know better by now, and IAR is not ever an excuse on this. There are specific reasons to allow alternate accounts, and this is not one of them. The alternate account should be indef blocked, just as we would extend to anyone else who used their alt acct while their main is blocked. The block on main account being instituted 28hrs later is potentially questionable, which means an unblock request should have been used instead of WP:EVADE. There are a half-dozen ways to get the article "fixed" without resorting to WP:EVADE. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  Indef blocking a new account created to evade a block, yes, but not one that has been around for years for doing good work and which is openly associated with the main account, but has been used for just *one* minor infraction. Admins are not supposed to be blind rule-followers, we are expected to apply case-by-case evaluations, and in each individual case arrive at the solution that is best for the encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Look, I understand that temporary blocks are meant to stop people from editing for a while and get them to reflect on what they've done wrong. But all he did was revert blatant vandalism under his alternate account. I don't understand why people adhere to such a strict interpretation of Misplaced Pages's policies; a minor infraction committed with good intent should not be a hanging offense. William's action was very much within the spirit of IAR, and I think we should let this one slip. Master&Expert (Talk) 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also, having examined the edit war on this template, I can certainly understand William S. Saturn's frustration. A couple editors were adding non-notable candidates to the template, and Saturn was just trying to make sure it didn't get cluttered with irrelevant information, so readers could navigate easily between the biographies of candidates. Yes, Saturn handled the situation poorly — he should have made an effort towards working through the disagreement by discussing it with the people he was edit warring with. But blocking him for 24 hours over a day after the incident occured does seem punitive. And then afterwards he tried to point out the instance of vandalism on his talk page three times, but nobody paid him any heed. So he took matters into his own hands. Now he's blocked for 48 hours. Why not forget about the rules and do what's right for a change? Master&Expert (Talk) 15:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• And just as a side note, I don't think it's fair or accurate to accuse him of Wikilawyering or being disruptive to illustrate a point when all he did was use an alternate account to revert blatant vandalism. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would agree with that summary. The last one was removing inappropriate content when nobody else seemed to be around to do the job (and it looks like there had been an effort to bring extra eyes onto the issue). I don't think that deserves an increased block. In an ideal world it may not have been necessary; but that's an ideal world where edit-warring IPs stop if you simply explain the problem to them, and an ideal world where neutral editors will promptly come and help out with any dispute. Many political articles are a long way from there. bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone for taking the time to review this. I must confess that the gap between the last revert and the block was larger then I realised at the time of the block and arguably I could have called the AN3 report stale. Given this, and the views expressed, I'd be content for any other admin to reduce the outstanding block to time served. I'll do it myself if there is a quick consensus but I'm sick and not very alert so feel free to act without waiting for me to check back in if that is the agreed outcome. Spartaz 16:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There is NO EXCUSE for sockpuppetry and/or block evasion. Keep the block length as is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• I have unblocked (reduced to time served) as per Spartaz, the blocking admin. That template might be a good candidate for protection; it (just like everything that intersects with US politics) turns into a black hole whose gravity is so strong that even logic cannot escape. I have also let William S. Saturn know that use of alternate accounts is not appropriate, even if they are properly disclosed. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Borderline-obsessive hounding; continued baiting by User:ThatPeskyCommoner

After my opposition to the RfA of a friend of hers, Pesky has been increasingly living up to her name - calling for a civility block for statements she earlier "appreciated". When AN/I rightfully told her what to do with her concerns, she filed an RfC - the fact that it quickly attracted a bunch of "support" from a lot of participants in the aforementioned RfA (despite the opening statement being woefully malformed) certainly not reeking of off-wiki canvassing. Evidently unsatisfied with my sole contribution to that particular circus, she has taken up the habit of leaving pesky (or should I say "badgering"?) constant "friendly reminders" on my talk page, despite being told in no uncertain terms that her input was not welcome. Considering her seeming inability to get the hint, I was unfortunately backed into a corner, and felt the need to make my uncertain terms even less uncertain (trigger warning: Cussword). Pesky parrots the language of civility, but her actions are transparently baiting, and while "don't take the bait" may sound like sound advice, the unfortunate fact of the matter is that some of us are not in this for smug self-satisfaction at "being the better person", and would rather not feel demeaned by "playing along" with the game. I would appreciate it if a third party could step in and let Pesky know that she's certainly living up to her name. Surely she has better things to do than obsessively check my contribution history for terrible, inexcusable edits like this. Badger Drink (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• As I feel it would be somewhat hypocritical of myself to bitch about her talk page horse-poking, then turn around and mess around on her talk page, I would appreciate if a third party could make the AN/I notification - as far as I'm concerned, I'd prefer a complete two-way interaction ban. Badger Drink (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Notification made . Whether you do it yourself, or ask another to do it doesn't change anything, as its a mandatory notification instigated by your starting this discussion... Monty₈₄₅ 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Monty. Badger Drink (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit summary is absolutely unacceptable.  Chzz  ►  18:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. I would block if Badger Drink were even remotely able to learn and get the point. — Joseph Fox 18:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It actually perfectly demonstrates the difference between "surface civility" and "actual civility", Badger having none of the former and Pesky having none of the latter. I agree with Badger Drink that a two-way interaction ban is the best way of solving the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way does telling someone to "fuck off" demonstrate "actual civility"? — Joseph Fox 18:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll point you to this excellent summary as it is said better than I could. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So... how exactly does this justify personal attacks? Because underneath Badger Drink is actually all warm and fuzzy and doesn't really mean what he's saying? - Kingpin (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Just hold on a minute here. Not once am I saying Badger was right to use that edit summary. What I am saying is the full circumstances need to be considered -- that Pesky's badgering of Badger is uncivil -- and that accordingly the proposal for a two-way interaction ban (as opposed to an asymmetrical block) is appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesky is only involved with Badger at all because of his civility problems, they definitely aren't stemming from the interaction with Pesky, so I don't see how that would solve the problem. In addition, I don't see that Pesky is being uncivil, if you can point me to where she was uncivil then fair enough, we do need to address both issues. However, I fail to see how Badger (or anyone else) can know what Pesky's "actual" feelings are. - Kingpin (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pesky's incivility is obvious. She doesn't use cuss-words. But this kind of condescension, having run Badger through the wringer at ANI and an RfC, is rank incivility. It is actually creepy. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

