Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Infobox classical composer TfD closure

{{Infobox classical composer}} was deleted as "…redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Unused…" last December, after a short but unanimous discussion which was open for eight days. It was recently recreated, out of process (e.g. no deletion review), and my speedy nomination (under {{db-g4}}) was contested, so I raised another TfD discussion. SarekOfVulcan has now speedily closed that, after less than 24 hours, alleging bad faith (and perhaps believing the false claims including that "a week ago, [I] deleted it almost without discussion" and that "the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper"). I refute the "bad faith" accusation (there are and will be unfounded ad hominem comments from those with opposing views), and suggest that the community should be allowed to discuss the matter properly. (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I didn't believe any false claims - I reviewed the history and previous discussions before closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Which makes your action and comment all the more inappropriate Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

If the template was deleted in the past in a TfD decision and then randomly recreated, you are fully allowed to start another TfD on it, per past consensus. Sarek, you are completely out of line here. Silverseren^C 22:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Silverseren^C 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't lie about closures, Andy. The current discussion was very obviously a speedy keep. Silverseren^C 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Your first comment was the sensible and correct one. With only nine comments, mostly from members of the canvassed projects, in around 21 hours, it's hardly a speedy keep, and that was not the disputed reason given for closure, as I point out above. I have not lied. What makes you suppose otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy -- please -- this was exactly the sort of behavior that got you banned for a year here. Let's not do this again; it's time-wasting drama and completely unnecessary. We actually have a workable compromise infobox! How about working with us in the Composers and Classical music Wikiprojects as colleagues rather than enemies? Honestly, it's possible. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not. Why don't you address the issue I raise, rather than attempting to smear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

History summary since close of template RFC--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

20:02, 21 April 2010 - MSGJ moves draft template to mainspace as part of uninvolved-admin close of RFC. 10:34, 22 April 2010 - PotW nominates template for deletion. 17:23, 1 May 2010 - Plastikspork closes TfD as keep 15:16, 17 December 2011 - PotW nominates template for deletion as unused. 15:56, 25 December 2011 - Plastikspork closes TfD as delete and deletes, but promptly restores and moves to draft space to preserve history. 19:29, 25 December 2011 - PotW replaces deleted article with redirect to {{Infobox person}} 21:49, 7 January 2012 - PotW tags the draft article as "{{Db-multiple|g4|g6|g8|rationale=Draft/ test version of subsequently created, and deleted {{Tl|Infobox classical composer}} }}" 22:08, 7 January 2012 - AngelOfSadness deletes the draft article 17:52, 22 March 2012 - Magioladitis nominates the redirect for deletion as unused, along with several others. 10:46, 23 March 2012 - PotW !votes keep. 15:32, 31 March 2012 - Ruslik0 closes all as keep. 04:22, 20 April 2012 - Ravpapa asks Plastikspork to undelete the template/draft. 04:31, 20 April 2012 - Plastikspork undeletes the draft and histmerges it with the redirect. 19:50, 20 April 2012 - Ravpapa undoes the redirect and restores the RFC-approved template 20:05, 20 April 2012 - PotW tags it as db-g4. 20:45, 20 April 2012 - Ravpapa replaces Infobox musical artist on Terry Riley with Infobox classical composer. 20:50, 20 April 2012 - Antandrus declines the speedy, "being used" 22:13, 20 April 2012 - PotW reverts Terry Riley back to Infobox musical artist 22:13, 20 April 2012 - PotW nominates template for deletion 20:30, 21 April 2012 - SarekOfVulcan closes discussion as speedy keep

Thank you for evidence which confirms the veracity of my initial report here. An additional diff of relevance shows that {{Infobox musical artist}} has been the Terry Riley article since 2 December 2006 (yes, 2006!). It has caused no reported issues in that time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It may confirm what you reported, but what you didn't report is highly relevant as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the evidence, I believe Sarek's close of the TfD was absolutely proper. I would not necessarily say it was a "bad faith" nomination, but reverting a template's use after that template has received extensive discussion and then immediately nominating for deletion on the basis of the template not being used can give that impression. That said, there was adequate consensus to keep the template regardless of whether the nomination was in good or bad faith. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

ITYM "reverting a template's use when that template has been improperly recreated after a TfD decision to delete it…". Since when do we close TfDs with only nine comments, mostly from members of canvassed projects, in under 24 hours? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The recreation was the result of extensive discussion. Just because it had been deleted earlier doesn't make future recreation under these circumstances improper. Merely calling it "improper" doesn't make it so. And TfDs are often closed with much fewer than nine comments, and closed early when the consensus is obvious. After all, the original TfD in which the template was deleted only received 2 comments. Rlendog (talk) 21:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

ANI timing

Collapsing irrelevant sideshow Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[from the above] (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC) We will wait for you to return and discuss it then. - Youreallycan 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Thank you, pelase don't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC) He does raise a point, however, that starting an ANI when you aren't prepared to participate isn't the best way to go about it. Not sure about any guideline requiring this, but it seems common courtesy would. Dennis Brown ® © 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Where do you suppose I said I was "not prepared to participate"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC) I'm not going to get into a sophomoric debate with you about something that is obvious to everyone else. Feel free to simply think me a fool. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Closing 'hit and run' ANI. Since you said you won't be here, wait until you can be if you are going to stir the pot. Dennis Brown ® © 22:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Reopened. I'm not aware of any requirement of 24/7 participation at ANI, nor of a prohibition on ANI participants from sleeping or fulfilling prior social commitments. If I've missed something like that, please feel free to point it out, so that it can be added to ANI's boilerplate. Otherwise, why the hostile response? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC) The closing wasn't meant as hostile. The act of opening an ANI then leaving for 24 hours, however, felt unnecessarily rude. Like calling a friend then instantly putting them on hold for an hour, instead of telling them that you will just call them back. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Just a recommendation: Anyone who thinks this matter should be dropped would do well to simply not reply to it, and don't close it either. Offering a wall for which to volley against will not help the matter. Equazcion (talk) 18:59, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban

It appears that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has issues mischaracterizing matters that he brings to AN or comments on here and this can mislead editors reviewing his requests. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and above. It has also been found by Arbcom in the past that Pigsonthewing is unwilling to follow the Wiki way of doing things 1 and mischaracterizes matters 2. What would the community think of either banning PoTW from commenting at AN/ANI or banning his participation in TFD/MicroFormat discussions (those appear to be the source of most of his disputes)? MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose banning PotW from Microformat discussions, as that's where he's done some of his best work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

How would you feel about the AN/ANI ban if it turns out that his problem is in discussing his project with the wider wiki community? MBisanz ^talk 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Abstain, since this is a subthread of an ANI he's raised about me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I quite agree PotW needs to be banned from something, possibly from the whole project, and I definitely don't think the problem can be localized simply by banning him from some forms of AN participation. His problems are far more general and spread far more widely. The general issue here is that PotW seems to be fundamentally unable to let go of a matter. Once he's become fixated on something – be it the birth date of some semi-notable radio moderator, or the question of what infobox to put into classical composer articles – he will continue keeping that dispute alive across any number of pages, literally for years, confronting any number of other editors about it, fighting out spin-offs of spin-off conflicts through one venue after another, and just never let go, no matter how obvious it is that there is no consensus for his position. Right now, he's at another spin-off dispute at Template talk:Infobox classical composer, and is again accusing some other guy of "dishonesty" [1] over yet another side issue. Since all these disputes somehow indirectly appear to be related to his great project of infoboxes and "microforms", and since this pattern of conflict-seeking seems to be a very very deeply entrenched personality matter, I am afraid we will have little choice but to either put up with it and let him continue everywhere, or ban him from the project completely. My choice would be the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• My choice unfortunately is also the second. This is a collaborative project, and his attitude is profoundly anti-collaborative, at least every time I've run into him. I wish I could grant him an "a-ha!" moment where he sees that he's actually the cause of his own problems, by making war on people rather than collaborating with them, but my hopes are slim. I'm open to other ideas on how to proceed. It's a shame because he's so talented at what he does. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Although I have read much of the previous controversies, I didn't participate. While I have no simple solution, I have to say that I have reservations about this one. I'm afraid we would just exporting the drama to another venue where the pattern would start all over again. Unless there is something particular about this board that causes all the problems, banning him from here isn't likely to solve the problem. A bit strong, but this is akin to the police giving a homeless person a one way bus ticket to another city. You move the problem to a different place but it doesn't go away. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• Well, this seems like that awkward situation where instead of a topic ban, the community believes a site ban is the only way to end the disruption. Should I just copy this over to WP:AN or can I find an uninvolved admin to close it here on ANI? MBisanz ^talk 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "3 editors" <> "the community". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I didn't say I was ready to site ban him, I said "I have no simple solution" (banning == simple). Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. At to site banning, I remain neutral, not committed. I still have no alternative to ANI banning, but as I stated, feel it would only serve to push the problem to a different board. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Hang on a minute; this is starting to take on the appearance of a witch-hunt. Have you actually looked at the diffs Matthew presented? They are from years ago - the ArbCom links are from 2007 and 2005! The more recent ones seem to be cataloguing Andy's attempts to raise problems that he perceives here, and getting short shrift from editors who don't understand a technical issue. Now I'll admit that I've "crossed swords" with Andy on technical issues, but that has never gone beyond robust discourse. On the other hand I've also found him most amenable to collaborative work - see how WP:HLIST was developed for an example. His technical skills and understanding are valuable to the project, and we need to be looking for ways of helping established editors overcome problems and concentrate on constructive work, not crude bans and blocks in these circumstances. I see that WP:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing dates from 2005. Has any other RFC occurred in the intervening 7 years? --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I would be interested in how you explain thatthis, this, or this, from this month, show evidence of POTW's committment to, and participation in, the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions? MBisanz ^talk 17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if you insist. I've already commented at Template_talk:Infobox_classical_composer#Dishonest_comment_in_TfD_summary_box that Andy is expressing himself too forcefully for my taste, but you have to admit that he was right that the {{tfd end}} comment "delete, but decision was later reversed by deleting admin because of lack of notification of interested parties and discussion" simply did not accurately characterise the closing admin's subsequent comments: "Reviewing the debate, it looks like the main issue was that it wasn't being used. I actually moved it to "Wikipedia:Infobox composer/draft" to allow for further discussion, and to preserve the page history. It was subsequently deleted there by another admin. I will restore it to User:Ravpapa/Infobox composer. I will leave it up to you to decide what to do with it after that". I think Antandrus ought also to bear some responsibility for the unnecessary warring going on there.
• I'm sorry, but given that Future Perfect at Sunrise made a controversial block of Andy quite recently, he really isn't the best person to be issuing warnings and threats of ArbCom on Andy's talk page. Are there really no other uninvolved admins around to talk to Andy in a less confrontational manner? Nobody is going to condone Andy going over the top in response, but do you seriously believe that "I strongly recommend you stop issuing warnings over content disputes in which you are involved, especially while discussion is ongoing on talk pages; and stop ignoring the findings of the RfC which found that systematic removal of infoboxes would be disruptive. Your unwarranted and out-of-process block of me regarding Hawkins resulted in you being criticised and subsequently undoing it; and the topic ban proposal which it led to twice found no consensus." is so far out of court as to warrant a ban?
• Are you seriously putting forward this: ""If this is the reason for your insistence…" - It isn't. Also, your proposal is both technically and logistically unworkable. Any local consensus in the classical music project is, as has been pointed out many times, not least in the outcome of that project's RfC, and core Wikipedia policy, unenforceable in articles. Matters regarding claims of optimal human readability are best determined through measurement such as those as carried out by our accessibility and usability projects, not the asserted aesthetic preferences of individual editors." as evidence of a breach of the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions?
• You've always struck me as being a very fair and responsible editor, and I'm willing to give way if I'm proven wrong, but are you sure that an insistence on banning a productive editor is the best course right now? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• My first interaction with POTW was over three years ago here. Since then, I've seen him crop up time and time again pushing his POV on microformat codes by mischaracterizing other people's words when they disagree with them or curtly insulting them for not understanding him. I've seen him at protected template requests declaring something is horribly broken and needs to be changed, when it is just his opinion that a certain format should be used. I've seen him here announcing that someone is grievously violating policy, when they simply disagree with his technical opinion. Looking back further before my first interaction with him, I see a nearly decade long track record of an inability to communicate with people and accept that consensus of the Wiki community is what matters for decision-making, not experts (as he claims in the third diff) or other people with particular agendas that they wish to import into the Project. The acerbic tone he does it with and his inability to temper it over such a long period of time of feedback is what has convinced me a ban is appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• I had forgotten about this conversation where he kept insisting on getting a bot approved while refusing to link to consensus for the bot task. MBisanz ^talk 23:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – all the sanctions suggested are completely ludicrous. The vast majority of Andy's edits since his return years and years ago from a 1-year block have been positive and uncontroversial. And the fuss about composer infoboxes is a storm in a teacup as the classical music project seem to insist on (a) no infoboxes; (b) the retention of a specific infobox not to use. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion. I think a site ban is too harsh a punishment. I do think a topic ban from all info box related discussions is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Ridiculous proposal. Show us something recent and relevant. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support any sanctions that prevent the disruption caused by PotW. Since he is right, it follows that the silly people who actually write the articles but who disagree with him are wrong, and must be opposed, literally for years. More evidence would probably be needed to achieve a sanction, but I am recording my opinion in hope that PotW will take the hint and leave content creators alone. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Let's not make this a "content creation" battle, not least because that would be as fallacious (and damaging to the community) as it always is. Interaction problems here have nothing to do with what namespace one chooses to work in most often. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Have you seen the underlying issues? Some content builders have chosen to not decorate articles on classical composers in a manner that complies with PotW's standard. The content builders are then harrangued literally for years. Of course it's done with all the CIVIL boxes ticked, and there are plenty of helpful links to WP:OWN and other pages intended to poke the content builders. It's totally unnecessary, and it drives content builders away. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • What I'm saying is that it isn't healthy to frame it as "Andy versus content builders" as if a) he doesn't build content and b) his interaction with "content builders" is universally negative. "Andy versus the composers project on infoboxes" is a far more accurate frame for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm finding it a little extreme to be suggesting this. Ok, so I haven't had a lot of interaction with the user in question, but from my perspective, it seems that some people now want to persecute (I do not intend any insult with this word... it may be a bit strong, but I'm tired and can't think of a better word at the moment) a user who is perhaps trying to push his own point to forcefully (it seems, with regularity), or maybe someone who takes WP:BOLD or WP:IAR a little too far. But banning him, either from topics or the project, doesn't really help, seeing as the user has also demonstrated very helpful abilities. A ban seems to me to be simply a way of saying "go away, I don't like you," which doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate way of resolving issues like this. This isn't to say I endorse the manner in which PotW tends to pursue his opposers, but rather that I feel the proposed actions are not the right sort of action to take. Brambleclawx 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. It disturbs me that so many admins seem to be willing to sweep the problems created by PotW under the carpet simply because he is highly productive in other places. I hope that this discussion will not result in no action being taken to curtail PotW's actions. It would be akin to endorsing his negative behavior from the admin board. Do we want to send the mesaage that as long as you are valuable in some places we'll tolerate disruptive behavior in other places? Further, as far as I can tell PotW sees nothing wrong with any of his tactics, and they show no signs of stopping. This pattern of disruptive behavior has been going on for years, and is only likely to continue. If nothing is done here and now, then ANI is only likely to get more future complaints.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm not seeing much the admins can do at this point. There is nothing immediately blockable, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus for any topic bans. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Huh, I re-emerge from inactivity today because I'm about to get auto-demopped, and lo and behold, POTW is back on ANI again. Why am I not surprised? For heaven's sake, people, I took this guy to ArbCom many years ago over the classical music infobox debacle, and here he is again, causing trouble over the exact same topic because he thinks he can get away with trolling the exact same people because time has passed. Last time he got banned for a year over this. Can we please, for the love of god, topic-ban him at least this time? If not from micro-formats and his beloved boxen, then at least from anything classical music related. I think I speak for everyone who edits these articles when I say that we are sick to our back teeth of POTW, who has caused no end of grief. He is not doing this in good faith; he is doing this to provoke and because he is simply incapable of giving up on a fight. This is the very definition of tendentious editing. It's beyond farcical that a year-long ban from ArbCom was not enough to keep him away from this area. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The year-long ban was beyond farcical. Andy is robustly arguing for conventions commonplace, uncontroversial and commonplace across the majority of wikipedia but opposed by a segment of "everyone who edits these articles"; think owners. I'm absolutely convinced he is acting in the very best of faith and deplore your assertion otherwise. I know that Andy sees the connection between regular data elements embodied in infoboxen and metadata / semantic web uses of wikipedia content. It's more than depressing that the reaction to a person who continues to argue against a point favoured by a small group is to seek to exclude that person. Actually, bluntly, it's chilling. Am I to expect that if I support Andy's arguments I will find myself labelled tendentious and a candidate for a site or topic ban? Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is defined in terms of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; this just does not apply here. Neither do I see "frustrate[d] proper editorial processes and discussions", although I'm sure that you're personally a bit frustrated that he just won't let it drop. That's not the same thing, at all. Oppose. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban part 2

From anything classical music related, as per my above post. [2]. Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. This to me would be the bare minimum response that can and should be done. Otherwise we may need to bring PotW back before arbcom for going back to his old ways.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've been looking at the background to the classical music infobox dispute and it didn't take many minutes to find this sort of edit, where the date of birth, age, genre, and years active were removed by replacing the previously adequate infobox with inferior information. If this is typical of the problems Andy is complaining about, we should be encouraging him to do more in this area, not removing him from the topic so that those sort of damaging edits can be made unchallenged.

• That's a highly cherry picked comment. One can easily add several examples of infoboxes Andy Mabbett has added that are factually inaccurate and stripped of essential nuance. See the Marian Anderson article history for example.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Cherry picked"?? Well what about this one then? which removed genre, instruments, and labels - he is famous as a minimalist and yet that's gone from the infobox which is supposed to give an overview at a glance. Are you prepared to defend that as well as the previous one?
• Or this one? where we lost Scott Joplin's place of birth, place of death, years active and the fact that he was known for ragtime? or are those the sort of things you think visitors to his page wouldn't be looking for?
• Cherry picked, indeed. How about you strike that ad hominem garbage and start taking in an interest in the actual articles? Those two diffs above need reverting to restore the useful information, and you could do it as easily as I. --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• And I might as well call you on your smear of Andy above. This is how the Marian Anderson looked after Andy replaced the picture with an infobox. Take a look at it. Just what is "factually inaccurate" there? I'm completely agnostic on whether to have an infobox or not, but even I can see that your claim is baseless. Wouldn't you also agree it is a little bit rum to be accusing Andy of "stripping of essential nuance" while you are defending others who replace one infobox with another containing even less information? Who's doing the stripping of essential nuance here? Or is Scott Joplin's association with ragtime an inessential nuance, perhaps. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• My qualms over the infobox at the Anderson article involve the description of the voice as a musical instrument. An instrument by definition is something non-biological outside of the body which is used to make music. A singer is never refered to as an instrumentalist. A singer is called a vocalist. As for your other complaints, I am not here to defend others actions which I may or may not agree with. I have not edited the Joplin article or contributed to it in any significant way. I also don't have it on my watchlist. Those issues should be discussed at that article. 4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The vast majority of our articles on musical artists treat vocals as an "instrument" for the sake of consistency. The argument that this is somehow "inaccurate" doesn't carry any water at all. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• That kind of attitude is exactly why I dislike infoboxes. You illustrated nicely how factually inaccurate content can be spread encyclopedia wide for the sake of uniformity. Who cares if it's wrong information as long as it can be shoved into a box? Go to any School of Music and you will find a clear division of performance tracks, one for instrumentalists and one for vocalists. Wikipedia should strive to mirror academic categorizations. Further, one could easily point out errors within other infoboxes to nitpick over. This is just one example of how the musical artist infobox has issues. 4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• The "wrong information" is just your viewpoint. People are rarely that easily categorised. Was John Lennon a vocalist or an instrumentalist? Was Louis Armstrong a trumpeter or a vocalist? and so on. Take a look at the sleeve notes of most modern albums - the artists often contribute vocals as well as the instruments that fit your definition with no clear division of performance. Wikipedia has no need whatsoever to mirror academic categorisations when that gets in the way of presenting useful information. You are right that there are issues with the musical artist infobox, and there are similar issues with as the classical composer infobox as well. Why are you so keen to rid the area of someone who is intent on making the best presentation of information when an infobox is used? You still haven't replied to my question about whether you support the removal from infoboxes of vital statistics such as date of birth and age, as well as crucial information such as genre and years active. What's your answer? Yes or no? --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• What an odd response. If someone sings professionally they are a vocalist. If someone plays an instrument they are an instrumentalist. If someone does both than they are both a vocalist and an instrumentalist. Lennon and Armstrong would obviously be considered both, and the infoboxes on their articles should be designed to reflect that in a clear way. This can be done without placing "vocals" under the subheading of musical instrument as it currently is. On a side note, I agree that crucial information can and should remain in an infobox when an infobox is used. Reguardless, my opinions on that matter are not pertinent to this conversation. My problem with PotW is that whenever the classical music projects have expressed the difficulties the musical artist infobox often causes when utilized on classical musician articles he has repeatedly ignored our concerns. Rather than helping us design a more suitable infobox, he has insisted on continuing to use an infobox that has created factual inaccuracies across many articles. The result has been edit wars across many articles and unproductive conversations that repeat the same arguements over and over for literally years. It's frankly annoying as hell and a waste of everyone's time. I personally would like to see a more friendly infobox designer approach the composer/opera/classical/G&S/CCM/and Wagner projects to help us design some infoboxes which would address the concerns of the various projects. It would be most helpful. That said, I am not a proponent of every article having an infobox. If all the info in the box is the dob, dod, and occupation than it's a rather pointless redundancy in the article in my opinion. Infoboxes are useful when they contain summation of facts and details beyond what is obviously apparent in the very first sentence of the lead.4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification, and I suspect we may not be too far apart now. I certainly agree that not every bio needs an infobox. We also agree that an individual could be a vocalist and an instrumentalist, but how do you think that is best presented in an infobox (assuming that we might agree it is pertinent info)? The simplest way is to mimic album covers, and put something like "Instruments: vocals, guitar". I understand that you object to that as factually inaccurate, and yet almost all of our audience would understand perfectly what we intended it to mean. Sometimes we have to trade-off precision for précis when we try to cram information into a small space like an infobox. That is where I think you're having disagreements with Andy. Is it possible that there is no "good solution" to the problem we're discussing? Perhaps what you have is a simple disagreement about which imperfect infobox is least worse for the job? If you look back at the example diffs I adduced above, can you not concede that Andy is no more wrong than anybody else who is picking an infobox to use? I understand that you feel frustrated that Andy does not share your preferences in infoboxes, but the encyclopedia does not get improved by silencing everybody who disagrees with you, particularly where they may be at least partially right. I've spent some time looking at the discussions linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines #Biographical infoboxes and I'm not seeing your claims about Andy having any substance there. If I'm looking in the wrong place, then please produce the diffs on which your complaints about Andy rest. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Seeing his conduct at Talk:Terry_Riley#Infobox continues to show he doesn't get the community editing process in music articles and has no interest in learning it. I do not dispute that some of his edits are useful, but his usefulness does not outweigh his disruption. MBisanz ^talk 01:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• In light of MoreYschi's comment, I realize I may have sought relief in the wrong forum, I have asked for clarification at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FPigsonthewing. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Suppport Wikipedia is a big place and PotW's attention is not required everywhere. I see no suggestion that PotW has an interest in classical music apart from attending to infoboxes, and if there is a pressing need for any change in that area, another editor will be available to take up the challenge. I have not been monitoring the situation, but have unintentionally noticed the wasted time and the ill feelings caused when PotW interacts with article developers who disagree with him—it serves no useful purpose and drives away good editors. The long block record and previous cases (like from 2005) show that nothing short of a formal topic ban will be effective in protecting the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• A topic ban isn't necessary and in many cases would be counterproductive per RexxS's examples. Talk:Terry Riley#Infobox is instructive indeed, but certainly not in a way which casts a more negative picture on Andy than the other parties present. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose to sustain the legal fiction that WikiProjects do not make policy by fiat. --NYKevin @818, i.e. 18:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Rinpoche Back Via Proxy

User:Rinpoche posted on User:Drmies talk page via a proxy. Could an admin block the initial proxy account for the stardard 5 years and then block the whole range for the same? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I wish you had dropped me a line (I blocked the 81 IP)--if you had, I wouldn't have embarrassed myself! (See section below.) Drmies (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry about not notifying you about the ANI thread. I was just about to signoff for the night when I seen that post by Rinpoche and I posted to ANI. I am actually surprised it was coherent as tired as I was. :) Anywho, my apologizes, will definitely make sure all are notified in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Can we please get evidence (up here, so it doesn't get lost in the discussion) of the harassment? Revdeled is fine: I have magic glasses. I am not aware of it; I apologize if I'm asking for something redundant. I see some oversighted edits but my magic glasses aren't that strong. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• You can probably see this: User:FightingMac/Van Gogh "dark" debate. I can't remember what's on it to be honest; he has a habit of attempting to out people. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for Rinpoche

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

---

Further to the above, as this guy incessantly returns to cause more disruption in various places under various sock accounts, I propose a full community ban from wikipedia, so that his edits can simply be reverted immediately once they have been identified.

• Support as nom Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Superfluous As an indefinitely blocked user, his edits can already simply be reverted immediately once they have been identified. The only thing a community ban does is prevent admins from unblocking his accounts once they are aware that the account is a sock of Rinpoche. Is there really a risk of that happening?—Kww(talk) 11:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you, but to give an example of why a ban would be useful: my most recent interaction with him involved an RfC started by a sock of his regarding an issue which had already been addressed. After he was blocked he could no longer flog the horse, but the RfC still had to be allowed to run its course because redacting comments made by blocked users is against guidelines, whereas doing the same for a banned user is recommended (if I understand things correctly). Blocks and bans are two different things; there are subtle differences in the way they are applied. I think a ban would be useful in this instance. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand correctly. All edits made by block evading editors and by banned editors are subject to precisely the same restrictions.—Kww(talk) 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Identified by whom? Nobody Ent 11:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Any good faith editor is the prevailing standard. There's no requirement to wait for a checkuser, SPI enquiry, or any form a elaborate consensus-seeking proposal.—Kww(talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you have got that from. The policy says that any edit of a sitebanned user may be reverted, AfD closed etc etc. It says nothing similar about an editor who is simply blocked. Indeed how could it, as many editors are indefinitely blocked for quite short periods of time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits made in defiance of blocks have always been revertable, Elen. I don't know why you believe otherwise. WP:BAN#Difference between bans and blocks details the issue under "Content created during block or ban" in the table.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't said that for very long: it was changed relatively recently. All they way up until that point, there was nothing on that page to indicate that edits of blocked editors could be reverted without question. I don't see any discussion on the talk page relating to that change (I could be missing it), so it must have been a bold one. Noting in the blocking policy says that blocked editors can be reverted without question. Doc talk 15:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite incidentally, I opened a discussion on a very similar question just a few hours ago, at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#3RR exception for edits by blocked users. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It was coincident with this discussion. An indefinitely blocked editor that no one will unblock is de facto banned, and we've always treated them that way. Reverting an editor based on "block evasion" has always been accepted, and WP:CSD#G5 specifically includes both blocked and banned editors. Not a very bold edit at all.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, your change had the unfortunate side-effect of all blocked editors, not just indeffed, having their edits reverted without question. Ouch. Doc talk 17:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Not an unfortunate side-effect at all. If someone evades a block, it's block evasion, and the content created during block evasion is subject to reversion and deletion. Content created before or after a block is not.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the unfortunate side-effect is it gives wiki-warriors license to bite any new editor that has the misfortune to resemble a banned/blocked editor without the benefit of consensus and good faith. Nobody Ent 17:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• As an involved "Any good faith editor" with virtually no grasp of Wikipedia banning/blocking technicalities, I'd just like to add moral support to Basilisk's point that this pseudo-Rinpoche guy continues to disrupt with his smelly-sock reincarnations. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support. Over the last several days this individual has been posting from a host of different IPs, engaging in outing attempts directed at a minor, as well as boasting about the off-wiki harassment that he also mentions in the post to Drmies' page linked above. The vast majority of his dozens of posts over these last few days have had to be revdel'd, a fair proportion have also been oversighted, and several rangeblocks put in place to limit the harassment. My presumption was that the person was already banned. If they aren't, then it's way past time. (Information from elsewhere suggests they are better known under another troublemaking name, but I'll leave that for people who know more of the background to either comment on or not). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The nuances are different for a block and a ban. When there is a question of extending an indef block to a ban, routine approval of the ban is probably the simplest action to take, unless it's one of those indefinite-for-now blocks where the person might be unblocked at any time if they agree to change their behavior. Rinpoche is a guy whose talk edits are now being rev-deleted, so he is pretty far gone from normal editing. I am notifying the two blocking admins in case they want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban, wastes community time (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch89#Lede image Major depressive disorder), but even after blocking, was still posting via multiple IPs to MastCell's talk.[3] Good luck with this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • That is an impressive range of IPs they're employing. I wish I was that clever or tenacious. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support They shouldn't be allowed to edit here again without clear community consensus as they have shown they are unwilling to comply with the terms of the block. The problems at Major Depressive Disorder alone justify the ban, plus I've had to revert a few of their sock comments on my own talk page [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and sent him to SPI here. A civil sockpuppet is still a sockpuppet. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

...and a particularly bad faith one, it would seem. A few hours before User:LHirsig was identified as a sock of Rinpoche, the user page rapidly expanded (diffs nla) to provide personal and family history, together with a committed identity. I found that quite striking. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Response to Drmies (below). I think it's relevant to point out that the standard offer has already been made, and that I honestly believe this editor is past becoming constructive. Under every guise, he has always caused significant disruption, and he appears to enjoy conflict and causing problems more than he does actually editing. I think the project is better off without him. However, if some extremely patient administrator were to be happy to mentor him, then I would take a deep breath and welcome it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I did see the offer, yes, and their declining it. I guess I was here also testing the waters to see if, besides huge disruption (as suggested by Sandy, above) there was something worthwhile keeping here: User:AnotherWeeWilly/sandbox . I wasn't aware of the abuse--and I actually have not seen evidence of it, only evidence of its removal. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: User is indefinatley blocked. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious support: Having to look for a reason for reverts in this case is a waste of time. Calabe1992 17:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban after further perusal of evidence but Calabe, I disagree. Such decisions should not be taken lightly. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support full community ban. User has no good intentions for the project and no intention of conforming with our norms. --John (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support ban. Also would like to see all the sock accounts tied to the sockmaster account. The FightingMac account created a fair number of socks as far as I know they've not all been tied to Rinpoche and I think this should be done. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Did you see the SPI? I don't know if anyone ran CU on Mac. Tnxman recently ran CU on the 81 IP and found User:PJBoellaard. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's in the block log for FM & lots of others. But they've never been tied together. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Added these: [10], [11], [12]. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• support The editor has left the community no other option. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Motion to close.... - Since no editor has made a comment in this entire section in over 24 hours, I think concluding it and carrying out the will of the community is in order, if an uninvolved administrator is willing. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 12:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

To ban or not to ban?

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

---

Eye candy to draw you in. Why is this perspective so hypnotically striking?

Hello all. I'll try to be succinct. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche/Archive. The editor done some bad things, apparently, socked around a bit, and is now IP-ing in what appears to be an attempt to set the record straight. On one of the IP talk pages they were referred to as a banned editor but I see no evidence that they actually were banned, though de facto that seems to be the case; see User talk:81.178.38.169. The user seems to have an urge to contribute though they deny that at the same time; I guess that's typical socking behavior. Right now they're hopping about a bit and got in touch with me (I blocked the 81 IP a little while ago).

What I'd like to know is this. Should we ban the user, or should we not? My gut feeling is that acting as if there is already a ban (and some comments from good-willing but in my opinion overzealous editors on that IP talk page) only antagonizes the editor. Moreover, and I've asked for a second opinion on this, I think that the editor can contribute. We could, for instance, consider the standard offer with a topic ban (on some psychology-related articles) for good measure. Mind you, I have no dog in this fight, only Jimbo's miniature schnauzer: I don't necessarily want to break a lance for this editor, but I always dislike the piling-on that sometimes takes place. I think the editor has something to contribute.

I'm going to drop a couple of notifications in various places and hope for some input that goes beyond the standard "turn de facto ban into real ban". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Errm... take a look at the section above this - may be related.. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

S**t. Hadn't looked at anything at all yet. Eh, can someone merge this carefully and elegantly? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

‎User:Don Cuneo removing the Afd Template

‎User:Don Cuneo removed an AfD template from the article they created. I restored the template leaving an extended edit comment. They removed again. I leaved a notice at their talk page which they reverted. This exhausts the communication avenues available to me. I request a more experienced editor to re-explain them the policy and to restore the AfD template. Note that this is a new user and may require special care. The user will be now notified. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Notified him regarding the afd policy. Calabe1992 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also restored a tag on another article that he had erased. Calabe1992 18:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This editor looks very similar to User:King Genovese: stub articles about non-notable mob characters, and a great deal of blanking of deletion notices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)

Hmmm. Let me take a look around at things. Calabe1992 20:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Stalker is showing an overlap on Carlo Profeta and Michael J. Perna, both of which were created by King and had a deletion template removed by Don (one AfD, one PROD). I've asked the user to disclose if he is the operator of both accounts, so we'll see where that goes. Calabe1992 20:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Still attempting to get ahold of the editor. Calabe1992 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement on user page

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

---

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.

The greater policy question can be handled at another venue (let me suggest WP:VPP) however there was not any consensus for administrator action during the last discussion Red Pen participated in; in a few hours that is unlikely to change. Let me suggest moving the discussion over the policy issue to the more appropriate venue. --Jayron32 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

---

The user page User:Cla68 contains an advertisement, listing specific serivces for hire for specific prices upon contacting specific address.

Advertising is prohibited by policy, including user pages, and without regard for whether the services may or may not be related to Wikipedia.

The introduction to WP:SOAP reads as follows: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."

The inappropriate content has been removed multiple times and been returned, ostensibly because there was not a clear consensus in a previous discussion. The previous discussion may have ended without consesus on a number of things such as whether a particular phrase of a guideline might or might not apply, and whether or not paid editing is appropriate.

I am now asking the community to affirmatively address specifically whether there is consensus to disregard policy and allow an advertisment on this user page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I could have sworn that was what this thread was about? It closed as no consensus for administrative action regarding his advertisement within the last 24 hours. MBisanz ^talk 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think his userpage – or a particular part of it – should be deleted, you'll need to nominate it at MfD. 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also: if your interpretation of policy differs from another editor's the solution is not to edit-war. I see you've attempted to remove the material from that user page twice; fortunately an admin has protected it or else there'd be some edit-warring blocks coming if it kept up. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:SOAP prohibits advertisement and as WP:SOAP is policy, the advertisment must be removed and consensus must be shown for it to stay. Red Pen of Doom is right! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Plus, now that he's commercializing things, file a Better Business Bureau complaint about his editing - it's deserved :-) Not to suggest a violation of WP:NLT, but he creates a legal liability upon himself that can no longer be avoided by the free-nature of the editing...he has lost all protection (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My word, such a pronouncment would seem to be intended to have a chilling effect on an editor's work →StaniStani  17:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone attempting to make a profit off of the "free encyclopedia" should not only be chilled, but ashamed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that right? Once an editor is paid for writing something he or she is legally responsible and so could be personally sued for libel? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You can still be sued for libel (and successfully too) regardless of whether you're being paid. There's been numerous discussions about recent court cases that have resulted in this, so being paid has nothing to do with that. Furthermore, please stop your implied threats. Also, if you're being paid by a client to improve their article, then I don't see how libel comes into it at all. Silverseren^C 20:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

While the legal and liability implications of paid editing (both for the paid editor and for Wikipedia in general if paid editing becomes prevalent) probably warrant futher discussion somewhere, a (nominally closed) ANI discussion about the actions of an individual editor is clearly not the place for such discussion. Concentrate on individual editors and their behaviour here please.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Nigel, will do, apologies. I used to think closed meant closed, until I saw a new comment from Kosh here and lots of replies. But I'd like to know, Silverscreen, why is it "furthermore" and what exactly are these "implied threats" that you tell me I have made? As for libel, might not one organiusation or person want to pay for a "more accurate" article about a rival? User Cpla68 seems to make to distinctions in their advert. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind you guys that the user is new and these comments could be perceived as a legal threat. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 21:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a relevant RfC on this topic at WT:UP#Request for comment - Advertising on user pages, if anyone is interested in continuing the discussion there. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 22:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

...and Cla68's userpage is nominated for deletion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Possible class project creating essay-like articles

I came across a few articles that I thought were being edited by socks or meatpuppets. On closer inspection, it appears to be a class project that is using Wikipedia to post their research papers as articles. In one of the AfDs, a number of editors have tried to explain the problem, but there may be a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with the students' worry they will lose marks if their articles are deleted. Can someone please take a look at the following:

Articles (that I have identified so far):

• Civilian perspectives on media freedom‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian perspectives on media freedom)
• Economic Constraints on Media Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nominated for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic Constraints on Media Freedom)
• Concepts of Media Freedom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Media Sustainability Index (MSI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors (that I have identified so far):

• Zhumengmeng (talk · contribs)
• NinaLanger (talk · contribs)
• Hsmkw (talk · contribs)
• Color1011 (talk · contribs)
• Somkw (talk · contribs)
• 91.89.48.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Talk page discussions

• User talk:Singularity42#Deleting Discussion about Economic Constraints on Media Freedom
• User talk:Singularity42#Zhumengmeng (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be a bit busy over the next few days, so I'm not really in a position to step in here. If an admin or an experienced editor can help out, that would be great. Singularity42 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I've just got a dirty mind - or German's a naturally hilarious language - but someone with a basic understanding of German might want to have a look at this one's current user page, which would appear to suggest there's at least some prankery going on. Either way, agreed all the content seems to be dodgy non-encyclopedic waffle. Not quite sure why a school or college would be doing this - is the point to showcase the homework/essays, or is it more of a project to see what you can get onto Wikipedia (and the essay content per se is kind of secondary to that)? Quite good evidence too, more generally, that impressive-looking sourcing and lists of footnotes count for little by themselves. N-HH talk/edits 14:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

About the user page, I was tempted to blank it with an edit summary of "oh come on, you don't really need that, do you?", but then I saw he had already removed it himself. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh. The MSI article certainly has a future and it's no prank. Come on, we had editors with swastikas on their user pages (I know one editor with tits on their user page), and new users do think of it as their little MySpace. I put Template:Educational assignment on its talk page; the others need that as well. What they need is some advice on what makes encyclopedic writing, and what we need is to know who's in charge, if anyone is. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not harsh in the least. I simply asked the question and asked someone who might be able to confirm either way to have a look. Even if the page really does translate as saying "prosthetic penis", "long and thick", I merely said that would point to some prankery being involved, not that it would be evidence, by itself, that all these contributions were worthless. I only looked at the first two articles - and here I will be harsh - and they simply looked like that kind of random essays on nebulous topics that have no purpose in an encyclopedia other than to inflate the egos of the people writing them. This place is not a blog or an essay-hosting service for would-be academics to publish their brilliant but otherwise neglected opinions and synthesis. The MSI one looks better, having looked at it just now. N-HH talk/edits 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• oh my god. i am so sorry. this is a sendbox accident by a friend of mine, he just wanted to show me how to make headlines. it has nothing do to with the quality of my article. i know this words are really inappropriate and i am so embarrased right now. can someone please show me how to delete this or delete it for me?Somkw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC).
  • Heh. Sure, don't worry. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Lang und dick, bretthart, like a Wiki admin. Hard als een rotsblok, en daar ben ik trots op! Drmies (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry for making you feel that way,but please do not misundstand. This is not a showcase or something,by saying that I just mean it's important for me to get this article uploaded and I'll really try my best to make it qualified. Without knowing the details,please not deny our work just by glimpsing at the source lists and the footnotes!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Zhumengmeng, is there an instructor for this project? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, none of them are actually badly written - they seem perfectly decent as essays, and with decent footnoting. The problem is that - in my view, and I'm only one person - the first three at least are about such vague conceptual things that it's pretty hard to write about them without it being an essay. Whatever you do to the content, they're not going to cut it as an encyclopedia entries, which - again, in my view - have to be about something a bit more tangible and defined. Also, I accept it may be important to you, but that's not the criteria for creating articles. And I'm not denying your work, I'm just saying I don't think it should be hosted here. N-HH talk/edits 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding, Drmies! The point by saying it's a school project does not mean the articles should be published or we beg for publishing or something. The point is, we can learn about the encyclopedic writing style by creating articles in wikipedia and we are also trying to figure out its difference from the educational assignments. We are here to learn and please be considerate,it is neither a project nor a prank, and there is no instructor...Please do not be so harsh on us,N-HH,you already make me scaried. Yes, I accept your judgement,the articles are not qualified, I'm just looking forward on some adivices. Thank you!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not trying to scare you, just explain what the problem is (and I've recently run into a whole load of what I consider dubious new content being added here; my view is that WP is more than full enough of such stuff, which might explain some of my exasperation. Even after several years I don't add much new content myself). Your comment above that you're posting enormous amounts of new content as part of some kind of test or learning exercise doesn't inspire confidence though. N-HH talk/edits 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• So, if this is not a school project, tell me what it is--a half a dozen articles on similar topics. BTW, we encourage school (and other) projects, but having someone to talk to, a spokesperson in case of group work, makes things a lot easier. For starters, you should probably all have a look at WP:NOTESSAY: encyclopedic articles aren't like essays, and reading that guideline may help clear up why two of the articles are currently up for deletion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

N-HH,I totally agree with you,I didn't realize the question until I edited my article here and got these feedbacks. The topic I've choosen is too ambiguous to give a defination. I will consider writing a new article instead of revising this one. We are just a 4 students group for a topic on "media freedom",we presented our findings on this topic in a seminar and are supposed to create articles about our findings on wikipedia. We don't mean to put more load on your work by creating some nonsense in your eyes. We've just read some literature and found something that maybe worthful to spread. Right now I've got a clearer boundary,the next article will be better.Thank you very much for all these discussions!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, we now have WP:ENB (an Education Noticeboard), but it's still dealing with start-up issues. I should also add that this suite of articles reminds me of a sockmaster I dealt with years ago-- far too long ago for me to remember who or where, but there is enough similarity for me to say this smells like sockpuppetry and trolling, based on memory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

So right now the problem is just about the first two articles right? I really think the other two team members have done a great job here. If so, our team will concentrate on creating another two qualified articles and read the instructions more carefully! We are really not meatpuppets and so so sorry for causing you so much trouble!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem at all like trolling or sockpuppetry. The user page of one the editors mentioned above states that she is in the Master's program in Media and Communication Studies at the University of Mannheim. The Program website states lists a course "Comparing political communication (Master-Seminar)" which states (in Englsh):

"During the semester students will collaboratively work on Wikipedia entries about all aspects covered in the course. Therefore, continuous productive engagement during the entire semester is expected of all participants."

The course is run by Professor Hartmut Wessler email adress here. Might be worth contacting him. Voceditenore (talk) 16:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The searching eigine is so effective;)Yes,that's us..But is that necessary to contact our professor? Are we still not clear right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhumengmeng (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It may be necessary just to let the professor know that in the future, he should be clear to his students that creating essay-like articles isn't really what Wikipedia is about. It's obvious that you're contributing in good faith but it tends to frustrate some editors on Wikipedia that university professors will create Wikipedia assignments for their students without a. they themselves knowing the basic rules of contributing to the encyclopedia and/or b. offering some guidance about how to contribute. Chillllls (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a possibility to send good to another project/alternative outlet? I think that would make the students happy. Does Wikiversity accept this sort of thing? Would be a shame to see good free content killed. Dcoetzee 23:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Improving existing articles would seem to be a more realistic (and in the end more rewarding) assignment than creating whole new articles.  --Lambiam 07:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Insults from user

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfrican_American&diff=489479284&oldid=489444874

"This Leaf Green Warrior person is a foolish troll"

Judging by his talk page he's had other incidents too.. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you notified the user of this thread, as required?--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well a user needs not to be blocked for single personal attack. I have faced myself, times, trolls and personal attackers against me. Let me drop them a warning. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done, dropped them a warning and also notified them of the ANI discussion. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Just as an information B-Machine has previously been blocked for personal attacks, and has had several threads on ANI concerning their behaviour: 1, 2. After several years, this does not look like just a "single personal attack", but a pattern. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• The user had already been notified of the ANI further up, just not using the template, so LGW had already properly notified. The template isn't required, it just makes it easier. I left a clear message on the editor's page explaining my concern. Because I saw that the editor in question has been participating in good faith on the article talk page, I would conclude that they lost their cool and needed a firm reminder. Hopefully, this is all that will be required to get their attention and allow everyone to just get back to the discussion. If they conduct any other personal attacks, bring it back here and a block can be considered, but at this point I don't think it is the best solution, and the warning should suffice. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Dennis, that's what I'd told, right? A warning (level-2) would do the work. Plenty of users with personal attacks and trolls I'm seeing these days...... Enjoy your day. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• While there is nothing wrong with a template being placed on the editors page, my experience has been that a carefully worded and calm (but firm) explanation is more effective when it comes to preventing further disruption. People always respond better to real words than generic templates when they are upset, and this serves the goal of defusing situations better. Usually. No one is a troll here, someone just got upset and got out of line, so we assume good faith for single events. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - LGW and B-Machine have been going back and forth in the edit history for a while. LGW has the unfortunate tendency to throw around the term "highly racist" and "is racism", which has caused friction with B-Machine in the past. This line is also not encouraging: "Just an FYI that I will be applying for some form of protection status for this article. I see deep and obvious racism here, with East Asian/Native American/European ancestry being sectioned to a dark corner and African ancestry being put in the spotlight. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)"
  I honestly have no idea what they're arguing about, but just a quick browse through the rhetoric on that talk page gives some context to B-Machine's quoted comment. Some civility would be nice, on both sides. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • They both have walked the line, he just crossed it this time, twice. I would hope they can just work it out on the talk page. I'm a bit more tolerant than many when it comes to heated debate, it is part of the process, however, if either ends up here again soon, I would likely be less gentle in my approach, as would others. You are correct that both of them need to be less confrontational. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

King Genovese

• King Genovese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

King Genovese has been creating non-notable pages and performing occasional copyright infringements, despite being warned to stop several times. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] I think they may need a short block to show that we are serious about our policies on these matters. King Genovese seems to be creating these pages in good faith, but I think their persistent editing against policy requires action to protect the encyclopaedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I left a friendly but firm notice on his page, telling him to go here before editing any more. Hopefully he will take is seriously and not edit any more, coming here instead. I'm very hesitant to block a user when no talk has been initiated outside of a template and there exists a chance that they are acting in good faith, however, good faith disruption is still disruption. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  They have removed quite a few of their talk page messages, so some of the discussion may have been obscured by that. (I think my diffs above got the most important ones, though.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  The problem appears to be communication or possibly an inability to understand that words won't fix. They are navigating quite well, however, so there may be more to this but I'm going to assume good faith. They left a message on my talk page, I've tried to direct them here and offered more advice on their page about mentoring. They quit adding content. Templates are often not very effective, they look like automated system messages. As is often the case, a personal, friendly but firm message got their attention. I recommend them early and often. If they start back in, a block may be justified to prevent disruption, but wouldn't be appropriate right now since they have stopped. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 17:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  I've joined in and encouraged more talk. Found he was on my watchlist but I can't remember why. (All sorts of things I can't remember appear there - bit like my house...) I'm assuming 'he' from 'King'. Shouldn't really - amongst my hollies I've got one with 'king' in the name that is female and a 'queen' that is male. They seem quite happy about it. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'm doing everything I can to keep my "block" button in the original packaging, it might be worth something someday. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• This may be related to the Don Cuneo thread above. I've attempted to contact the editor to see if the same person is operating both accounts. Calabe1992 19:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)Was trying to compliment your find and an EC bit me. I notice all of Don Cuneo's contribs fit neatly into the gaps of Kings. Perhaps someone smarter than me can take a look before we get all excited about the coincidences. I don't see any glaring problems here, yet, but good to know. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 19:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is a placeholder put here so that the thread won't be automatically archived - I am hoping that King Genovese can come over here and comment on this matter. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• So this is where the FBI headquarters are. What am I meant to comment, I cant do anything about what you guys say or do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Genovese (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

"Keep local" files uploaded by retired editor

As Giano appears to have really retired this time, is it acceptable to remove the {{Keep local}} templates from the files he uploaded? This would apply to files uploaded by Giano, Giano II, and GiacomoReturned. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that Giano expressly asked others to look out for those images, so it's best to leave things as they are. Anyone who wants to copy them (as opposed to move them) to the Commons can do that, if it's not done already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove the {{Keep local}} tag? What does retirement have to do with it? 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And is there a reason a notification of this discussion wasn't left on his page? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 20:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Notice posted. Nobody Ent 20:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

As commons is out of the foundation stated project scope and apparently under the control of a really small clique of editors - we should stop moving any files there - and office action remove the ability to allow uploads to the commons and start keeping all files here so as to limit/totally remove any value commons has moving forward. - Youreallycan 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, this discussion wasn't about the merits of Commons, merely what to do with these files. I don't think anyone's opinion (positive or negative) of Commons is welcome here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, no one gets to own a discussion here. YRC makes a valid point. The people who run commons are not to be trusted. But at present, it's general practice for those bots to move free photos to commons. Is there anything special about these particular photos, that they shouldn't be "shared"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of whether to move X from A to B logically would include the merits of B. Nobody Ent 23:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

His retirement (un-huh) doesn't change his edits. Among those was the insistence that those files be kept local. Lacking a good reason to change, they should be left as requested. Resolute 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The way things are done currently, there's no justification for "keep local", unless there's a question about whether they are free. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One justification I have heard mentioned is that Commons does not inform the original uploader when the files are nominated for deletion or other important changes are made to the files. There have been instances where uploaders that are not active on Commons have had their files deleted without them being informed, and some acrimony was the result. -- Dianna (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Resolute here: the justification for keeping it locally is that's what the uploader requested. It's generally polite to respect the wishes of the uploader unless there's a compelling reason not to. I'm happy to have my free images moved to Commons but it'd be a bit rude for me to disregard the express wishes of someone who didn't want that. 28bytes (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, hold on thar, Baba Looey. Since when does the uploader of a photo get to "own" that photo here? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say we were required to honor their wishes. Just that it would be courteous. 28bytes (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I really hate, and don't understand, everything about the way we handle "files", throughout the entire project. Not that this statement is particularly relevant here, but if youreallycan gets to rant then so do I!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• While this isn't entirely a rant, I can explain quite simply why Giano (in his various accounts) took to marking his images "keep local". Images that were uploaded to Commons mysteriously got deleted. Some got overwritten by people who uploaded a different (and usually inferior) image. Some got corrupted when there was a drive to change formats, thus adversely affecting featured content on this project. None of this was visible within this project, because it all happened at Commons. Some of the images (like floor plans) that he was revising or that were incomplete got uploaded and then deleted as being out of scope. I don't understand this kneejerk desire to strip this project of its contents just because there's something similar within the WMF umbrella. There are quite a few editors who would rather swim in boiling oil than have to log into Commons. Heck, this project downloads a copy of images from Commons when the image is going to appear on the main page - because Commons doesn't protect them adequately enough.

  This is an attempt to change the English Wikipedia policy on retention of images, done through the back door. Let's not establish a precedent that weakens the ability of this project to maintain its quality, directly or indirectly. Risker (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm less worried about mysterious deletions than I am about the active vendetta conducted by a couple of the porn hobbyists there against images uploaded by their critics. I opined in a deletion debate there a while back and first thing you know, lo and behold, the same day or the next a few old images I had uploaded were all of the sudden tagged up by one of the usual suspects there. It was a truly amazing coincidence. Since then, I'm using KEEP LOCAL on everything. Those people are out of control, in my opinion. Under no circumstances should anyone overrule the uploading editor's probably well-justified wishes regarding the keep local tag. Duplicate the piece for Commons if you will. Carrite (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Block / unblock review: FleetCommand

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

---

Moved from WP:AN for speedier input

Can I invite folk to review a block of User:FleetCommand and my unblock of it? A relevant exchange is on my talk page also. --RA (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you should have re-blocked him after unblocking - Is this discussion about his actions or yours? Ask yourself, your blocked for a week and you make an unblock request and an admin comes along and unblocks you , accepts your request and then the admin is questioned and so reblocks you and asks for discussion - thats just wrong, you assessed the situation and decided not to discuss with the blocking admin and unblocked the user with a reasoned comment - that is your position you need to defend. Not having well considered the unblock request and not having the depth of faith in your decision and then reblocking the user is your worst mistake. - Youreallycan 20:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I re-blocked FleetCommand because Toddst1 (the blocking admin) is insistent the block was merited and because I did not discuss it with Toddst1 before performing the unblock. I should have discussed it (as it was not an obvious error). As I did not, I am raising it here for discussion — and my unblock is obviously up for discussion too. I acknowledge that re-blocking FleetCommand is messy but it is better to get consensus rather than having two admins wrangle about it, in my opinion.

I suggest FleetCommand be unblocked. From what I see, the block is unmerited. I cannot see any justification for a 1 week block in this instance. The exchange in question cannot reasonably be called an edit war: it comprised three edits, between two editors, over the course of two days, which moved towards consensus, and ended in agreement.

There is an issue around civility (and battlefield behavior) in FleetCommands comments on User talk:62.254.139.60. In particularly, instantly accusing another editor of "edit warring" is a battle strategy. However, over-all, FleetCommand moved from disagreement to co-operation and so a block for incivility or battlefield-ism is not merited either, in my opinion.

Are others of a similar mind? Or should the block stand? --RA (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue is you now - your poor administrative actions have violated the blocked users chance of a decent unblock request. - I suggest you stand up for your unblock and then revert your revert and unblock him and block yourself for the week - take his block onboard. Youreallycan 21:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"...your poor administrative actions have violated the blocked users chance of a decent unblock request." I disagree. We are discussing his unblock request here. --RA (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well - its your unblock and your revert that is under discussion so far. - Do you think your actions have been fair on Fleetcommand? Youreallycan 21:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is in FleetCommand's interest to get consensus over whether the block is good in a speedy fashion. Consequently, I've moved this discussion to ANI, which is more highly trafficked. --RA (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are two separate issues here: You (and so far, only you) think that FC shouldn't have been blocked. The second issue is that there were numerous issues with your first and only unblock as pointed out on your talk page - not just that you didn't talk to me (the blocking admin) about it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who's addressing who here... and really this issue of "reblock" or not is an unhelpful distraction. Focus instead on if a block is justified. Shadowjams (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The unhelpful distraction was the unblock and the re-block by User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid - the unblock request by User:FleetCommand should have been dealt with simply on the users talkpage. Youreallycan 21:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree with the block, there were numerous problems with the unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks like RA's first unblock, he messed up, Toddst1 called him on it and properly scolded him, RA quickly tried to put things right. I'm inclined to say just leave it alone as it looks like the two admins have already worked it out and neither were acting in bad faith or trying to wheel war here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well put. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about the block

• Bad block - This is a 48 hour block, upgraded to 1 week 7 minutes later by Todd... for a non 3RR violation, in a 21 revert "edit war", almost 3 days after the last edit. Fleet's mistake was being dismissive of the IP and throwing around the term "edit war" early on. And then the inartful statement that Todd quotes in the block log.
  As far as I can tell, the IP only had the one set of initial edits that Fleet then called a "war". However, I don't see how 1 additional revert of that justifies a block 24 hours after the fact, let alone a week long block. Shadowjams (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

FleetCommand labeled the interaction with the IP an edit war[20]. If FC knows s/he's edit warring, why are you defending it? Toddst1 (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It was bad judgement on FleetCommand's part, but I'm at a bit of a loss how this block prevents further disruption. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree Todd... that's why I say... "Fleet's mistake was being..." etc. But I'm not sure how you get from there to a 1 week block, especially given the length of time that passed between the edit and the block. And what Fleet said to the IP is perhaps not incredibly gracious, certainly not a good start, but it's hardly so rude as to be worthy of a 1 week block. Especially when... fleet's second edit had nothing to do with the others. He made 1 reversion the entire time. Shadowjams (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Look closer at the second edit. [21] [22] Also, timing has nothing to do with edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

For context, here's the full offending sentence "Collegial? Collegial in "war"? I make a point of avoiding collegiality with edit warriors. Still, I appreciate your attempt to discuss them matter. Your discussions about links are acceptable. Thanks for cooperating. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)"
Shadowjams (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's very similar to this one: "I do not assume good faith in edit warriors. ..." Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok... So you want to 1 week block him for that? Shadowjams (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

In the context of yet another edit war: Yes! Look at the pattern: He repeatedly labels other editors' edits as edit wars, then proceeds to simultaneously bully and edit-war. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I fully accept that you know the situation better than I, and did what you thought was needed, Toddst1, but do you think that continuing the block is in the best interest of Wikipedia, or that FleetCommand "gets it" and the risk of disruption is low enough to consider lifting? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to lifting the block with the Editor's commitment to WP:CIVIL/WP:BATTLE and not Edit war. (the usual deal) If the pattern continues, the block should be indef. Unfortunately, I saw no indication that the unblock requests show understanding of those issues. Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you have the original block, would you agree to me unblocking him, and then I will leave a message that explains the situation, including his failures in this situation? Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

You bet. I will offer the unblock on those terms. Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Now I just need to figure out how, since my mop is only two days old. It is fine to disagree on the problems as long as we all can agree on the solutions, and I think we have done that here. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I can take it from here. My mop is well worn. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I've already done it. Right now, a little fresh air between you two might be good, let the simmering pot keep cooling down. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I walked away for a while and I guess the issue's been resolved now. That's good. I don't want to belabor the point, except to say that this wasn't a case of edit warring, but rather, badly-considered talk page statements, and an out of proportion block (and then some side silliness about admin unblock/reblock). Here's the quick summary: IP removed links once [23], Fleet replaced them [24], IP removed them again [25], Fleet leaves a non-rude message, the IP responds [26] quite reasonably, Fleet does not remove the links the IP discussed, but does remove the primary sources tag the IP had added. Fleet responds with the edit in question [27]. A day later IP makes this response [28] to Fleet's talk that Fleet removes soon after [29] with a someone rude edit summary. Nobody's edited the Nero article now for 3 days. 4 hours later, Todd blocks Fleet [30] without discussion.

I'm very happy with Dennis' response. I think that it's much better someone uninvolved handled this. I agree completely with Dennis' message to Fleet as well. Shadowjams (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

B&Q

B&Q (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• This UK home improvement chain article is the turf for a running battle between a tiny handful of editors, each with a strong point of view. Could we get some new hands there? I've blocked one of them who had a spamusername; but there are still some hotly disputant folks involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the more contentious material to the Talk page with a note about following NPOV and avoiding attack pages. If the editors continue to insert attack like material without context to give it a neutral tone, it might be helpful to head back here for some blocks. -- Avanu (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have started a SPI for users that have edited the article to promote. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI linked↑, user notified. --Shirt58 (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have added the article to my watchlist and commented in talk. --John (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ed Schultz‎

Resolved

 – Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone, please, semi-protect the article again. It's been protected for a day, then a week, and the IP sock refuses to discuss his activities - except when it's semi-protected. At RFPP, I asked for 1 to 6 months. Whatever, it needs to be more than a week - and it appears no one is watching RFPP at present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Done – giving two months a try. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Heads up on NAGPRA - and the Kumeyaay people

If any of you remember Kennewick Man, you'll know of the controversy about the 10,000 year old human remains found in Washington state. This week, three University of California scholars sued the University and its leadership, as did the Kumeyaay Band of Native Americans (Southern California), all of whom have an interest in San Diego human remains dated to 12,000 BCE. U.C. scholars make the assertion that the remains found in San Diego "could have been Irish seafarers," based on dietary evidence found in collagen. This matter is likely to go through the federal courts and will fall under NAGPRA legislation. These pages may become hot-buttons. This is not an action request, just an advisory. I may try some NPOV contributing when more information becomes available. It has so far, only been in local news outlets... http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/17/45671.htm http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/apr/25/u-c-professors-sue-to-stop-ancient-bones-transfer/ Thank you, KSRolph (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

COI editing on Darrell Issa article

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

---

This may or may not need some attention, I'm not sure. There has been an off-site call (Reddit) for editing of the Darrell Issa article. Thread on Reddit: [31]. Edits so far: [32]. Again, I'm not sure if this is a problem but I thought I'd bring it up. 98.201.94.232 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The edit has been removed. If it becomes disruptive, we can seek protection of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Ongoing disruptive page moves by Tryde

Yesterday I discovered Tryde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has either moved or created tens, possibly hundreds of baronet articles with incorrect page titles. The naming convention for baronets can be found at WP:NCPEER and the relevant part reads:

• Baronets should generally have their article located at the simple name, e.g. George Albu (rather than "Sir George Albu" or "Sir George Albu, 1st Baronet"). However:
  • If the name is ambiguous and the baronetcy is the best disambiguator between the men of that name, use the full style as the article title: Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet (with both prefix and postfix); John Brunner is ambiguous with his father and with John Brunner (novelist).

I left a message at User talk:Tryde#Baronet page moves regarding this and moved the affected articles (not requiring disambiguation) with a summary clearly referencing WP:NCPEER. Despite this, Tryde is in the process of moving every single one back without attempting to explain their actions or even saying why in the move summary. Can anything be done to stop this ongoing disruption please? Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 06:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Apparently "contributing so massively to this encyclopedia for the last seven years" means you get a free pass for disruption, surely not? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 07:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I know of atleast '2' pages, that I wish he'd move. GoodDay (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've warned this editor not to continue and I am prepared to block for disruption if they continue. I sincerely hope they take the warning and avoid this. --John (talk) 11:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks John. It's difficult dealing with intransigence such as common name used for baronets is used when the naming conventions say the opposite and they have been made aware of precisely what the naming conventions say. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 19:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Extreme BLP violation

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

The second message in this edit accuses a respected university professor of "essentially pedophelia". I am reporting this here, partly because the severity of the attack seems to warrant immediate administrative attention (I would think a revdel is called for), and partly because Erikvcl's previous response to BLP warnings was to say "Your reference to WP:BLP is laughable and irrelevant". Would somebody intervene? Jakew (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

His web page links to circumfetish websites and discussion groups. He is not respected in the medical community. He associates with the Gilgal society. He is not an MD. It is odd that you would defend him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikvcl (talk • contribs) 07:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the offending text but cannot revdel it as I am not an administrator. Erik: no matter how you feel about someone, speaking about them like this on Wikipedia is not acceptable. If you do it again - even in talk space - someone will block you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Do note you should always remove the info immediately as KG has done. Revdeletion (whether with suppression or not) can only hide entire revisions therefore everything between the time the material was added until it was removed needs to be hidden or suppressed. In case of an extreme BLP violation like effectively calling someone a paedophile, you generally can't go wrong with removing the info. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this defamatory material from the edit history and messaged the offender. I haven't had time to look into the background of this issue or this editor. If there is any hint that they may repeat this they should definitely be blocked indefinitely, in my opinion. --John (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked into the matter in a little more detail and left a longer message warning them not to repeat this behaviour. If any admin feels I have been too lenient and wishes to block, I won't be offended, but I personally would rather leave this as a final warning for now. --John (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked him once already for such behavior, and I'm not encouraged that he won't repeat it, but the final warning should stand. He's here with an agenda and a battleground mentality. --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As the victim of his previous attacks, I'm admittedly biased, but I feel this is extremely lenient, too. Jakew (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I likewise feel that a warning is too lenient. As Laser brain correctly states, this guy has an agenda and a battleground mentality. What's worse, he just plain does not get it: that his beliefs are subordinate to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, no matter how heinous he believes his targets to be. Such people don't generally flip over to believing in our civility and editing policies. Ravenswing 22:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on his reply to my warning, I am tentatively standing by my warning rather than immediately blocking. I would not regard it as wheel-warring if another more draconian admin wished to block. I would think it evident that the next block would be indefinite if the user repeats the behaviour. I would certainly apply such a block if there is anything similar in the future. --John (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Teen delusions of grandeur, vandal in progress

I've just corrected repeated vandalism on half a dozen articles by someone who is apparently 15 years old and would really, really love to be knighted by the Queen. He has no user page, but his contribs are here. Would someone who knows proper procedure kindly give this kid a warning against continuing his fantasies on Wikipedia article pages? I'm all unsure of how to handle this, so I'm giving you guys a heads up here. Textorus (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped for now. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have left a level 2 edit test warning, informing them that if they continue it will be considered vandalism. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, please see How to respond to vandalism. Vandals should be reverted and warned, then reported to WP:AIV if they fail to heed the warnings. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Captain. And thanks for the link, DoRD, I will bookmark it for future use. Textorus (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at Brighton125's works, mostly because I've introduced teens to Wikipedia contributing. I'm of the view that if not sociopathic, teens can become experts and long-term contributors. I am not sure if Brighton125 wants to be: "Joseph Anker, 1st Duke of Brighton," but maybe a few thoughtful words about how to get there, and some patience will send him on his way, a bit less fantastically? It seems to me, that he should have a chance, and know that others are hovering over. He could become a new user, of course, but if the same pattern continues, (presumably) he'll be easy to recognize as a new duke, prince, HRH, etc. I do wonder if the world of online gaming for kids has inspired some of this. I am considering a creative barnstar that emphasizes the importance of reality and dreams, and the distinction... Comments colleagues? KSRolph (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I put a less menacing message on their talk page, welcoming them and inviting them to ask me anything if they needed. In cases where it isn't obvious and clear vandalism, I agree that a more gentle approach is usually sufficient. No need to bite the little boogers. I know exactly nothing about the subject matter, but it is entirely possible they added this in good faith, correct or otherwise, and no one has said anything here about how this info is utterly impossible, so my ignorance makes me conclude that this isn't a clear case of obvious vandalism. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'm always up for learning something new. Regardless, when in doubt, it is better to gently welcome the new editor than to scold them. Then if they screw up, feel free to template away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

JTBX on No Country for Old Men (film)

There is a problem on No Country for Old Men (film), where JTBX refuses to follow the policy on consensus after he has been invited to discuss possible changes to the plot summary. This follows on his personal attacks on me in the context of a failed complaint he filed against me regarding edits at The Godfather. He never edited on this page before, while I have edited at No Country... for a couple years. I think a reasonable person would have realized that it was not a good time to broaden our interactions. EdJohnston has suggested a interaction ban. Can an admin intervene in some useful way on the page? Perhaps a temporary block would be useful. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: "As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!" -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JTBX&diff=489597300&oldid=489529397 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ring Cinema (talk • contribs)

Ring, when reporting here you are required to notify the user, for example using {{subst:ANI-notice}}, i find your behaviour fairly bad faith, as you do not sign your comments, link to the discussion or follow procedure. [33] [34] [35] CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Bad faith? Lack of familiarity with protocol and oversight does not indicate bad faith. Nobody Ent 16:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

For a user who has been on-wiki since 2008, [36], and made over 1,000 edits, [37], I am a little concerned about their attitude to other editors who wish to improve plot synopsis (cf. The Godfather talk and No Country) and apparent ownership issues. I just happened across this, we all forget to sign from time to time, after four years on-wiki, lack of familiarity with protocol and oversight? Really? It's just an opinion, mind. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to see that Captain Screebo has noticed the same things I have. As a long time editor since at least 2008, I have only been blocked once for edit warring for a 24 hour period, for trying to move a page title. I have never been involved in such a large conflict as this one. I don't wish to spend a day writing a gargantuan essay or adding in hyperlinks, So I will keep this as short as possible.

User Ring Cinema and I first met during The Godfather conflict about over a week ago. I tried to edit the plot to better reflect WP:PLOT. However, Ring Cinema reverted my changes and told me to bring it to the talk page. When I managed to make the word count of this draft to about 702 (keep in mind the article summary is 750) it was continually reverted again. I simply did not see, (on the talk page of The Godfather this can be read) any reason for him to be doing this. He claimed it was consensus and this that the other, but it was solely him. [38] If you look through the history, it appears that he was warring with User: Wrath X as well. We were also joined by a third editor, Gareth, a neutral party of sorts who was trying to help. After Gareth and I were editing the draft for a while, Ring added that it was pointless because my draft "had already been rejected" but by whom? Again, you can read all of this on our talk pages.

It was about this time that I decided to look into Ring's user history. It appears the editor makes little contributions other than reverts or slight trimmings, is possibly a WP:SPA, but certainly violates WP:OWN and as mentioned has been blocked numerous times, including for personal attacks against adminstrators. Call me a vigilante, but I decided to take up the case other wise this editor will continually block any meaningful changes to articles. I reported it to the 3RR notice board but it ended in a war of words in which the adminstrator, EdJohnston, (possibly due to time constraints) protected the Godfather page and stated he would nearly sanction me for personal attacks, though I don't think, as you have done, pointing out this user's history or agenda should be considered personal attacks, as well as his falsifications to dress himself up as the victim.

I edited a ton of plots yesterday, which included No Country for Old Men. How did I find this film? Well, when looking up the user's history I saw he was having a conflict with another User:El duderino using the same tactics he used against me, and whom I contacted for support. He may way in on this issue. I edited the plot fo No Country because it was over 700 words, that is it, and actually thought Ring might help if he was still editing the article, but was reverted by Ring 3 times in less than an hour. I had already brought my changes to the talk page and another User is already helping with it, but Ring feels I have violated his article and refused to discuss changes with us, instead creating a new talk section. But he has already a history of conflict on that talk page. The years he talks of editing No Country, are mostly conflicts and reverts with different Users.

I don't think the Godfather article will go anywhere. EJ's protection has ended and I tried to edit but was reverted this time by Gareth, who appears to be taking Ring's side (perhaps being misled) and discussing with him changes behind my back, including this ridiculous message he wrote to Ring, here which I replied to. Apparantly, this is getting serious because I edited an article I am entitled to, and because I contacted others to way in their opinion on the Godfather article. I think it is shameful Ring can run his ownership cabal with Gareth and obscurely edit articles without interference. Its completely against policy, and know that I simply tried to stop this editor after finding out about him. I am not worried about this report aganst me because I feel it can be an avenue for the truth to finally be revealed and to not repeat what happened on the 3RR notice board.

Again, just read the sentence by Gareth, and think for a moment :"As an observation, I was appalled yesterday, when I was aware of your weighing into No Country for Old Men, and drew it to Ring's attention, as you have noticed. Not sensible, and really very obvious!"

And you mentioned how he had left a notice without signing or linking, well his disingenuousness shows. He is also trying to create an argument on EJ's page which I have avoided. JTBX (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• STOP This is clearly a content dispute. The talk page on the article clearly shows you have been talking about the issue, both of you a bit snippy but below any threshold for administrative action. You have come to an impasse without outside participation. Take it to WP:DR, not here. All this talk about faith is a sideshow and doesn't belong at ANI. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Constant personal harassment of User:DIREKTOR

I have a question: is User:DIREKTOR allowed to constantly attack me personally like this? Please see examples of his recent posts:

• - another Balkans article that has a disruptive local user personally "attached" to it...PANONIAN does not really have a sound argument of any sort, nor is he at all willing to openly accept that as a fact (you can see him right now, talking about some OR propaganda posters and coins)...He will change his claims and his position continuously depending on whether it will specifically help his agenda on that article, namely the creation of a non-existent country...Because we do not "compromise" between personal opinions and POV-pushing...PANONIAN is just POV-pushing, and is wrong, whereas Peacemaker and I are just plain right...PANONIAN's "disputes" would be laughed-off the talkpage on any more prominent article. This is about a user, not a real factual dispute...What is necessary here is that the problem user be made to abide by Wikipedia policy
• PANONIAN is on an agenda, his goal is not improving Wikipedia
• I just reverted the absurd WP:OVERTAGGING and your nationalist-POV subsection switch

My point is: no matter of the content dispute that we have, this user simply should not trash my name like this and he should not to constantly accuse me for "nationalism", "POV pushing", "agenda", "disruptive behavior" etc. I wrote several hundred articles and created numerous images for Wikipedia and I did not deserved that somebody harassing me like this. Can somebody please notify DIREKTOR that he should respect Wikipedia:Civility policy? PANONIAN 18:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ha. This is basically a preemptive report by PANONIAN. An "accuse him for accusing me before he can accuse me" sort of thing.

These are not personal "insults" or "harassment", but very real issues with regard to this user's behavior on this project. I can show conclusively that User:PANONIAN's behavior is indeed highly WP:DISRUPTIVE, indicative of extreme WP:OWN issues, and that he's very clearly on a "POV agenda". That's blatantly obvious and hardly even debatable at this point. He's frustrated the discussion to such an extent its effectively demolished, and he's taken the whole article hostage. His constant "sockpuppeteering" allegations even got User:Peacemaker67 to use caps lock. One can spend an hour researching and copying down sources quotes he's requested [39] - only to find he's simply dismissed them and started a new talkpage thread repeating the same nonsense all over again [40]. To the above list of "harassments" I will add that the user has very mediocre English skills and a poor to non-existent understanding of Wikipedia policy. He is repetitive, insulting, consistently and brazenly ignores policy and sources after they've been painstakingly quoted over and over and over again - and to discuss with him is a nightmare. He never ever concedes a single point, and there isn't even a semblance of a logical structure to the discourse with this person. he knows he can force users to compromise with his baseless position, and can afford to do ignore anything anyone could possibly write. The issue should be transferred over to WP:AE, for a thorough review of teh user's disruption on that talkpage. Its become impossible to carry on. -- Director (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about: DIREKTOR constantly accusing me for all these things without any evidence presented. As for quotes, I only asked from DIREKTOR to support his claims with sources. Instead of presenting sources that would confirm his statements, he copy-pasted some quotation that does not confirming his previous statement (so how exactly is disrupting that I say that "I do not see that anything from quoted text supports his position"? Am I not allowed to say my opinion about text from the source? This is exactly the problem: instead to have civilized and serious discussion about the subject this user discussing my personality and accusing me for all kinds of disruptions without a single evidence (even on this same page). PANONIAN 19:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

As for "preemptive report" accusation, I really do not know what DIREKTOR wants to say by that. Is that supposed to mean that DIREKTOR wanted to "accuse" me for something and that I was aware of that? Just another example of personal accusation and harassment. PANONIAN 19:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

PANONIAN's conduct in this arena has been absolutely reprehensible as well. I agree with DIREKTOR, this is an AE issue. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe someone else will come along and try to get to the bottom of this, but at first glance, it looks like Panonian tried to "mediate" the disputes on this article's Talk page. User:Steven Zhang commented he'd prefer to do it at MedCab. Then, Direktor took it to Steven's Talk page, which seems to be the principal source of Panonian's complaint (the comments Direktor made there). I don't know precisely where it belongs, but my strong sense is that it doesn't belong here as it's essentially a content dispute with aggressively worded comments thrown in (what else is new in these sorts of articles?).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, regarding the issue of sockpuppetry accusations, I said already that I will not accuse Peacemaker67 for been a sockpuppet and I am not doing that any more (or DIREKTOR can provide some recent diff which can show that I again accused Peacemaker67 for been a sockpuppet?). PANONIAN 19:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Lothar von Richthofen, seems that you remember previous discussion from this page that was opened because of my accusations for sockpuppetry - you can see that I did not continued with such accusations. I never again said that Peacemaker67 is a sockpuppet. In this case, however, I am a victim, since DIREKTOR now accusing me for all kinds of disruptions - if I accused someone for sockpuppetry that does not mean that I am also nationalist, POV pusher (and who knows what else). I am only asking that my own integrity here is respected in the same way as you asked from me to respect integrity of Peacemaker67 and not to accuse him for being a sockpuppet (I fully accepted that and I never again said that he is a sockpuppet). PANONIAN 20:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Direktor, when you make accusations against other editors, like you have in the diffs and your comments above, you need to supply serious diffs at the time of the comment to support them. Panonian has supplied diffs, what do you have to support your allegations?--v/r - TP 20:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am describing a behavioral pattern, not a particular incident. To actually convey it with diffs would be an immense undertaking, and an unnecessary one. I understand evidence is always necessary, but it isn't like I'm withholding it - the whole discussion on Talk:Serbia (Territory of the German Military Commander) is fully visible and savailable for review. Unfortunately, the only way anyone could responsibly confirm any of my allegations (and the only way one could truly support them), is to read through the the whole damn thing. I really can't ask anyone to spend his free time in such a way, which is a good part of the reason I did not report all this already. -- Director (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not how this works. If you want to "describe behavioral problems" you do it in the form of diffs. Otherwise you have engaged in personal attacks. Directing (no pun) others where to find the evidence isn't enough. Either provide diffs demonstrating the behavior your claiming exists or back off the accusations (and redact).--v/r - TP 21:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If by "that's not how this works" you're saying admins don't read through discussions in order to more accurately assess the validity of accusations, then I must say I have encountered such an alleged impossibility on many an occasion. The best I can do is provide examples of various sorts of disruptive behavior, if that will satisfy. I can't (or rather I won't) relay the whole weeks-long discussion. I will have to do it tomorrow as it is nearly 01:00 here (CET). -- Director (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

By "that's not how it this works" I'm saying you can't make attacks on other editors without providing the support for those accusations and insisting others go find it. You know this dispute better than I, you know where the support for your argument is located. Panonian has supplied diffs showing poor behavior by you and has not sent us all out on a hunt. Show us what you know or take it back.--v/r - TP 23:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There are diffs in his post... maybe those have been added in the interim, I don't care enough to check the ANI history because if we have a policy on having to add diffs when you complain about someone that's news to me. TParis is largely correct: diffs make your argument well (although there's a soundbite-culture aspect to it that's not great).

None of these diffs seem to be personal attacks aside from claiming eachother have agendas, which is tame. Also, aren't some Balkans related articles under an ArbCom restriction? Would someone more knowledgeable than me comment on that please? Shadowjams (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of War by user:Hashem sfarim

In this edit war was formally declared on two other users (myself excluded) by user:Hashem sfarim without any provocation that I can see. I have not been involved in the reverts that took place, but I can not edit or improve the page given the sudden outbursts that clearly breach WP:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia:Civility, WP:AGF, etc. This case may not call for an immediate block, but user:Hashem sfarim needs to be notified to stop aggressive behavior that suddenly turns a friendly and good-hearted content discussion that compares Johnny Depp's page views to those of God into a tense situation laden with accusations that impede content improvement. As stated here no page improvement can take place as long as threats of war persist. Hence a message from an administrator that stops the outbreak of war will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave them a note and see if they are prepared to be a little less aggressive. --Fæ (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding. There was no "declaration" of war...merely a prediction that there would be warring going on....BY OTHERS. I never said "I will war on this". I said clearly, I will NOT violate any WP rules or policies. History2007 is a whiner and has personal bias against me, and is whining on this page...instead of talking to me directly to understand what I meant. Not cool. But then he's not cool. Instead of focusing on the substance of the dispute and the edit problem, he harps and nit-picks on this nonsense, only to get me in trouble. A real class act. I said clearly I won't violate 3RR, and will leave this whole thing to others after this weekend. The "war" I mentioned was a PREDICTION, because I know how others are gonna be acting. Not a "declaration". History2007, as usual, over-reacts, and whines, and wastes my time. Not cool. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment left for you at User_talk:Fæ#No_need...History2007_misunderstand_and_complains_as_usual. Feel free to follow-up there if you feel the need to persist rather than being tempted to wind up History2007. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks , and no worries, I do not get wound up. Editing here is supposed to be fun after all. History2007 (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I restored some of PiCo's words and points on the lede, per discussion. See Talk page. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Katriuk

Hello, the article Vladimir Katriuk is becoming controversial and an IP account 213.104.254.110 keeps deleting cited information. He seems to want to revise history the way he wants it. Would you please intervene. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunoBeach (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please notify the parties involved that you mentioned them here, and give them warnings for what they did wrong. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 23:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Junobeach appears to have WP:NPOV issues I made a couple of corrective edits and they have also reverted me - we still need to report from a npov position even in regards to living people accused of war crimes. - There was a report at the BLPN about the biography - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Vladimir_Katriuk - Youreallycan 23:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)