BD has suggested a 2-way interaction ban. The sooner Pesky comes along and agrees, which she will because she is an editor who believes in civility and therefore will respect BD's request, the sooner this issue can be closed without further drama. Leaky Caldron 19:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What a mess. I believe Pesky will already willingly leave Badger Drink well alone and his edit summary certainly put his point across. This is incredibly harshly worded, but I'm not surprised to see it either. I hate to say it, because I like Pesky a great deal, but she has come across as a little obsessive during this, and I can see Badger Drink's point there. It must have been incredibly annoying to continue to receive talk page messages from the person that took him to ANI and the RfC, even if they were mostly just notifications. However, I assume Pesky to be acting in good faith (in fact I'm certain she was, but for others they might need to remember to assume that part). I don't think a formal interaction ban is needed as I'm sure she'll agree to stay off his talk page, but if that's what Badger Drink wants I think she would agree to that too. Bunnies!Leave a message :) 19:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bunnies. Both you and Mkativerata pretty much said what I wish I was equipped to say myself. I would consider it only fair to keep out of Pesky's hair as well - I don't think it'd be right for any sort of asymmetric setup, since neither one of us has been perfect in this tiresome ordeal. Badger Drink (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that Scott MacDonald has blocked BD for 24 hours. 28bytes (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this edit summary and considered it clear-cut unacceptable and blocked. I was, at the time, unaware of this thread. Having reviewed the above now, my blocking rationale stands. Regardless of the provocation, the edit crossed the line. A 24 hour block is clearly justified.--Scott Mac 20:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I support Scott's block given the edit summary. It appears the situation is solved with an agreement not to interact but that edit summary is clear personal attack and civility violation and subject to blocking. --WGFinley (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yet another poor block. Have you people never read WP:Blocking Policy? Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I dislike that block. This thread was hopefully going to sort the problem that led to Badger writing that edit summary, and now he's been silenced. Seems like a punitive block. Bunnies!Leave a message :) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this block too. If anybody deserved a block in this affair, it was Pesky. Talkpage badgering is blockable, and despite the sugery language (or rather because of it), his behaviour was in fact a good deal more "incivil" than Badger's response. Plus, Badger had done the reasonable thing in bringing the matter here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm here now. Firstly, I apologise to BD for upsetting him - no upset was intended. We're not all angry young men in WP, and, being a British granny, I tend to use the kinds of phrases that British grannies use. To be entirely fair, the allegations of "hounding" and "badgering" on the talk page are a little off. The first of BD's three examples (Nov 7th) was the mandatory AN/I notification. The second was a courtesy update, the following day, to let him know that the AN/I thread was closed and that (as advised in the AN/I thread) it was an RfC/U instead. That leaves two edits only - nearly a month later, which was a good-faith attempt at a gentle reminder about keeping edit summaries civil, and so on, exactly as per WP:CIVIL, which says ""If some action is necessary, first consider discussing it on that user's talk page. Be careful not to escalate the situation, and politely explain your objection. You may also wish to include a diff of the specific uncivil statement.". I thought it was less inflammatory to do a gentle reminder on the user's talk page than to mention it at the RfC/U. It wasn't intended to be condescending or patronising - it's just that I'm a granny, and I speak like a granny. It was intended to be a kind but clear reminder of the issues raised in the RfC/U, exactly as per policy, and not "provocation". I'm quite happy to stay away from BD's talk page. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

One thread is enough; please add your comments there. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg (talk · contribs) keeps restoring a personal attack, although I told him that I would not tolerate other insults or accusations. PA's: , and . Warning to stop with that: . Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The removals of the PA were conform WP:RPA. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion: I did notify mr. Berg, but he did not like that. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See AN/I report above , especially admonition of this user toward the end by User:Thumperward and report of further misconduct, which seems to have sparked this. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards