I feel it is my duty to inform the group of a situation that has arisen due to my work on the Category:County government in the United States category. I am sure that many of you realize that this is an area which had been neglected because people do not care enough about it, even though it deserves the attention. County government is just far enough out of people's attention that most people could not name a single one of their elected county officials, yet perhaps more deserving of attention than, for instance, the mayor of a municipality within a county (a person which most people usually could name).

I soon ran into a few small issues that came up, and I responded to the eventual consensus. The matter was the question "Is a county government local government, or is it an agency of state government?" I can tell you for absolute certain, that with a very few possible exceptions, that county governments are agencies of the state government that are locally accountable through elections. The Wikipedia consensus was that county government is local government, and I organized it as such. Even thought the campaigning and elections are local, the actual governing involves state powers.

In the course of these discussions User:Orlady was very immature, unhelpful an obstructionist. There were no policy violations, at that time, but the fact is that I lost respect for this person quickly, and for my part I have refused to respond to her immaturity, and informed her not to contact me further. At this point I think I have a case for Wikipedia:Harassment, and if it does not rise to that level yet, then I feel I need to put these events on the record, so as to establish that a pattern is occurring.

A) Orlady spammed about a dozen state article talk pages (including Rhode Island and Connecticut which have no county government?!?). At some point I interjected and pointed all the discussion to WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Politics. I was willing to enter into a discussion of the matter, but not 50 discussions. Orlady interpred this as **ME** starting new discussions while there were on-going discussions. Obviously this is very disingenuous.

B) At some point I mentioned my education and experience in the subject matter, and I have not heard the last of it! How arrogant I must be! There is a brain drain problem at Wikipedia, and knowledgeable editors are being driven away by the hoi polloi that very often prevails. For myself, when there are editors who are knowledgeable in subject matter in which I am not, I stay out of their way.

C) Orlady specifically mentioned the idea about discouraging me from editing, and the idea that perhaps in the future, I would not be editing.

D) I had asked for some time to do some work on the category, but that has been met with cries that I am WP:OWNing content. So I have been dealing with hypersensitive sniping, nitpicking and reverting of my work in the area. It's hard enough already without her. She appears to be wikistalking me.

E) Orlady has opposed every proposal for moving, renaming or deleting categories, as well as every proposal to merge articles which I have made, and which is her right. However, I feel it is my duty to express my view that she has not brought up a single useful point in the entire course of the discussion.

F) The most disturbing development is that it now appears that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Orlady is standing by her false beliefs and imposing it in the content. This is agenda editing, and not appropriate. My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government, and this claim is supported by several sources, and is what I learned in graduate level studies in local and state government. Here are just a few sources which support my claim: (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin) Furthermore, the NACO website itself states that "...early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Orlady has looked at this evidence, and rather than accept and learn from it, is clinging to denialism1, and trying to rationalize her own views with her own wild interpretations 2. Most recently she deleted a substantial amount of content from County government in the United States which is completely objective information, but which contradicts her agenda.

H) She has posted about me personally, which is not relevant to any discussion underway.

G) Orlady announced her intention to continue to hound me in the future.

I am perfectly willing to account for all of the nuances and variances in county government as the evidence arises. However, At some point I think a topic ban may be in order for Orlady. I need to be able to work in a mutually respectful environment. Could some reasonable and mature editors intervene please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talk • contribs)

I have only a few comments to your wall of text. First, for so many accusations, there are very few diffs. Second, just glancing at Orlady's talk page, your comments appear rather lopsided. Third, I took a look at some of the articles, and, in my view, they are a mess. Your just-created article, County government in the United States, has ONE source for a very large article. Then, there's Local government in the United States, which was created quite a while ago. Putting aside some problems (an imbedded Wikipedia reference in the lead?), it's not clear to me why you needed to create your article, particularly given yet another longstanding, pre-existing article, County (United States). As an aside, when you report someone here, you are required to notify them; I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady did which was sanctionable, certainly nothing meriting a topic ban. [OK, this diff deserves a wrist-slap, and one will be duly administered. But beyond that, I see no evidence of an agenda, conspiracy or serious misconduct. Your own conduct appears to be far more tenditious (eg. repeatedly dismissing other editors' comments as "Not Helpful"). Manning (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrist-slap was deserved and is duly acknowledged/accepted. For the record, I've investigated some of sources that Gregbard offers in support of his claim that counties are in fact state agencies, and I've recorded my analysis at User:Orlady/County by state (structured after his user page of the same name). --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original poster called Orlady a liar in this post [1]; I request they strike the comment (preferred) or support it with diffs if unwilling to do so. NE Ent 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have expressed concern to me about Gregbard's ownership and tendentious behavior with respect to his theories on the nature and derivation of local governments in the US, and his use and structuring of categories to support his assertions. He appears to assert that he is entitled to edit-war over categories "Because I had asked for your cooperation and you refused to give it." [2] Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the comments: "... you have an entitled attitude..." and "It is very clear that you have supreme confidence in your own beliefs" in the link provided by NE Ent to be ironic, if not outright hypocritical. I'm sensing that there may be a WP:BOOMERANG nearby. — Ched :  ?  02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this case appears to star an inbound WP:BOOMERANG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is, what to do about it? Is Gregbard's participation in this particular domain a net positive even as he wars against what would appear to be wider consensus? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Gregbard is currently saying the same sorts of things to (and about) Alansohn as he has said to and about me in this section of Gregbard's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban for Gregbard

• Sheesh... OK I read most of the cites given above and frankly Gregbard's perspective (My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government) seems quite... unique. To be fair, I am coming to the topic in near total ignorance, but even so, nothing he provided seems to visibly support his position. The Alabama example is a legal dispute over shared costs... and well, "dependent entities" don't tend to take independent legal action. Even the NACO site seems to confirm the consensus position. (Gregbard's NACO quote above was talking about how things were back when state constitutions were drafted, it then goes on to contrast how things are different today). Of the several parties who have participated in discussion, I did not find one who agreed with his position.
• Despite all that, we're not here to rule on content matters. So... what I DO see is someone seriously unwilling to abide by consensus, who ref-dumps and then claims victory (even though the refs are far from conclusive), who has apparently major WP:OWN issues, and who is quite uncivil to anyone who gets in his way. As a result, I'd be well inclined to recommend a topic ban on GregBard for any local government related articles.Manning (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In looking through the contribs, especially on various talk pages - I can Support this. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - A no-brainer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as it seems related changes continue to be made against consensus per this recent editBoogerpatrol (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I came here in good faith to report a situation to the supposedly mature members of the community. The climate here is more similar to a prison yard than an academic senate. Boomerang, indeed. Let me go on the record to state that I put in a great deal of effort in a neglected area, which in any fair and reasonable universe would be appreciated, and I was promptly derided and hounded by people with no special knowledge or experience in the subject matter. I reported the situation to the wider community, and rather than have logic and critical thinking prevail, they got mired in the egos and personalities. I provided about a dozen references, any one of which taken at face value suppports my conclusion, and which together form a strong argument for my claim. Rather than accept the simplest, most reasonable interpretation, you chose to accept the wild convoluted rationalizations of a immature person with no claim to expertise in the area. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room.

• Even my mature response to her immaturity is being interpreted as *MY* being immature. Orlady's comments were unhelpful, in that they did not address the actual issue, but rather were an attack on myself to which I maturely refused to respond. These discussions are open and readable by anyone at anytime into the future. Let the record show that I did not back down from the ignorant, and the ignorant plowed forward. This is a Wikipedia:Fail.Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for a referee on the matter. It has been provided. I did not previously know Orlady or any of the other participants, so I had no bias toward any individual. I did not examine the conclusions of any other participant. I did, however, examine all of your references, and was unable to see on what basis any of them supported your conclusion (as discussed above). The NACO reference you provided above specifically contradicted it. No-one has derided or abused you, but you have abused and derided everyone who disagrees with you. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room. You are welcome to make any claim you like, it will have no impact on our collective decision. Manning (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably." -- Eleanor Roosevelt, channeled by 71.139.157.86 (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this as preferable to the watered-down 3-month version below. Civility problems, WP:OWNership issues, and an apparent persecution complex make a rather nasty cocktail when mixed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure why Gregbard is informing readers of over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy about the proposed topic ban on local government. I'm also not sure why he felt it necessary to edit other people's comments in the process. Very odd. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a form of WP:CANVASSING. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Support topic ban and a side order of trout. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Both the diffs given and the editor's comments here certainly demonstrate that there is an issue, one which unfortunately requires something like this in order to hopefully resolve. I don't think limiting it to 3 months is sufficient, because I don't think a short pre-determined length of time is something that will fix anything, and I think an indefinite topic ban would be more appropriate (emphasizing that indefinite does not mean infinite). - SudoGhost 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I know this makes my position unique in a place bristling with admins. Orlady acknowledges that the topic has very little traffic and Gregbard is contributing to it. I suggest that the allegations of damage to the project be examined in detail, and an AN/I is not the place for that, as that would involve examination of content. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I've been looking at this and I see an awful lot of heat having been generated, and I think that is not the best condition for deciding on topic bans. Gregbard has reacted emotionally to what has been happening, but "striking while the iron is hot" should not be the way we work here. With the consensus on article content being the way it is, I don't see any pressing need for a ban right now, so I think we'd be better to let things cool and let emotions subside - we can see how things develop once everyone has settled down again, and if any problem persists we can reconsider the issue with cooler heads all round -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any sanction. This thread is too much to read, but Greg, it seems you believe you're right about something, can't gain consensus and it has upset you a lot. My suggestion is that you drop the subject for at least one month, then return to it with a series of article RfCs or requested-move discussions, or whatever is appropriate. But first you have to let the heat out of the situation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate suggestion to above

• Sigh Ok, I WP:AGF about what Gregbard is trying to do. However, his method is frickin ridiculous. What I would prefer to see is this:

• a 3 month topic ban from making changes to any article related to government, broadly construed. He may continue to discuss changes or potential additions on the talkpage of any government-related article. Gregbard is also subject to civility parole during those 3 months. Although "optional" in my view, I would recommend mentoring for him in order to better learn what CONSENSUS really means, and how this project works as a whole through its many processes, policies and community nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The claim that a county government is an agency of a state government is patently absurd, and the fact that not only does he refuse to change his position but is attacking other editors to defend it is extremely concerning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• From my WP:INVOLVED perspective, this seems like the right sort of direction to take, but with a couple of modifications:

1. The topic ban should apply not only to articles, but also to pages in the Template and Category spaces. I suggest this because much of the recent contention has occurred in those spaces.
2. For proposed categorization projects, once consensus on a proposal has been reached (as determined by someone who isn't Gregbard) on an appropriate talk page or project page, Gregbard may make edit government-related pages to add them to categories. To avoid misunderstandings, the consensus to authorize Gregbard to make such categorization edits should be recorded (by some other user) as part of the conclusion of the talk-page discussion. I suggest this because categorization has been Gregbard's main focus recently in relation to government and much of his categorization work has been productive and non-controversial. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with the first, but no ... do NOT allow him to edit those pages, other than talk. Pushing the envelope like that will just lead to problems later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with Orlady's conditions. Gregbard is willful and disruptive but can be productive. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have been give absolutely NO warning prior to this sudden non-judicious proposal to ban me from a topic area in which I have made a huge contribution. Even my original post to this group about Orlady was only to put the issue on the record. What have I done to deserve such a rash, severe response? The problem could just as easily been resolved by rashly banning her (which, I was too fair-minded to propose). I have violated no policies, so this amounts to a political issue. I have start over 60 articles in the area of local government. If I am banned, I will immediately appeal. Don't waste my time or others with this outrageous impatience. For my part, I have stopped editing, as I am shocked at the shark tank mentality here. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I have only my words, as reasonable and decent people don't have a lot of tools at our disposal. If you use administrative powers against me, you are a bully, and don't deserve them. Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reporting something to ANI is never just "putting it on the record". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)What he said. Also accusing people of being bullies doesn't help your case; 'I will immediately appeal' and 'Don't waste your time' are not words that help your position, either. The fact of the matter here, Greg, is that after reviewing your claim here - which you continue to insist is correct without even the slightest possibility of your being mistaken, despite everyone else contending you are, being considered - it is entirely without basis. If you make a claim that cannot be verified, such as 'county governments are agencies of state governments', and then personally attack people who call you on it while continuing in the aforementioned 'I'm right because I'm right' behavior, you shouldn't be surprised when people start wondering if you're a net positive to the project. Your "huge contribution" matters not if you refuse to follow policies that are in the Five Pillars in your editing. I'd strongly suggest you drop the stick, accept that you are in the wrong, have some seafood, and move on - if you continue as you have been above, a topic ban is inevitable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Greg - I've run into you before (I forget where...) - I'm not involved in this, I couldn't care less about the definition of county governments, I'm not an admin, and I'm not gonna vote. I just wanted to say two things: (1) Read WP:Boomerang. I've seen this happen before - anytime you bring anything to ANI, everything you do is scrutinized equally. No warning is required for any action that results (2) I can see your frustration, but in some of your edits you're not really taking a consensus-building approach. You may be right, but you may not win with that approach. Maybe take a break, go into another topic area for a while, walk away from wikipedia, do something else. It will still be here when you're back. Every time I've gotten fired up about something, I have eventually regretted it here, and every time I've tried to work in a more gentle fashion, things have worked better. Just a few thoughts. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wise words, those are. Heed them, you should. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try a different angle. Gregbard - we ("the admins") only have one agenda - to protect and enhance the project. We do not support any individual - we don't even support each other - unless the project directly benefits. You may have believed that coming to AN/I would only provoke the admin body to examine Orlady's conduct. But it didn't - we ALWAYS examine the entire situation, and then we try to do what we believe is best for the entire project. We don't always get it right, and we definitely encounter a lot of criticism, but that is exclusively what motivates us and directs our action.

I know you believe quite strongly that the project is benefiting hugely from your contributions. However your agenda ("to present the truth") and our agenda ("to preserve the project") have now come into direct conflict. You state above that you have not violated any policy, but I can say with great confidence you've clearly violated two of our biggest ones - Civility and Consensus.

SO, your approach to presenting the truth is strongly going against "how we do things" - through the Five Pillars. You are welcome to criticize our process (everyone else does). But for all of its faults, our process works, and we have Wikipedia as proof. So please examine The Bushranger's and Obi-Wan Kenobi's advice given above - it is well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Gregbard is dropping his participation in this domain voluntarily then we're done here, at least for now (his misunderstandings of the consequence of consensus, of the role of administrators and of the purpose of ANI may work against him elsewhere, but that's for another day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Gregbard is dropping out of this area voluntarily, if his most recent statement on this talk page (later than anything he's said on this page) is any indication. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, it seems clear that discussion and negotiation are not really achieving any success. Can an uninvolved admin review this discussion and make a determination? Manning (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've experienced much of what Orlady has endured in dealing with Gregbard. The inability for GB to recognize that consensus may conflict with his interpretation of ultimate truth has led to an inability to work together as part of a community. There is room for cleanup and reorganization of county and local government articles, but the idiosyncratic interpretations of source materials and the failure to work towards consensus have made these areas more of a mess than they ever were before. A period of reflection and observation would be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Does it make any difference that Gredbard just so happens to be right? County government is an extension of the state government. Or does that matter? Just to use a bit of extreme hyperbole, I probably could find, if I tried hard enough, consensus that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Yet we all know the sun doesn't rise or set. The earth spins. It is simply our perception that leads us to believe the sun rises and sets. Same goes for county government. We perceive it one way, but in actuality it is an extension of state government in every state I know of.Redddbaron (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, when it goes this far it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. If someone can point to an easily available reference where it can easily be seen that a particular side in a dispute is correct, then of course the community would prefer that right triumph. However, it is clear that this matter cannot be so readily resolved, and the collaborative approach would be to say, "Thanks for all the feedback. I know that in due course it will be seen that I'm right, but I see that consensus is against me, so I'll drop the whole matter." Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm Easily available reference? You mean a simple easy reputable source that says plainly, "When our national government was formed, the framers of the Constitution did not provide for local governments. Rather, they left the matter to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state."-National Association of Counties; Something like that? Takes about 30 seconds to find references like that. I seriously don't understand this big blow-up. Maybe the issue has nothing to do with the wiki pages at all. Maybe the big whole thing is about personalities instead? I mean it is pretty obvious that Shakespeare was correct when he wrote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." You think GregBard forgot that wisdom and over reacted himself, so that the two of them together kept tensions increasing as each one over-reacted to the other? It's pretty clear to me that Greg wasn't actually rude, just dismissive ie... scornful of the ignorance on such a simple and obvious mistake that any first year student of civics should know. A reaction most anyone might have. Using my previous example of rising sun and setting sun. If an editor actually did try to make a consensus that the sun rotates around the earth rising in the east and setting in the west, it would be a very likely reaction by any educated person in science to be dismissive and just change it back. Editors do that all the time on many wiki pages. They have to. But some people would take offence to that when no offense or rudeness was intended. Just fixing a silly mistake. Why exactly has wiki allowed this to escalate this far in the first place? Just find a wiki admin to change it to what Greg said. He is right. And then take the time to explain it in a way that is not scornful, so the "consensus coalition" don't go crazy getting "revenge" for perceived insults.68.229.213.209 (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Sorry, I forgot to log in so the signature is an IP Redddbaron (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I can support the idea of restricting Gregbard to talk pages on the topic of government for a short period, to try to encourage an approach more closely aligned with our consensus ethos. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I oppose any action without evidence that he has and that he would continue to do damage to the project. It is regardless of his behaviour here, such as calling those who are critical of him "shameless", he may do well to strike that out, as it is only making his case worse. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I hope he steps away from this for a few weeks, but by persuasion not force. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is not an area I'm very familiar with. However, my understanding is that there is a difference between being a state agency and being under the authority of the state. Per Dillon's Rule, local government is under the authority of the state and doesn't have the same federalism protection which states have from the federal government, but that doesn't mean local government is a state agency (and some jurisdictions may not follow Dillon's Rule, but rather Cooley's Rule). Whether or not a county is a "local government" is a semantic question which probably hasn't been worth answering in most cases, but generally my impression is that country government is thought of as local government. In any case, generalizing about the law of United States is quite difficult and should be done very carefully. Orlady has shown in User:Orlady/County_by_state that the sources Gregbard is bringing really aren't up for it. In the case of Colorado, it does appear that If Gregbard used law review articles or perhaps textbooks, maybe you could start to describe the situation: a start might be looking at sources which cite Regionalizing Emergency Management: Counties as State and Local Government or perhaps getting access to Conducting Research on Counties in the 21st Century: A New Agenda and Database Considerations or County Governments: “Forgotten” Subjects in Local Government Courses?. As a further comment, think about the word 'agency' and consider the law of agency. State agencies are literally agents of the state, whose principal is the state's governor (and ultimately, the state's population) and a legislature which represents the state as a whole. On the other hand, counties typically have their own elections on a regional basis. II | (t - c) 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin abuse

We have a new issue here. I have tried to defend myself against accusations, and my attempts to defend myself are being met with offence that I should even try! I have stated that I think I am being bullied at this point, and I am being told "not to take this approach." Bullying is an important issue in our society today. We have a system here with no due process, and my options, in terms of my free speech are limited here (i.e my ability to defend myself without running up against some other restrictive policy). You know if someone told me that I was "bullying" someone, I would be taken aback, and stop to investigate the nature of my offence, because I am a morally reflective person. When I tell this group that I am being bullied, and told not to speak out about it, well that's how bullies act. They don't hear plaintiff pleas to stop, and they plow forward. I am being accused of thinks that I didn't do, and this situation has just gotten way out of control on your part. I'm getting very condescending messages on my talk page filled with presumptions, and I don't have a system of due process available to me to defend myself. What are the limits of consensus? If there is no policy violation, do you just make up a conflict and then claim that the consensus itself is the policy violation?!? What are my options here? Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? Can I post a message to this board every day for the next three months, or will that be intrerpreted as a policy violation? The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that?! People are plowing forward with their presumptions as if they are real, and here I am telling people to stop, and not being heard. Who do I go to if my claim is that this process is being abused? I take this situation very seriously, and I wonder if those who have the power to abuse me take what they are doing as seriously as I do. I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard. Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?! I have stated that I will cooperate. You basically have a gun to my head, and I have my hands up. If you pull the trigger, that really supports my claim that this situation is abuse. Greg Bard (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard." See also, WP:NOTHERE Bobby Tables (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but I guess it relates to the ANI thread above about Orlady? I'll look at it, but in the meantime: "Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?!" Not necessarily, no. People do things in good faith that are wrong all the time. If they can't learn from their mistakes, then we have to stop them through sanctions. An example: take a person who doesn't understand copyright policy. They keep uploading text from copyrighted sources without attribution. Now, they might think, "Oh, well the text is published, so it's out in the public and not private, therefore it's in the public domain and okay for me to copy." That's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, and they're doing it in good faith, believing that it's okay and in Wikipedia's benefit. But it's still wrong, and if they don't listen to explanations and learn from their mistakes, then eventually we may be forced to block them, to prevent more copyright violations from seeping into the project. Everything they did, they did in good faith, but it still ended up in blocks and sanctions. It's unfortunate, of course, but it's necessary. Again, I don't know what your situation actually is, so this isn't a comment on or an analogy to your actions specifically; just a response to the general principle of sanctioning someone for good-faith actions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the thread title and came here to abuse an admin. This is false advertising. :) Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were cautioned previously what could happen if you would not come in line to the Wikipedia community consensus regarding behavior and how to build consensus. Now you've opened another ANI thread and it looks like you're complaining about the cries of "Admin abuse" for being properly warned and some community members suggesting that it would be in the best interest of the community to not edit for a while. Having looked at your talk page (and it's history) I'm inclined to agree. Wikipedia is not the government, and you don't have rights here. Wikipedia grants you privileges that can be suspended or revoked depending on the community's perception of your actions.

'TL:DR You were warned about WP:BOOMERANG and now here it is.

PS: Where's the abuse of admin I came to enjoy? Hasteur (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide by admin (board (post)). LOL. 79.119.87.157 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, at this point it's as if you're asking to be blocked, as you are clearly not listening to a word that's been said - or, perhaps more precisely, you're putting your own, prejudiced by virtue of your obvious "I'm right, because I am right, and I CANNOT be wrong" POV, spin on what is being said. Consensus is that your original contention that raised this whole mess is erronious. That's not "made-up conflict" - the only person causing, and escalating, conflict here is you. I repeat what I said earlier: you could easily avoid any and all topic-bannings by simply realising that you are not in the right here, admitting as such, and stating that you won't WP:BATTLEGROUND against consensus in a WP:IDHT manner in the future. If instead, however, you post another rant as you did above, you'll simply establish, through your own actions, that you don't understand the very basis of how Wikipedia works, and that you're here to spread WP:THETRUTH, not to build an encyclopedia. (You might also want to have a look, based on your comments above, at WP:FREESPEECH.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the admin abuse claim

Greg - I will continue to try and negotiate with you. I'll note I have made several previous comments and you have not responded to any of them.

• I have tried to defend myself against accusations - Could you show us where have you done this? There are many comments and suggestions above from a variety of admins (not just myself), and I don't see your response anywhere.

I still have yet to see a valid accusation! What exactly is it that I am accused of?! The idea seems to be that I have gone against consensus, and I have yet to see a discussion that has been closed! As far as I know, I was still trying to inform the consensus. We do, however have the example of Orlady redirecting the County government in the United States article after a merge had been proposed, one person registered their opinion, all within 24 hours. Is that the way we are supposed to achieve consensus?!? This is outrageous. I am not playting games here. I am telling you this situation is out of control, and AI am getting nothing but patronizing, condescending, ill-informed statement directed toward myself. My proposal is to delay any sanctions for one week. I think this has been very rashly put forward. I have recieve NO warning. I have been given NO opportunity to correct myself, nor has anything been put forward that I need to correct. The idea seems to be that I should roll over and die, and anything less is some great offence that is making my situation worse. That isn't judicious. That isn't fair-mminded. That isn't a mature, rational use of administrative authority at all. I have been present in discussion from the very beginning of these issues, so the idea that punitive sanctions are needed is gratuitous abuse of power.Greg Bard (talk)

As to what you are accused of, I would list ignoring/bypassing Wikipedia consensus procedures and severe incivility, particularly but not exclusively directed at me.

The above comment includes a false accusation against me. I did not unilaterally redirect County government in the United States. It was redirected by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah following merger discussion at Talk:Local government in the United States, where that other user judged that the consensus was to redirect. My subsequent edit there was a null edit done to supply an edit summary to identify the talk page that the other user's edit summary had identified as the location for continued discussion. I personally thought that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's action was premature (if I encountered it in my role as an administrator, I would not have closed the discussion or taken action), but I think the judgement of consensus probably was valid in view of the direction that the discussion was taking. Your comment here indicates that you didn't look at the edit history or the talk pages when you restored the full article and blamed its redirection on "one person". I did revert that edit of yours 23 hours later, after additional discussion had occurred on the new talk page the other user had started and after this WP:ANI discussion was well under way. At that point, I did comment that the redirection had been "proper" and based on consensus; mostly I wanted the edit history to document why the redirection had occurred. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? - Yes, that is us. And despite your protests and accusations of "bullying", many of us are actually trying to help you. No actual action has been taken by anyone, we are still trying to sort the matter out. However if a ban is applied, you can take the matter to the arbitration committee's ban appeals process.

You don't seem to be listening to me at all, and instead seem to be presuming guilt from the beginning.

• The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that? - In numerous places, but this is a good example.

Excuse me! That doesn't state anywhere that I intend to go against the consensus AT ALL, but is rather still an attempt to inform it. So I will ask the same question again, and please show me one of the "numerous places" that are not a matter of a wild interpretation! Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have stated that I will cooperate. Good. Please start by explaining on the talk page of the relevant articles how you achieve your conclusion from the references you have provided. Sweeping statements like "Any intelligent person can see I am right" are NOT helpful. I am an intelligent person, as are all of the admins here, but I cannot not see how you got to your conclusion from the references you cited. If anything, they contradict your claim (particularly the NACO example). If an argument is not strong enough to persuade the editors, how can we expect it to sound reasonable to our readers?

The NACO claim directly supports my claim in no unambiguous terms. It clearly states that the original intention was that "counties were created as an arm of the state", and sure does not name some event where any of that changed.

I provided about a dozen links. If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before, and it came up the day before... it is reasonable to believe that it will come up tomorrow. That's how the principle of induction that underlies all of scientific knowledge works, and that is how theories work. So each one of the dozen or so individually support my claim, and together they form a strong argument for my claim. At this point my explaining this seems like I'm being condescending, which I do not wish to be. However it appears to be necessary. At least one of those sources includes the clear statement: "It is a well settled matter that counties are an arm of the state."Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, you provided those links on a page in your user space (where I am not permitted to engage in discussion) and on a couple of other users' talk spaces. You have not presented your evidence in venues designed for content discussion at Wikipedia. If you want other Wikipedians to accept your opinions as valid, you need to tell us what your opinions are, you need to provide a sourced basis for your views (saying "I was taught this in college in no uncertain terms" doesn't qualify as sourcing), you need to let other people participate in discussion, you need to be willing to interact with those other people, and you need to let the discussion take some time. Finally, you need to accept that Wikipedia consensus might go against you; you cannot "win" by announcing that your position is correct because you know you are correct and because you know that everyone else here lacks your superior qualifications.

As for the links you cite as evidence, I have to confess that I laughed out loud when I followed some of them. (Thanks for adding a little levity to my day. See User:Orlady/County by state for my comments on some of your evidence.) For the most part, your links are to primary sources, which are not generally relied upon at Wikipedia because they are susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Your "it is a well settled matter" quote is from this document, which is not only a primary source, but a non-authoritative primary source, being an attorney's legal brief, specifically a "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint". One lawyer's argument is hardly authoritative, and my reading of the brief indicates that your quotation has far less significance in context than you place upon it. Some of your quotations are even more severely misinterpreted; for example, at one point you cited this court document to say "several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state," but the complete sentence says the opposite: "Although several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state, a county is not generally considered an agency of the state in spite of the general language found in these cases." Your assertions of moral, intellectual, and academic superiority might be more compelling if your evidence were not so weak. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility. Please also do not tell people to "defer" to your opinion - that is the very opposite of consensus building.

People really seem to be offended that I responded to Orlady's comments at WP:USA with "Not helpful" REALLY?! That was an attempt to avoid arguing about irrelevant issues. That was a very mature move on my part. Those statements of hers were not helpful, and my identifying them as such were not some great insult. Furthermore, I thought we were mature enough to handle requests to defer. That was my presumption in the context of AGF. I think this is a gross hypersensitivity on the part of people who are just looking to make trouble for me. That isn't AGF. I say it again: people should be ashamed of themselves. It isn't rhetoric either. I am a fair-minded person, and I have demonstrated that conspicuously. Being "ignorant" is not a morally blameful thing. It isn't offensive to a mature adult to have one's ignorance pointed out to them. There are plenty of areas in which I am ignorant. Knowing right from wring isn't one of them. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said "not helpful" to multiple other participants in that discussion. That was just one example of a refusal to engage in discussion aimed at reaching consensus. I've been trying to figure out why you consider that responding to another person with a curt dismissal of "not helpful" is a sign of maturity, and all I can come up with is that it's similar to a parent telling a child "because I said so". As a veteran parent myself, I don't see that parental behavior as particularly mature; regardless, unsubstantiated assertions of superior authority aren't how we resolve differences of opinion at Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The admins are charged with a responsibility - to prevent disruption to the project. Right now it is very difficult to interpret what you are doing as anything other than disruption. So work with us, talk to us as reasonable people, please stop insulting everyone involved, and and maybe we can work this out. Manning (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a harsh, unnecessary, interpretation and goes completely against AGF. You should apply the same disposition toward Orlady with regard to the fact that I requested she not contact me again, and yet she has repeatedly badgered me, as well as the merge without consensus which she performed, the evidence of which is indisputable. I go back to my original claim: Orlady is a troublemaker, and she has you all played. For my part, I have stopped editing in the articlespace, and if I am sanctioned I feel I will have no choice but to address the systemic issues that have lead to this attack on myself. We could analyse this situation in depth for months if you feel that the priority is to teach me some lesson. Please do articulate what that lesson is first. Show me a closed discussion, whose consensus I have gone against. Show me an example of incivility, which could not also be interpreted as standing firm in ones position. The lesson so far seems to me to be a political one, that just defending oneself is itself on offence. I don't think that is what admins want to impart. So please do use your words, not your powers, of which I have none. Pretend for a moment that the respect of a person who has no powers over you matters.

We don't rd" tiue process here. We rely on the fair-mindedness of administrators. Yet we have people mockingly throwing "boomerang" as if stating that makes it fair or reasonable. I have receive NO warning, and the moment the proposal to sanction me arose, I stopped in my tracks. This has put a chill on my contributions (which are substantial and numerous in the very area which it is proposed I be banned). Where did this proposal of three months come from? Was this well thought out? Do we have a sanction seriousness index, or is this one size fits all? We already have a several day stop in my activities to address this administrative action on me. Does this time count? I am requesting that sanctions be immediately taken off the table. I have about a dozen biographies of mayors, and representatives which I am working on for which there is NO good reason to stop me from creating. Where are the priorities here? Is Orlady so well trusted that you are willing to stop this productive work? Is that not a real "disruption of the project" or do you not see it that way? Is the process more important than the goal here? If so, I think you have lost your way.

When I was in college, I was appointed chairman of the student Bill of Rights committee for the entire California State University system (the largest system of higher education in the world with 450,000 students). I served in that capacity, because caring about protecting people's rights are important to me. I went on to serve as commissioner of judicial affairs, and later served as the "lawyer" in the case that established judicial review at my university (you don't need a license to practice law before a student judiciary). I am fairly certain that I take respecting people's rights more seriously than is being taken here. When I say, that people should be ashamed at abusing their position, I have done what I need to do in my life for my words to mean something here. I have made over 70, 000 edits to wikipedia. I feel personally responsible for the integrity and reputation of Wikimedia, and I have defended it publicly. I have reached out to other organizations on Wikimedia's behalf with the idea that they are worth it. Do not disgrace yourselves by eating one of your own most loyal, decent and valuable members.

The Wikimedia Board of Directors does not seem to involve itself in the consensus decision making process here. Do not prove them wrong by abusing your given administrative powers for no good reason. I used to be on the board of a community radio station, as well as a public access tv station. Those organizations were in their adolescent stages when I served on their boards. There were all kinds of issues and conflicts, and by the time my term on their boards were done, I had helped make them more professional organizations. Please drop the condescending to me, and consider for a moment that I am all that I have claimed to be -- a mature adult waiting for those around me to join me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's what way too many admins think. protect and enhance. WP:Administrator doesn't actually say that. You know it's called a mop -- not a sword and shield. What the better admins (of which there are many) get is the real purpose of admins is to help editors. This editor came here looking for help. So help him. That doesn't mean talking at him. The AGF interpretation of Gregbard's actions is that they're a frustrated editor who doesn't get the consensus model of Wikipedia, and the total lack of due process per WP:NOJUSTICE. By the way, Orlady made unnecessary posts to GB's page [3] after being requested not to [4]. That "defer" diff [5]? Doesn't say "defer to my opinion." Says defer to Wikipedia:Capitalization -- hardly a radical statement. NE Ent 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE Ent - It is the responsibility of ALL editors to protect and enhance the project. Admins are no different in that regard, they just have a few extra tools to accomplish some specific tasks, and by community consensus are entrusted with making certain judgment calls. As to this case, no sanction has been applied. Numerous admins have reached out to Greg Bard to try and resolve the situation. Yes, I did interpret that diff as meaning "defer to my opinion" - but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. Either way we need GregBard to participate in the discussion in a constructive manner. Manning (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to be an admin and it's okay to be an editor -- but it's generally not effective to try to be both at once (i.e. in the same context); let the "editors" (regardless of whether they happen to have a sysop bit) doing the content work -- the protecting and enhancing, if you will -- while admins function to help with certain janitorial chores. We do not need GregBard to participate further -- in fact less participation is exactly what he should be doing now. What we need is to find a positive, non-judgemental way to connect so that going forward he and Orlady and the rest of the folks can get back to writing the Encyclopedia without dragging each other down. And ANI is really not good at that at all ; it's suitable for the "quick resolution" situations, nothing complex. NE Ent 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of potential additional relevance

I don't want to get into substantive discussion but for information purposes another discussion relating to Greg and county categories is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Opposed nominations, hinging on whether or not a number of categories on county government should be speedily renamed in line with others recently created by him or whether that does not constitute a convention that qualifies them for speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation and final comments

OK, I've gone as far as I can productively go here, so this will be my last comment. Based on the above, GregBard seems wholly committed to his stance which boils down to "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong". Our collective attempts to engage him in productive discussion have largely failed (see above, and also here). As NE Ent observes above, GregBard does not appear to "get" the consensual model, at least as far as this topic is concerned. In this example he declares he will "abide by consensus", but then goes on to misrepresent the consensus that emerged in the preceding discussion as aligning with his viewpoint (by placing all categories under "state government").

In my opinion (speaking only as an editor, not as an admin), none of his references lend support to his position, despite his repeated insistence to the contrary. The NACO example seems to completely contradict his claim - the page directly contrasts the original formulation of county government (as GregBard states, as an "arm of the state") with the current arrangement, and states... "After World War I, population growth, and suburban development, the government reform movement strengthened the role of local governments.... Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government." Throughout the various occasions when someone has questioned his reasoning, the response is either "it's obvious" or "I am the educated person, so you should abide by what I say". Needless to say, neither of these response types reflect "how we do things".

On that basis, it is thus my assessment (as an admin) that GregBard is engaged in disruptive conduct - although in fairness there is no deliberate intent to be disruptive as such. On the plus side, he has not editing any county related article since this AN/I discussion began to focus on his activity. If this remains the status quo, then this thread can be closed without further action. If however, the disruptive editing resumes, then I believe a topic ban of some duration will become necessary, as per the above discussion. I will let another admin to make that determination.

To another matter - Gregbard has repeatedly requested punitive action be taken against Orlady. I and several other admins have reviewed the actions of Orlady, and I reprimanded her for improper conduct in one case (a reprimand she accepted without dispute). Others are free to examine her actions, of course, but I do not feel there is anything else actionable here. I do encourage both of them to refrain from interacting as much as possible, as it is clear that (at least for the time being) GregBard holds considerable animosity against her. I also suggest Orlady refrain from reverting any more of GregBard's edits. Instead bring them to the attention of an admin (such as myself, or any other admin willing to take an active role).

That's about all I can say at this point. If the discussion dies hereafter (as I hope it does) another admin can close this discussion at their discretion. If it continues, I will refrain from commenting. Good luck. Manning (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose Not only does this proposal fail to take any actual action against Gregbard (which clearly has consensus above), it also bizarrely includes a revert ban against Orlady, which isn't warranted at all. This comes dangerously close to blaming (and worse, persecuting) the victim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm not certain how the word "suggestion" constitutes a 'revert ban'. For your reference, Orlady was in fact the subject of the original complaint, thus the the final paragraph (which clearly indicates there is nothing actionable). Manning (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to say that I have a bad feeling about the suggestion that Gregbard's "considerable animosity" towards me means that I should refrain from interacting with Gregbard or reverting any more of his edits, and should instead bring them to the attention of another admin. In its effect, suggesting that I ought to defer to his wishes is saying that a user can declare ownership of articles and edits simply by declaring "I have considerable animosity toward you, so you'd better stay away from me" to every user who disagrees with them, issues warnings, or takes administrative action. Gregbard's "do not contact me further" declarations (first on his talk page and then on my talk page) were in fact his response to my having warned him to desist from getting categories deleted by emptying them outside of the WP:CFD process. Are we going to start telling disruptive users that every time they receive a warning they should post a "do not contact me further" message to exempt themselves from future interactions from the user who warned them? --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Orlady, it was meant as an optional short-term tactic for a highly experienced editor such as yourself to employ in this specific circumstance - nothing more. Please don't read any more into it - for some strange reason the cabal still refuses to allow me to dictate policy based on my whim. Manning (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will not accept any sanction of any kind. You don't stand up in the middle of a discussion, declare a consensus, and the last person who reverts something get banned for three months. I have maintained my innocence from the very beginning, and have not wavered from that. However, the shark tank here takes offence at the very idea that they could be wrong, and refuse to back down. That's administrative abuse. The comment from admins directed toward me concerning my understanding are completely oblivious! I have been an editor since 2006. I have made over 70,000 contributions. There are whole swaths of content and organization that I created. I have acted in legislative, executive, judicial, and diplomatic capacities es on behalf of Wikimedia. It is unfathomable that anyone would point to me and say that I just don't understand the consensus process. This issue barely began a few days ago. It is beyond impatient to just stand up and declare a consensus exists. Certainly no discussion has been closed yet even at this point! I am a very fair minded person, and if I had done anything to warrant a sanction of some kind, I would be able to admit it. In fact I have in the past. I won't accept a sanction in this case. At this point I believe I am owed an apology, and whether the political reality is that I will get it or not, I will demanding that for the entire duration of any sanction. I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. I have used terms like "decency" "reasonable" "mature" and "shame" It seems like I am the only person using those kind of terms. Now I am using another term: "conscience." So if no one's conscience tells them that they are doing the wrong thing here, that will be a shame on them forever. This is all the power I have here: my words. It seems that attitude is to take offence that I should ever attempt to defend myself. That's not a fair, or decent process. Show some respect for yourselves, and exercise restraint. Forgo the ego gratification that comes from using your powers. PLEASE DO relent and defer, and consider for one moment that this is not some great insult to yourselves. Greg Bard (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, if the community decides to impose a sanction on you, whether or not you "accept" it is irrelevant. You would either edit in accordance with the sanction or not, and if you did not, further and more drastic sanctions, up to and including a site ban, would most likely be forthcoming. Considering this, it might be a good idea to step down off your soapbox and consider just what, exactly, is being said above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone look at this diff of a Greg Bard edit and try to figure out what is going on? At the bottom there is some potential canvassing, however there seems to be some bizarre vandalism going on as well. Manning (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That looks a lot like the damage to my user talk page that I asked about at the Village pump: Why are new edits introducing seemingly random errors into previous page content?. Gregbard apologized for it, blaming it on a problem with his computer. However, but it hasn't stopped. (I also saw it on another page he edited in the last couple of days.) The last post in that conversation was a suggestion that Greg might have some malware on his computer. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough. Thanks for that. Manning (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) @ Greg. What BMK said ... quite frankly? If I had the time to monitor the situation? I'd have likely blocked you already. You're not some new guy. You should know the rules by now. Either get with the program, or deal with the consequences. — Ched :  ?  19:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Greg, I've tried to assume good faith as much as I can throughout this whole brouhaha, but after this last comment of yours above, enough is enough, and I have only this to say: Knock it off. Whether or not you "accept" sanctions is, as BMK mentioned, utterly irrelevant - if they are imposed, you will accept them or you will be indef'd. Your comments promise that you will disrupt the encyclopedia if you don't get your way - this is the Wikipedia equivilant of pitching a tantrum and saying "you'll play by my rules or I'll pick up my blocks and go home". While we hate to lose any editors, Wikipedia does not need you - if I hadn't already !voted in the above discussion, you'd be indef'd already for POINTy threats, epic levels of I Didn't Hear That, soapboxing, and general disruptiveness, as every comment you make here makes it more and more clear that you are here to push The Truth, not to build an encyclopedia, at least in this matter, and you must abide by the community conduct and codes you agreed to when you signed up, and every time you push the 'submit' button, in all matters. Allow me to be perfectly clear: one more rant like the one above, and you will be blocked until you realise this sort of conduct is utterly inappropritate for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Greg. I don't have a mop, and I'm still not gonna vote on any action, but I just wanted to make a few observations. At this point, right or wrong doesn't matter anymore, diffs don't matter anymore. The admins here are clearly losing their patience, and at some point soon, the hammer will come down, hard or soft. As I read it, their POV is, in short, they're done with you - enough is enough. Several would, given the chance, insta-ban you right now. This not a court of law, this whole thing is more or less run by volunteers on a consensus basis, and at some point, people are just done.

OTOH, from your POV, you are clearly backed into a corner, and are so certain of your innocence that, as you state, you will more or less bring this matter to the supreme court and the media and Jimbo and everything else. The question is, what for? What's your ideal end state? What happens if that whole process goes as planned? Do you think some big trial and media show will end with Jimbo presenting you with a golden award for righteousness and all those who have maligned you will apologize and send you wiki-love? Not likely. Non-involved people who've dropped by this thread have taken a look, read a few diffs, and decided: "nyet". However, these admins aren't lawyers, this is not a trial, and I submit that it's possible that the judgement of all of those admins to block you may, in the fullness of time and provided an army of lawyers and diff-readers, be proven dead wrong. But IT DOESNT MATTER - what matters is the here and now.

Allow me to thank you for the numerous contributions (70k edits? that's a lot) to the wiki - that is awesome! And I hope we can find a way to keep you - I still AGF. I think you just seem to have fallen into a bit of bad business with some editors who are equally as stubborn as you. Maybe people were uncivil to you, and maybe they misread what you typed, and maybe they just don't understand the sources. But at some point, that ceases to matter. For whatever reason, the boomerang swang around your way.

An insight I had about myself a while back was, there are situations where you can be right, or you can win. What do you want? I have often felt as you have, so indignant that I was *right*, and they were *wrong*, and then I press on, and then, often, I lose (e.g. I don't get what I want) - but at least I remained right, right?? It's a shallow sort of victory. After tempers cool down, and careful reflection, I've often found that I, too, had made mistakes; I too had gone too far. And ultimately, it doesn't matter. So now I try to think to myself, how can I win - instead of - how can I demonstrate that I was right.

So sometimes, it's better to just swallow one's pride, take a breath of fresh air, start some edits somewhere else or take a break. If you do that, just leaving a brief message here saying "Ok, I get it guys, I'm gonna do some other work and try to be a good citizen", and then start doing that, then the hammer may not fall, there's still a chance, and the community will welcome you back. Rather than avoiding Orlady, frankly I would, after a cooling down period, try to find something to work on together with her - I've found her to be a good and experienced editor. People here are resilient, and can edit war with you one day and the chummily co-edit an article the next. You'll find humility and contriteness are virtues much appreciated.

So, that's all I have to say. I wish I could be an even more civil editor, and I continue to try, and I continue to screw up. But I continue to learn. As the Dalai Lama says, "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. That statement isn't an example of maturity (I mean they have 70000 edits and have been around for 7 years.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GregBard's incivility

DISCLAIMER: GregBard linked to this discussion at WIkiproject: Philosophy. I personally think GregBard has been one of the most helpful contributors to the Philosophy side of this Wikipedia, and I've defended him before, but I don't think I've ever actually conversed with him.

I just want to see the evidence that GregBard has been uncivil. There has been numerous claims that GregBard has been so (I count six above here right now), but I haven't seen any strong evidence. So please, make any argument that I may read.

As far as I can tell, only once has GregBard's supposed incivility been described explicitly; this was when Manning above said, "Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility." But how was it established that GregBard tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are ignorant or not helpful? I saw two cases where GregBard calls other editors not helpful, but in both those cases I saw no reason for thinking that GregBard called them not helpful because he tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are not helpful, rather than because he sincerely thought what they said was not helpful. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to spend too much time on this, I'll start with your example. The responses "Not Helpful" are clearly uncivil. They are dismissive and belittling, which violates 1.d. of Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. It is easy enough to communicate the same idea in a civil manner - "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" is a perfectly civil way of indicating the exact same content. A single instance would be too ambiguous to make this call, but two in a row is clearly contemptuous, particularly as there were valid questions being raised which GregBard ignored. As another example, this post is quite flagrant in belittling another editor. In general any comment which asserts "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, and therefore uncivil. The vast majority of editors are willing to learn new things, so explaining one's reasoning is far more effective than just telling other editors they are ignorant. Manning (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please take anything written here as merely a draft, if anything appears to be uncivil, please edit it to make it appear civil:

I don't know if those indicate the exact same content. It seems to me when one says "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" one is making a different claim then when one says "Not helpful." If two statements indicate the exact same content, then I would guess that the statements would have to be equivalent. But were one really not to know if that solves a problem, then "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" would be true, but that could still in actuality be helpful, in which case "Not helpful" would be false. But the two statements can't be equivalent if one can be true and the other false, so they are not equivalent. I think this make sense: One statement is about what one person knows, the other statement is about what another person said.

And I don't know why saying "not helpful" is belittling, if one sincerely believes that what was said was not helpful. I know there are multiple interpretations of such a word, but I think "belittling" is only relevant to incivility when it implies insincerely making something or someone appear insignificant in some way. I don't think that sincerely saying something is insignificant in some way is belittling in the uncivil sense, it is just honest judgement. I've understood civility to be like the proper atmosphere of a healthy, collegial workplace. I think that's why WP:CIVIL does well in mentioning that "Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional work-spaces" and the like. I can try to speak from my own experience: If a colleague wrote beside a paragraph in a paper I wrote, "Not helpful", I might consider why she thinks that, and I may even ask her why she thinks that, but I wouldn't think that she was belittling me. My first guess really would be to think that she sincerely thinks what I wrote in the paragraph is not helpful. I would think it would be less civil of her not to write it. I imagine if everyone did that: I could go on to present the paper at conferences, submit it to journals, thinking to myself that everyone finds my paper so very helpful, meanwhile everyone really finds my paper quite useless, but they refuse to tell me so.

I also don't know if the remaining example is quite flagrant in belittling an editor. If GregBard sincerely thinks those things, then they don't seem to be belittling as such.

I agree that saying "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, because no one says such a thing sincerely, at least not on these discussion pages. But I don't think GregBard said such a thing.

I know you don't want to spend so much time, and I don't require any response: I am just writing this with the final goal of stating my opinion, not of undermining anyone else. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to know that Gregbard has been a valued contributor to the Philosophy WikiProject. Atethnekos, for some additional perspective on the communication behaviors have been labeled as problematic, please consider these items:

• This talk page exchange. Note Greg's comment on 18 April 2013 where, in response to my presentation and discussion of several sources, he did not comment on my sources nor present any of his own, but said (in part): "...I am sure that you feel quite confident in your view owing to your education and experience. However, I actually studied this issue formally. In Wikipedia, everyone thinks they are an expert, even with very little education or experience. ... At some point, if necessary, I may find all the sources I need to support my view if necessary, if it comes to that. However, I hope you consider the idea that you have just learned something new about county government from someone who knows. I'm not really able to reconsider my view because I was taught formally in no uncertain terms that a county is an agency of the state government." That comment was perfectly civil (albeit condescending) in tone, but the attitude expressed was that his expertise is so superior and the truth of his position so absolute that it is unnecessary even to present sources to support it.
• The first "not helpful" reply that I recall was in response to my reply to his accusation that, by posting on several talk pages to alert potentially interested parties to the extensive content discussion he had started on my talk page, I was starting 50 separate discussions. His post on that page had two paragraphs; the first paragraph accused me of misbehavior and the second paragraph was a request to begin a content discussion. My post was primarily in reply to the first paragraph accusation against me, and it included a link to the ongoing discussion that had already occurred (and that he had not seen fit to mention in his comment). Apparently he now explains his "not helpful" retort as an indication that my comment had not included any substantive responses to his second paragraph, but I submit that most readers (including me) would read that "not helpful" as an announcement of utter contempt for (1) my defense of my actions and (2) my request that people continue the pre-existing discussion rather than starting a new one. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess an easier approach is simply "incivility is what the community interprets as being uncivil". I read GregBard's remarks as being very uncivil. However I am but a single editor, and am as equally prone to misinterpretation as anyone else. Other editors are free to review the matter and make their own call. If consensus emerges that I have misread this, I will happily retract. Manning (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about that: People are going to have their own emotional reactions, and what the community as a whole treats as incivil is somehow going to reflect the complex of these individual reactions. Maybe there could be another way, but since that is the case now, contributors will just have to go back on their principles when these lead them into conflict. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had asked the community for a response to a substantial question about county government, and Orlady responded with discussion about discussion, not anything having to do with any person't actual position on the question at hard. That's not helpful. To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF, and a cruelly harsh interpretation of my response. It is the interpretation of a person who is actively looking for trouble. That is what I was trying to avoid by not giving a lengthy response which is a very mature way to handle such a situation. If that is what you are hanging you hat on to ban me for three months, then you have lost your way. Greg Bard (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about taking a voluntary break for a few days to catch your breath? Maybe go outside and smell the flowers, spend some quality time with your pet rock or something. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Gregbard, what Viriditas -- an editor I don't often agree with -- is telling you is that you are getting much too involved in Wiki-life and that you need to find some balance by some restorative reference to real life. Please remember that, although we think it's an important one, this is just a website, not reality. Take a breather, a break. Have a picnic with friends or loved ones, or go to a ball game or something. Come back with a fresh point of view, because the one you're carrying around now seems like it's likely to get you blocked or topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My (outside) view of that statement "Not Helpful" was unnecessarily dismissive and aggressive. As can be seen, it cause the discussion to just degenerate into mud slinging. It also set the tone of the "discussion" which [User:Acdixon] also noted. Your accusation of a failure of those reading your statement to AGF is ironic in that with two words you threw good faith out the window and set the kettle boiling. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I can't resist. GB made the statement: "To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF". AGF isn't a suicide pact. The guideline wants you to start with an assumption of good faith. Given what you've written in this discussion alone, I don't think clinging to that presumption is really required anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment (2nd warning)

Harassment

A contributor, User:johncheverly, has recently embarked on what can only be described as a crusade to 'right a great wrong' regarding Jimmy Savile and the widely-reported allegations regarding sexual abuse by Savile (which johncheverly seems to consider unjust), and has taken to misusing multiple unconnected Wikipedia talk pages in the process. Essentially the same material has been posted not only at Talk:Jimmy Savile and at Talk:Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal, where it might at least be seen as relevant, but also at Talk:England, Talk:Sexual offences in the United Kingdom, Talk:English criminal law, Talk:Rights of Englishmen and Talk:Hearsay in English law. At Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Neutrality v. Bias in Jimmy Savile articles. johncheverly stated that he "would like a licensed criminal solicitor or barrister in the UK to weigh in on claims made in the article". I pointed out to him that "Wikipedia does not employ solicitors or barristers to check article content". In return, johncheverly presented what he sees as 'evidence' towards Savile's innocence- at which point, since this was clearly outside the remit of the page (or any talk page for that matter) I pointed out the WP:NOTFORUM policy: to no avail - johncheverly continued in the same vein, and seems intent on abusing multiple Wikipedia talk pages as a platform for expounding his "FACTS" [7], rather than for their intended purpose. Given that in the process of expounding said facts johncheverly has chosen amongst other things to call radio/TV presenter Paul Gambaccini a "motherfucker" and "a has-been that never made it", [8] and given that he has made it entirely clear that he is unwilling to comply with Wikipedia policy, I would suggest that the only reasonable course would be to block johncheverly from editing until such time as he agrees to use Wikipedia talk pages only for their intended purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be permitted to respond. Does anyone think that someone who DELIBERATELY chooses a name like Andy the Grump is dealing in good faith??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

To the contrary, I am accusing Mr Grump of Harassment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment because he, for some reason, does not wish me to raise salient issues of bias and incomplete information regarding the Savile Affair.

Definition of "grump" a habitually grumpy or complaining person taken from the Wiktionary http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grump — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, unlike Mr Grump, I will deal in facts and not ad hominem attacks and his obviously profound psychological issues.

Here is the essence of my criticisms about the Sir Jimmy Savile OBE Affair:

I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into ­unfounded allegations ­relating to under-aged girls.

She says: “Uncle Jimmy ­always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it. (Where I come from in the USofA, the only thing worse than a ratfink, is a ratfink that can only offer up INSINUENDO.)

Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article???http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

These are the things that are nagging me and that I come to Wikipedia for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.

Also, relating to the Savile Affair, I have issues that pertinent issues have been left off the articles of David Icke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:David_Icke Despite insisting there is an international paedophile network since at least 1999 when his conspiracy theory book _The Biggest Secret_ was published, you mention nothing about it in the David Icke article. Why not??? Is David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? Icke has a "Child Abuse" Archive on his website dating back to 2002. If you take the time to review the the David Icke Channel on YouTube, Icke has posted numerous videos relating to this PN, including this video of a radio interview with English barrister and former intelligence officer Michael Shrimpton in which Mr Shrimpton states that both the late Sir Jimmy Savile OBE and former English Prime Minister Ted Heath molested and murdered children: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNelt33QP_8&list=UUAhmDfQ1LfOYECmNNWgXJ7Q&index=4 The question persists: with his long interest in a paedophile network, why isn't a "Child Molestion" section included on Icke's article???j

The Metropolitan Police Service: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metropolitan_Police_Service If you believe the wild accusations, rumors and speculations surrounding the late Savile and paedophilia, wouldn't this be a bigger systemic failure of the police than even the botched "Jack the Ripper" investigation??? According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the Metropolitan Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the MPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Wikipedia to research an issue. Thanks

And, The West Yorkshire Police: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Yorkshire_Police According to published media reports in the UK Savile was ALLEGED to have sexually molested and raped 450-1350 children over a 50 year period. Yet the West Yorkshire Police Service has claimed it never received any reports about Savile, who was born and lived in Leeds throughout his life, except about a missing pair of Savile's eyeglasses a few months before the entertainer's death. Is the English Conspiracy theorist David Icke correct that there is a vast paedophile network operating in the UK and that it reaches well up into the police, Parliament, and the Royal Family??? How does the West Yorkshire Police Service explain its own appalling deficiencies if the reports are indeed correct??? Is there any kind of special investigation into the operating procedures of the WYPS being conducted by the Home Office and/or a Commons Special Select Committee??? If so, when will the report be published??? These are the kinds of answers I am looking for when I come to Wikipedia to research an issue. Thanks.

Once again, as an EDITOR, I approach articles as a USER. I have have some legitimate issues on bias and unanswered questions about the whole Savile Affair.

Thanks for your kind attention to these important issues.johncheverly 17:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And with that humongous violation of WP:NOTFORUM, I rest my case... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If memory serves me right, the last time that John was here, I blocked him for WP:DE, then Drmies had to take away his talk page access for soapboxing/insults, then Yunshui unblocked a few months later [9]. This looks like more of the same, but as I've previously blocked, I will let someone else decide how to proceed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Brown, just because I was blocked before, does it mean that the issues I have raised and documented are not valid and should be considered in the editing process??? Please remember The Five Pillars of Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Specifically, Neutral Point of view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view , Free Content that anyone can edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_free_content , and Co-operation and Civility between editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. Instead of trying to tear me down, perhaps the whole project would be better served if Mr Grump would degrumpify himself and take a broader view of the editing process.johncheverly 17:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not just a dispute between you and Andy the Grump. I have also tried to dissuade you, at the Talk Pages for two of those articles, from your current course of action. Also, obviously, to no avail. We are not here to argue about any posthumous injustices which may or may not have been meted out to Jimmy Savile. We are here to produce one or more encyclopedia articles about him. That's all. I have to agree 100% with all that Andy says above. I'd suggest that your crusading vitriol belongs elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My reference to your previous bad behavior is relevant in that it establishes that this isn't a singular event, but rather a pattern of behavior. My concern as an admin isn't the content as admin don't decide content, thankfully. I do care about behavior in that it affects other editors, and editor retention in general. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Censorship---

2.11 Wikipedia is not censored [edit] Policy shortcuts: WP:CENSOR WP:CENSORED WP:UNCENSORED WP:NOTCENSORED

See also: Wikipedia:Offensive material, Help:Options to hide an image, Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles, MediaWiki:Bad image list, and Censorship of Wikipedia

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so (see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer). Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images will always be acceptable to all readers, or that they will adhere to general social or religious norms.

Because anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clearvandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Virginia where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed.

However, some articles may include images, text or links, which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content.

Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The attacks on a subject of a Wikipedia article (Paul Gambaccini) are unacceptable even if they took place on talk pages and/or ANI. To prevent further breaches of WP:BLP, I have blocked Johncheverly for 48 hours. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the editor has previously had three indef blocks within the last six months, without a noticeable improvement in their behaviour, I'm mildly surprised at the expectation that a mere 48h block will lead to a change for the better this time round. But, we'll see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think 48 hours will stem the current tide of shenanigans. But the larger issue - that of the righteous crusade embarked upon by Johnceverly - would seem to warrant a longer block or other sanctions. If topic banned from this area (Savile, England, etc), is there anything else that johncheverly edits? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about johncheverly is that he found any pages loosely affiliated with Savile and spammed their talk pages. So while it is a good idea to ban him from those pages it's quite likely that he will find another talk page to soapbox the same issue on.LM2000 (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans relate to the topic, not the location. If we topic ban johncheverly, it doesn't matter where he posts. Personally, I'd think it best to not only topic ban him, but make any unblock conditional on an explicit agreement from him to strictly abide by policy regarding the appropriate use of talk pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support a topic ban. Geeze louise. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban as well. John was just here a few weeks ago for incivility and disruptive edits. Whereas he can be given leeway with respect to those issues as he intends to improve, we cannot countenance ongoing BLP violations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban from all BLPs would also extend to edits relating to living persons that found their way to articles like England, for example - and that might be as precise as we're gonna get. The alternative is to topic ban him from edits relating to Savile and all the others listed above - and then re-up the ban when he finds someone else to go after. Better the blunt instrument. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I was (and I guess technically still am) John's mentor/adopter. Right now I am having a discussion with him via email. Would an admin please just hold off 24 hours to see if I can work something out with him that is not an indef block but that is enforceable with one? Thanks. Go Phightins! 22:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He told me that he is done and wants his up and whatnot deleted. May as well indef block to enforce it. Go Phightins! 19:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no point in indeffing him if he has no intent to return, or even if he does return. We aren't even proposing a community ban, just editing restrictions, such as a topic ban, logged at WP:RESTRICT. If he really wants to leave the community there's nothing we can do to stop him though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he'd really still like to draft up "a section on English law as it relates to the Savile case" (preferably in his own sandbox first), I'm sure we'd all be very interested to see it, as would all the guys (and gels) down in the dark woods. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mendaliv, if you would rather simply topic ban him at BLP, that would be fine too, but he has a history of questionable conduct no matter where he is. He notified me via email in no uncertain terms that he is fed up with Wikipedia, so at this point, I agree, it doesn't so much matter what we do. He's adamant that he's done. Go Phightins! 02:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people might call that a result. If only all interventions were as productive? I'd have nothing against him if he calmed down a bit and followed policy - editors can hold "unusual views" about justice if they wish to. But, since he started as an editor, how many main space edits has he made that could be considered "useful"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate his enthusiasm but in addition to policy he needs to listen to what other edits are saying. Martin, and other editors, asked him not to paste entire news articles into talk pages and to not spam other pages loosely related to the subject but he still continued to do so, including to my own talk page. Working with other editors to work towards consensus is really what wikipedia is all about and it seems that john is so passionate and got so excited that he disregarded that. It's hard to have a conversation about a subject when you have to scroll through long walls of text and several subsections all about the same subject.LM2000 (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this diff and this diff for two examples of the personal attacks User:PraetorianFury has been repeatedly making toward other editors. Furthermore, this user has basically admitted that he is User:AzureFury, an editor with an extensive block log. Please note that latter diff by his second account also contains several more personal attacks aimed at the same editor. ROG5728 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an SPI for these users. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but the SPI is probably unnecessary because he has already admitted he owns both accounts. Regardless, his conduct has been incredibly rude and disruptive, so something will have to be done. ROG5728 (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really evidence to say "here's one example, there are lots more." Please give as many diffs as you can to support your complaint here. Since the SPI is being handled separately, I suggest you remove that part of the complaint here. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provided three diffs containing clear personal attacks against another editor and one of the diffs even contains more than one attack. Let me also point out that the only reason you're commenting on this ANI is because you (SPECIFICO) are currently the subject of an ANI yourself. ROG5728 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I spent a great half an hour looking at all this crap. The SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AzureFury, is going nowhere (for obvious reasons), and I don't think that the diffs provided here are enough reason for a block. I did find, however, that the attitude displayed by PratorianFury esp. on Talk:Gun control are snarky, bitey, baiting, and condescending--they're the mix of sarcasm and insult that makes working on some issues just not worth it. I have asked them on their talk page to stop--actually, I warned them. If this goes on, they should be blocked for a breach of civility. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The double-standard here is appalling. Where were your delicate sensibilities when I reported these same attacks and had admins complain about my report? PraetorianFury (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is continuing to act in a way completely contrary to establishing consensus. I made some (many) assertions of notability listing some examples (unsourced). He asked for links. I asked him to clarify which ones he questioned or would find satisfactory. He responded saying "You typed many words on a talk page but have provided no links as required by WP:ONUS. Let the record show that I've given you the opportunity to change my position and you have rejected it". I am open to opinions and views other than my own, but he completely refuses to collaborate in any useful manner. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists
• Amanda Filipacchi
• Obiwankenobi and The Devil's Advocate

The above-linked CfD was closed as;

I did just that at the Amanda Filipacchi article...IMO there was no reason to wait for the bot script to come about in order to address some of the more high-profile articles of this debacle...but was reverted once by Obiwan, and again by TDA. So rather than perpetuate an edit war, admin intervention will apparently be needed to enforce a consensus decision and prevent disruption by these two users. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this myself. It takes a hell of a lot of gall to claim of a just-closed CFD that " this is a losing a battle" [10]. Picking the article most certain to cause outrage as the locus of this defiance is approximately as WP:POINTy as putting that article up for deletion, and just as futile. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been no decision against categorizing by century. People in Category:20th-century American novelists and Category:21st-century American novelists do not need to be in the overall Category:American novelists. There is absolutely no reason for such duplication. Anyway, Filipacchi is on List of American novelists, where if someone really wanted to marginzalize her they could fairly easily, as has been done in the past by removing Stephanie Meyer from that list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • • We've established loads of reasons for duplication, and who is that keeps claiming we can't have duplication? That's not true. Eventually, the duplication will be removed through technical means, but for now, stop diffusing the categories. This obsession with unhelpful tasks that piss people off needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion on the matter at this point is entirely irrelevant. These BLPs are to be categorized back into Category:American novelists and Category:American women novelists, that's all there is to it. What you choose to do after the fact regarding 20th, 21st century or any other categorizes is academic. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the decision is that we will not remove articles from Category:American novelists to place them in Category:American women novelists. There is no decision against moving them to Category:20th-century American novelists or Category:American historical novelists. Those are legitmate diffusing categories and there is absolutely no reason not to diffuse. If you think we should not have Category:20th-century American novelists, you are free to take it to a CfD, but while it exists it is a 100% legitimate diffusion category, and there is no reason to fight diffusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your interpretation of the matter is so divorced from reality that we're either in "I'm not listening" or "Just plain doesn't get it" territory. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggest you diffuse the other 4,000 American novelists into their respective century sub-categories first before you do Filipacchi. Otherwise the unavoidable impression is that you are unpleasantly and indefensibly obsessed with the category her biography is in. Walk away, drop the stick. Andreas JN466 10:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment(edit conflict):I've been watching this whole fiasco from the sidelines. Seeing this pop up at the bottom of the noticeboard made me think of a scene from a painting (or perhaps a movie, it was quite a while ago) I saw. Attila and his horde were advancing down a hill upon an unsuspecting settlement. With this huge debacle, and the following media storm, I can only imagine in horror the Chinese fire drill that will result. All while this plays in the background. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of this. At any rate abstracting the principle of the CFD result (i.e., don't diffuse people by gender, race, or anything else likely to set off the "ghetto" accusations) and then getting on with doing anything else but this what everyone needs to do, at least for a couple of weeks. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop diffusing the goddamn categories. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello friendly denizens of ANI, and allow me to apologize in advance for having been partially responsible for bringing what is basically a content dispute here. The reason I felt it might be worthwhile coming before you is an interesting point of policy - how does community consensus interact with guidance, in this case, this particular guidance: Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, which states "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below."

We have a very crisp and specific example here in the guise of a famous novelist that launched a storm of epic proportions against our little wiki-ship - I think Ms. Filipacchi has actually done us a lot of good, ultimately, by pushing us to think hard about what categorization means, and how we might be giving an impression of sexism or racism, and why we need to do better. So, thanks to her for that.

Now, we have a CFD, which closes as "keep + merge" - meaning, all women novelists would be also bubbled up to Category:American novelists.

That much is clear, and is currently being done. However, here is where it gets fuzzy - what happens next? I can map out a few possible scenarios:

1. community consensus was firm and clear, and all women novelists shall forever remain American novelists - not to be diffused. The community, unfortunately, was mum on a few other points - like, what about men?

a)In the interest of fairness, should all male novelists, even those that have been diffused to deep subcats, bubble up to American novelists too? Then that basically suggests the following conclusion: henceforth, in the American novelists tree, all categories are non-diffusing, and we bubble up the whole shebang (Note for the record: there are 3000 novelists not in the head cat today, so get your bots ready) I'm not sure if the community said that, but maybe they did.

b) Or, should all male novelists be treated as before, eligible to be diffused. If this is the case, then we have a stranger situation - in a few months time, after the gnomes are done diffusing all of the men, there will be only women left in American novelists. Ah, the irony!

Either way, if you take this to its conclusion, you end up in two strange worlds (1) Where everyone is in American novelists or (2) where only women are in American novelists. I'm not sure either is desirable. Remember, before this whole debacle started, Category:American novelists was tagged with a template that asked people to diffuse - so clearly consensus leading up to this was that the cat should be diffused.

1. Here's another option - community consensus was that women novelists should be bubbled up, and then henceforth treated like their male colleagues. If this is the case, then diffusion to a by-century cat once they're there (which I did, and have done to several other bios, male and female, that have hit my watchlist), is perfectly reasonable. (For the record, this is my own personal position)

A counter-argument could be made here as follows - That's all fine and good Obi, but (a) I don't like the century cats or (b) the century cats should be non-diffusing. But I haven't heard anyone make either of those arguments.

1. A third option is what I might call Filipacchi-exceptionalism. The argument here is (and this has already been made above)is that this bio is now so famous, and she was so dismayed at not being in the American novelist cat, that we should keep her there, no matter what. The other women and men can be diffused, no-one will care - but she must stay. There may be good reasons for this, having to do with reputation, letting-storms-blow-over, not-poking-a-lion-with-a-stick (esp when she has a NY times pulpit), etc.
2. A fourth option, which we might call the ostrich option, is to say "there is so much media around this, let's just give in, stick them all in American novelists, and hope the attention goes away" - then after a few months, we can get back to categorizing and diffusing the way we always did (remembering, of course, to not diffuse gendered categories). So the community then says, don't touch anyone in American novelists for a month or a year, then back to business.

So that's my brief analysis of this story. I welcome your thoughts, and I'm sure there are other options/interpretations, and I will of course abide by whatever you want us to do here, but please be very clear on the guidance - going forward, what exactly is allowed in terms of diffusion from American novelists - can everyone be diffused? only men? Everyone but Filipacchi? Everyone but that specific set of women who were in the American women novelists category as of May 2? And does the guidance decided here affect other categories, like Category:French novelists or Category:Polish poets, etc.? Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should not be categorizing and diffusing, as that makes it impossible to find anything. Wikipedia:Categorization is a guideline and its current implementation does not work. We need to take categorization tasks out of the hands of obsesive editors and make them completely automated. You guys had your chance and you blew it. Now, step away. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ^^ Exactly this. The obsession with arbitrary "too big" limits on categories leading to increasingly useless "diffusion" just makes the category system useless as anything other than a self perpetuating plaything. Categorise every thing for everything that it is (which we deem notable enough). An author goes in "Authors". US people go in "US People", etc... Each category record reflects a single data point for a single item. Then use the intersects to search. If that means some articles have hundreds of categories, or some categories contain (god forbid) tens of thousands of things, then so be it. That's how the world we are documenting is structured. We should record all of the data as it is, and allow it to be searched in any way based on this data. The technical issues of how this information is displayed and searched will need to be solved, but trying to guess the result of any potential search by creating a zillion over specific ghettoised "subcategories" as we do now is unachievable. They aren't categories at all, they are search terms... I'm not even going to touch on the potential it includes and perpetuates for "attack/slur categories", but the impact of that is far from negligible. Begoon ^talk 04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, indeed - this approach around high-level facets is definitely the way we should be going. But we're not at a bar all having beers together - TDA and I have been dragged before ANI to receive a smack-down. Has the community, e.g. the broad consensus, changed? Did some big RFC somewhere say "no more diffusion, no more specific categories"? I'd love to end up there, but we aren't there yet, so sanctioning us for not fulfilling that utopia right now seems a bit over eager. Let it be known that as we push for category intersections, I am all over that and even made a prototype of it at Category:Nigerian novelists. But that's not yet the consensus path as far as I know. Cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems well and good so long as you are talking about individual people who can be subject to fairly simple classifications like you describe. However, you are still going to need those more specific sub-cats to cover subjects of more specific interest where you can't have some straight-forward intersection. Surely you aren't suggesting we shouldn't have Category:Kennedy family or that it can be easily addressed with some intersection of other widely-used categories. How about Category:William Shakespeare or ones about events such as Category:World War II? Maybe what people are suggesting can limit the amount of diffusion necessary, but there would still need to be quite a bit of it in order for categories to serve their desired purpose.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can have a category "Kennedy Family". It's an additional data point concerning the articles you include in it. Provided it's deemed notable you create it and add it to all articles concerned. What you don't do is remove the members of your new category from other categories they belong to, like "TV miniseries", "People", Women or "US Presidents". Same goes for "World War II" and your Shakespeare example. As ObiWan says, though, this is probably the wrong place for this big discussion - I just wanted to agree with Viriditas' point, and maybe expand on it a bit. Begoon ^talk 05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas raised his personal opinion that is unsupported by any consensus here as though it somehow has relevance. Adding sub-categories and removing parent categories is not suddenly prohibited. What this really amounts to is that the Amanda Filipacchi article is getting special attention because she was in the press on this issue. Even now this sort of category switch happening on another article generally would and does occur without incidence. No policy or consensus is actually being violated as replacing a broader gender-neutral category with a more specific gender-neutral category is not the same as "ghettoizing" novelists by gender. It is, in fact, a compromise measure that has not been rejected by any consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be prohibited when obsessive editors engage in disruptive category diffusion that brings the entire mainstream media down on us and instead of listening to their criticism, attacks them in response and continues on their merry, obsessive way. No, I'm sorry, but you guys need to stop this unusual obsession with category diffusion and find something useful to do. Wikipedia isn't therapy. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we're pretty clear on your POV here. I will take your recommendation under consideration. That said, when the mainstream media gets it wrong, as they did in the main this time, I usually just feel free to ignore them - beaucoup de bruit pour rien. Is wikipedia's clunky categorization system really the front line of the sexism problem in the world? I mean, if we solve that, have we made a big dent in the problems that women face in the world? No.

In the meantime, do you have any actual violations that merit sanction here? I do note that JPL was proposed for a categories topic ban just a few days ago, and was closed in a pretty snowy fashion. Personally, I've probably categorized < 100 bios in the past week or so, so I'm not exactly an obsessive machine, and I'm almost positive I haven't ghettoized anyone. In fact, I de-ghettoized Maya Angelou, who was a feature article candidate but her categorization was besmirched in the media - I fixed that. :)

Also, since you seem to be a fan of an all-inclusive Category:American novelists category, can we count on you to volunteer to start bubbling the 3000 bios up the tree? I mean, do you actually care enough to do something about it, or are you more the rock-throwing type? (I kid :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact is that plenty of men and women were not included in the main category at the outset of this because they were included in non-gendered sub-categories of American novelists. Just look at any number of sub-categories and you will see both men and women who are not included in American novelists because they are included in a gender-neutral subcat. I don't think the intention of the CfD was that every single person in every sub-category of American novelists (currently 6792 people) be added to the American novelists category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, just exactly what is wrong with that? With alpha sortable menu options at the top, I can find exactly what I'm looking for anyway. If we had a well designed category system, we wouldn't be diffusing anything, and frankly, all of this effort spend diffusing categories can be better spent improving articles. Let the bots deal with the categories. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas. Allow me to invite you to view a prototype I created here: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - would love your input and feedback. For the record, I agree, it would be great if we could get to some sort of category intersection, and have larger head cats. However, we're not there yet - we have a prototype that could be evolved, and wikidata is on it's way - but until then, I don't recall community consensus to rescind the guidance for categorization - so why should we stop paying attention to it? Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This assumes you know the novelist's name or that you are even looking for a specific novelist. I think Obi's addition of Catscan to the top of the category page was actually a very good way of addressing the desire for a single comprehensive list without having some big clutter of entries. Until there is an actual function that would, with the same or greater level of ease, serve the same purpose as creating more specific sub-categories then we should work with the current system. The objection was that women were being systematically moved out of the parent category to a gender-specific sub-category, but not men. We do not have that situation as plenty of men are in these sub-categories and not the parent category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another question for V (and others advocating full membership in American novelists) - should we also consider bubbling this all up to American writers? That way, we can see all writers, no matter what type, in one category. Then, we could move all the writers up another level, so that we can see all writers, artists, etc, all in one place, for convenience? Diffusion is there for a reason, and until we have a better category system, we'll be in big trouble if we start un-diffusing large trees - as it's not clear where to stop. Is Category:American novelists an exception to all rules now? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should all be upmerged to Category:Humans. Or perhaps that's discriminatory to some famous apes, so Category:Apes would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who should be "bubbled up" are people who were excluded from a generic category based on race, gender, sexuality or religion. If American novelists end up being diffused from Category:American novelists to century categories, then I suggest Wikipedia would be wise to start with the men, as otherwise outside observers are very likely to get the wrong impression whenever the American novelists category is removed from a female writer's biography. You want to be able to point to hundreds of diffusing edits to male novelists' biographies (i.e. edits removing Category:American novelists from the article, and replacing it with a category like 20th-century American novelists) that were made under the exact same rationale. Andreas JN466 11:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you would not want to "start" with any specific gender as if the category becomes entirely female that could raise questions as well or if someone sees an editor in the process of depopulating an exclusively female version of the category they may only see an editor systematically removing women without catching on that the men are already gone. Perhaps we should avoid Filipacchi for some time until it becomes abundantly obvious that no gender or individual is being targeted. If people see her removed from the category and then notice or are told that the category is otherwise empty, it would make things a lot less contentious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this isn't (on one level at least) all that hard. Given the outcome of the CFD, any solution to whatever categorization problem there is which takes the "women X" out of "X people" is going to be unsatisfactory. If the guideline says otherwise, then it's time to talk about changing it. And if we can't come to a consensus about that, it's time to rethink the whole categorization mechanism (and I'm personally betting that we'll get to that eventually). But however any of that goes, ostensibly mechanical application of anyone's interpretation of the guideline against the explicitly stated outcome of the CFD, at the article which is the locus of the original complaint, is a Reichstag-class level of WP:POINTy behavior. Taking the person's article who is rattling our cage in the media and making it an object example of one's defiance is deserving of a vacation, and a forced vacation if one doesn't back down. Right here don't need to discuss to the bitter end, or even any further, whatever solution needs to be worked out, but anyone who diffuses that particular article needs to be blocked if they go at it again. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There are nearly 4,000 novelists to diffuse from Category:American novelists (if that is indeed what is going to be done). Why anyone would want to start with Filipacchi beats me. You can diffuse her when the vast majority of men have been diffused, otherwise it will just look like more petty harassment and revenge editing. Andreas JN466 10:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but having diffused all the 17th 18th and 19th century American Novelists the 20th century list is going to be so much smaller and more manageable, and won't have anywhere near 4000 items. John lilburne (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the CFD ruling apply only to American novelists? What about Americans in other professions? What about novelists of other nationalities? Categorisation should be consistent across the entire system, having special rules just for Americans or Novelists is completely unacceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dito women. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The ruling is the ruling. Apply it with common sense either directly or by analogy when needed. There is an incredible lack of common sense on display by anyone advocating that Filapacchi need be an initial target of removal from Category:American novelists yet again.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CFD ruling applies narrowly to the issue of American novelists, that being the set of categories under specific discussion here. But I think it serves as a useful precedent for other, similar categories - and that this issue shows in general that we need to revise the Category guidelines. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My read of the consensus at the CFD is clear, and I'm having a hard time seeing how overrulling that consensus is not a prime example of Disruptive Editing. Could someone explain how a guideline trumps a specific CFD? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I didn't even really pay much attention to the CfD when it was happening so I really didn't look at the result. Looking at it now, I don't read the consensus as being "no article can be removed from the parent category when moved to a gender-neutral sub-category" but more as "no article can be removed from the parent category just to be moved to a gendered sub-category" and I feel the changes being made were consistent with that principle. To Jayen's point above, I don't actually think anyone was "starting" with the Filipacchi article as many other articles for male and female novelists were getting moved to those gender-neutral sub-categories. It is instead that people only noticed the change on the Filipacchi article because more people were looking at the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire point of the debate was that removing female novelists from the main category was somehow interpreted as saying that they were not actual for-reals American novelists. The result of the discussion was that the articles removed from that main category should be put back into that category, while the articles for female novelists should remain at the subcategory as well. OK, so is the subject of this article an American novelist? Yup. Is the subject of this article a female American novelist? Yup. So now I'm asking you to please revert your edit here and restore the main category to the article, in conformance to the consensus at CFD of which you are now aware. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the edit was already reverted. However, looking over the votes in the CfD, I would say the consensus was that the American women novelists category issue was a problem because women were removed from the parent category, while men remained. Most calls for a merge or restoring articles to the parent category specifically justified it on the basis of the parent category becoming exclusively male. As noted, moving men and women out of the parent category is not creating that issue. I do not think one should take the admin finding of consensus as indicative of the actual community perspective. To me it seems as though moving all articles in the American novelists category, without regard for gender, to gender-neutral sub-categories is perfectly respecting the major objections raised in the CfD, even if it doesn't fit the letter of the admin's closing statement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Both men and women should be upmerged to the parent. Equal opportunity categorization is the only solution. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Thanks to all above for their thoughtful comments - I've learned a lot, and I appreciate better why this has caused an uproar. To me, it seems to be an issue mostly of timing and scale, not of principle - e.g. I'm not sure people think Category:American novelists should *never* be diffused, just that we shouldn't start by diffusing to non-gendered cats women who have written articles about wikipedia. Fair enough. So that said, here is my proposed compromise:

• No more women can be diffused out of Category:American novelists to a non-gendered century-specific cat (e.g. Category:19th-century American novelists or to a non-gendered genre cat like Category:American romantic fiction writers) until there are at least 1000 men, including 10 Pulitzer prize winning men, that have been moved out of the head category first. I noted above that I've already moved Hemingway - I will go after Faulkner next. In addition, for Filipacchi specifically, we should keep her in the head cat for at least one month regardless of what happens - after which point she can be diffused as long as there are at least 3 (male or female) Nobel prize in literature winners in the same category as her. In this way, she will remain in the head cat at least until this all blows over. Finally, a (self-imposed) wet minnow to Obiwan as a way of helping him get a clue. I welcome your thoughts and modifications to the above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be conflating two issues. The consensus was that female American novelists should be in both the category for American novelists and the subcategory for female American novelists. All of the other issues surrounding century-specific categories, diffusion, etc, are subordinate to that consensus. Suggesting that we comply with that consensus "until this all blows over" is rubbish - have an RFC and come up with a better solution, then. But the CFD result should not just be handwaved away. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ultra. I totally appreciate where you're coming from. However, as noted above, if we take that specific interpretation of consensus to its logical conclusion, we end up with an odd result. (I note that the consensus never ruled on whether post-facto diffusion to non-gendered sub cats was allowable or not - the consensus was mum on that issue, so it's really an interpretation you're putting forth).

If it is allowed to diffuse men in Category:American novelists to century-or genre-specific sub-cats, but the women are untouchable, then the result after a few months will be that Category:American novelists will only contain women. That would be a rich irony indeed - and perhaps, frankly, deserved :) But do you understand why this is not desirable or logical? On the other hand, if it's also *not* allowed to diffuse men, then that means, logically, all cats under Category:American novelists have now become non-diffusing, and to be fair, we have to bubble up everyone who's not currently in the parent - around 3000 bios. My response here may be helpful in understanding why that is not desirable either ==> Category_talk:American_novelists#By_century_sub-cats. Best regards, and appreciate your contributions here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • That compromise sounds eminently sensible to me. (At least, if there are subsequent arguments about whether diffusion is sensible or not, these arguments will be carried out on the backs of male writers.) Andreas JN466 23:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, uh, why is having a very big category a bad thing?

Let me first admit that I have not read all of discussion about this, but I will ask my question anyway and perhaps someone can point me to the answer - why is having 6700 (or 10000, or more) listings in a category a bad thing? If readers of WP see that a person is in the category "People from Earth" and in "People from Africa" (or "People from Mali" etc), what does it matter how many entries the main category has? I think it is clear from the media reports that readers have been confused and upset by the diffusion of categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are readers upset, editors are too (well, I am). And the media has it right, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great question - and I think it points to a fundamental flaw and confusion with the way the current system works. There are two ways of fixing what you're asking for:

1. Alternative 1: Put everyone in every category all the way up the chain. This would mean, all American politicians would be in Category:American politicians, as well as in any specific cats below, and in the more generic cats all the way up the tree, such as Category:American political people, Category:American people by occupation, Category:People_by_nationality_and_occupation, Category:People_by_nationality, Category:People, Category:Humans,Category:Hominina,Category:Homininae, Category:North_American_people, Category:People_of_the_Americas, Category:People_by_region, and so on. To implement this in a generic fashion, we'd literally have to add dozens or, depending on depth and complexity of parenting, hundreds of categories to every single page in the wiki.

Take a look at Category:People - can you see how easy it is to find those in need of better categorization? a few entries, sit there, waiting to be sub-catted. What would happen if People had 500,000 entries? How could you find the ones in need of a better cat?

Even if you went to the page Category:American politicians, there would literally be tens of thousands of entries competing for your attention. If you wanted to find someone who wasn't yet put into a more specific category, you'd have to read all of the bios, one by one. So it would basically be impossible to find articles in need of diffusing/sub-categorization.

It would also be extremely brittle. Suppose someone comes along and wants to create a new category, called Category:People from North Africa. In the current system, it would just mean adding the top level cats, Category:Algerian people and Category:Tunisian people and so on to Category:People from North Africa. But if you're not diffusing, you now have to edit every single bio, tens and tens of thousands of them, in order to get the full complete set visible in Category:People from North Africa. So a 5 minute edit today to create a potentially useful category would turn into weeks or months worth of work.

Finally for the reader, it would become meaningless - Category:People would have 500,000 entries, Category:Humans would have 500,000 entries - what would the point be?

1. Alternative 2: Don't put everyone in every category up the chain, continue to diffuse, but have the option, when needed, to "display" everyone in all sub-cats of a given cat recursively. I gave some examples of how to do this elsewhere, but go to Category:American novelists and click the link at the top for an example. I think #2 is the better option. It would be nice if they just built this into the wiki. May be you can try to make that happen? This isn't the forum, right here, though. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, the problem with categories that have many listings is that there would be many listings in the categories? And that would be silly because readers would not want to see that someone is from the US, they would prefer to know that someone is from Queens (because Queens is such an important borough of New York city that it is globally recognized)? (By the way, I'm not suggesting that we put every article into every category "all the way up the chain", but I'm sure tools could be created to painlessly handle that situation if that were the case.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC, I've tried to explain, and obviously failed. If you want to swing by my talk page I am willing to try again - but it's a waste of space to discuss the theory and practice of hierarchical categorization and taxonomies, the challenges of non-diffusing categories, and how this might influence a given search here any more. Sorry.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First off, this discussion belongs somewhere other than ANI. Second, there are two answers to your titular question:

1. It isn't.
2. It depends on what the category is and how big it is. Once you get 10K articles, it's unnavigable or meaningless. I think a bigger question is, "why are articles in daughter categories automatically removed from mother categories" pbp 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a category being "unnavigable" is an odd one. Do readers go to categories to find things, or do they see categories at the bottom of the article they are reading? I suspect it is the latter. Even if a category is too large to conveniently browse, it can be used in searches. And those searches would return the results that I think our readers expect. If I am looking for the article on a novelist whose name I cannot recall, am I likely to know that Herman Melville is not an "American novelist", but is an "American male novelist" "American men novelist" or a "19th-century American novelist"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author of Moby-Dick was actually categorized as both a "male writer" and a "men novelists". But not a straight novelist (pun not really intended). As though that's what people are looking for! This is now theatre of the absurd and if I were writing for the press would have a field day. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Melville was an american who, among other things, wrote novels in the 19th century. So, he is in category Category:19th-century American novelists. What part of "19th-century American novelists" do you not understand? Try this - take your finger and cover up the word "19th-century" - see that? Wow - he now looks like an American novelist. Read WP:Categorization again please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this discussion has got me at the point where I believe that anybody in any subcategory of American novelist should also be in the mother category! Just like Louis Armstrong isn't just a jazz cornetist, he's an American musician, and as such, he should be in the parent category pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - people who are depopulating categories without understanding that our best American novelists now are no longer categorized as novelists really need to step back and stop now. Please pick one centralized place to discuss and wait for consensus to develop. I feel very very strongly about this - am not happy to see the novelist taken out of Faulkener, Twain, Hemingway, Hathworne, etc (that's as far as I got on my watchlist). I'm willing to take a block or a ban for this - that's how strongly I feel. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree! There seems to be an insatiable need for some editors to somehow show they were "right" but emptying out a category that doesn't *have* to be emptied. Jumping in and taking Twain, Hemingway, etc., out of American novelists? Sheesh. It reminds me of the famous punk lyric "I want to be stereotyped. I want to be classified."[11] Please, someone in the press, if anyone is still writing about this, work that quote into your pithy observations. The Workhouse Category Editor isn't sexist or racist, they just crave order.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one was "taken out" - they were simply classified into a more specific categorization by century. We do this all over the wiki - just look at the Category:Poets tree. ==> Category:20th-century American novelists - most of the letters in that name spell A M E R I C A N N O V E L I S T S. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Hemingway is relegated as a mere writer and his achievement of writing novels has been removed. It's wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs or it didn't happen. Please don't make accusations that you can't back up. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[12]. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. Did you scroll down, and look through the list of categories he is in? Even after my edit, he remained safely in Category:20th-century American novelists. Can you please stop with the bogus accusations???? I didn't remove a single bio from "American novelists", I just moved some to "X century american novelists" - which is again a rather humdrum thing called category diffusion that happens ALL THE TIME.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, there is a 20th-century American novelists category that was added when the American novelists category was removed. However, it was added lower down where the American novelists category was originally so it is not as visible. I fixed that to keep the listing alphabetical and so that category is now more prominent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now that it's sorted I see what's been done. My diffs are set so as not to show the entire page - so, nope, didn't see it. It's really confusing though and still not being done consistently. The women are being kept in the American novelists category but the men not. I'd still like to see a centralized discussion brought to a wikiproject - either novels or literature - and see it mentioned there and garner input. Having discussions all over the place, on barely watched cat pages and on individual talk pages isn't helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TruthKeeper. Like you, I am for consistency, and if you see an edit I've made which is not consistent, please let me know (on my talk plz) - I am actually quite careful about these, especially now. If you just read diffs, and don't look at the full category list, you may not understand the full reasoning/scope of the changes. Secondly, as to why are women being kept and men moved, I hope you realize that I and TDA have today been dragged before ANI - that's this thread - for the crime of moving our intrepid NY times columnist from Category:American novelists to Category:20th-century American novelists - I suppose one might say we "ghettoized" her by century. That is our crime, and we await judgement. The atmosphere has become so poisonous that as of now, I am no longer going to touch any women novelist bios, I'm just going to be fixing men going forward. I targeted a few big names though on purpose, per BRD - it gets a discussion going. You don't want to start with bios nobody knows, do all this work to diffuse, then find out consensus has moved in the other way. Better to go after whales, and deal with the fallout - that's why your watchlist is lighting up. Now, the question before you, given your reverts to date is (1) Do you like/don't like the by-century american novelist cats. If you don't like them, bring them to CFD, that's the centralized place, and the community can decide to delete them. If you're ok with them, you'd then have to find a way to either (a) accept that they are diffusing, which will mean that in a few months time, there will be ZERO bios in Category:American novelists (all having been diffused) - looks at Category:Poets for an example or (b) argue somehow that, like gender/ethnic categories, these by-century-cats should *also* be non-diffusing. But that will be a harder argument to make, as we have diffusing-by-century-writer-cats all over this tree, it's common practice, so I'm not sure why an exception would be made here. Finally, I would appreciate an apology for the bogus accusation, I'm a big fan of Papa and would never knowingly do him harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should serve as an illustration of the problem here. Was Ernest Hemingway removed from the category "American novelists"? A common sense answer would be yes, because Hemingway is no longer in that category (having been removed in this edit). Obiwankenobi says no, presumably because subcategories are logically included in parent categories. While I understand the reasoning, the fact remains that when a reader looks at the bottom of the page, they will not find "American novelists" (although they will find both "20th-centuy American novelists" and "20th-century American writers", even though "20th-centuy American novelists" is a subcategory of "20th-century American writers". Ask a Wikipedia reader if Hemingway is in the category "American novelists", what do you think they will say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phew - finally someone gets it. Thanks DC. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and ask a reader if Obama is in the category "American politicians" - what will they say?? Or ask the same reader if Hemingway is in the category Category:Novelists or Category:Short story writers or Category:American writers - same answer! In almost all cases, we categorize based on the most specific category(ies) for that person. That's the system. If you want to change it, go for it - but you have to change the guidance first, not battle it out article by article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with having people in both general and specific categories? pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's take an example - Ernest Hemingway. He was a novelist, short story writer, etc. So we stick him in Category:American short story writers. But why not go more general - and stick him in Category:Short story writers. We can get more general, and stick him in Category:Writers, and then up and up and up till he's in Category:Human. The problem is recursion - where do you stop? How generic is generic enough? As you go up the tree, any parent category will likely be valid - so I could edit war and say "Hemingway wasn't just an American novelist, he was a novelist, so he deserves to be in Category:Novelists. Others could make the same argument for higher level categories. The result would be a mess. Now, there are certain exceptions - for example, Novelist is a special type of writer ,but we stick Papa in both cats because he was known and DEFINED as a novelist, and he was known and DEFINED as a writer. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a sec there. If Hemingway is in Category:Novelists then he should not be placed in Category:Writers because Novelists is in Category:Fiction writers which is in Category:Writers by genre which is in Writers, so, by your logic above, Hemingway is already in Writers (because Novelists is a subcategory of a subcategory of Writers). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an area that's a bit wonky. For a moment, ignore the whole "american" thing - let's just deal in the abstract. Let's say he is in a specific sub-category of writers, as a novelist. If he only wrote novels, that would be fine - and if someone said "give me all the writers", I would also give you Hemingway, because he is a type-of-writer. Just like if someone said, give me a fruit, and you gave them an apple, because apple is a type-of-fruit. However, "writer" is not just a container - it is also a title that is applied to people - we have Category:Writers from New York for example - we don't have Category:Short story writers from New York or Category:Novelists from New York - so you end up putting him in some writers cats as well, because he was a journalist, short story writer, essayist, and so on. So, for various reasons, he ends up in some writers cats, some cats like short story cats, and two novelist cats - but they should all be siblings or cousins. This is a particularity of this writing tree, and the fact that writers is not fully diffusing - e.g. you can't always diffuse someone down, except by century, and there are lots of ancillary trees that only use the 'writer' moniker. It's the same with novelists - as currently structured, it's only partially diffusing, with the exception of the by-century cats, which do fully diffuse. I think that may be the crux of misunderstanding here - some of the genre categories do not fully diffuse based on the person (for example, if you wrote science fiction and romance and "general" novels, then you'd be placed in sci-fi, romance, + novelist - but then you'd be diffused from novelist to novelist-by-century. Perhaps we should rename the head cat to Category:American novelists not yet diffused, which would reflect a bit better the current setup. Anyway, if you want to discuss this particular point further, please come to my talk page... cheers,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put Hemingway back as it was for many years and would like the page to be locked please until this resolved - where ever, whenever that happens. I'm tired of this; tired of being talked down to, tired of reading walls of text of why we have to diffuse, (we don't imo), sick of it all. I don't see that the edit warring will stop. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Declaration to start with - I'm the one who used AWB to implement the outcome of the CFD. My interpretation was that all in Category:American women novelists should be added to Category:American novelists as a starting point but to be absolutely frank the CFD is a classic example of a very messy discussion because it's formally only actually about one individual category but many people were making points pertinent to either the broader tree and/or the entire category system as it's currently arranged. It certainly doesn't help when many contributors seem to have been under the impression that all American novelists were already directly in Category:American novelists and only women were diffused (not helped by some poor researched media articles). And this makes a mess if people aren't aware of what arrangements and categories they are and aren't reviewing. That particular discussion was only about Category:American women novelists - it didn't take in other categories and as they weren't tagged people either watching them or the relevant projects (and the media attention was not universal) so I'm not sure that has been decided beyond that women novelists should not solely be in that category. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should "three-way intersection" categories even exist? "Category:Nationality Gender Occupation" or "Category:Ethnicity Occupation Location" etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the same sense that we go down the list in categorizations, the American novelist section should be the finite spot, but it is possible to go down to male and female novelists (as it seems was half-done), but you can keep categorizing down to state, province, town if you really wanted to. But where to draw the line, when it becomes an issue? Or do we have to re-think our entire system? What about Wikidata? Many things mean well, but it is impossible for every editor to be on the same page and due to the nature of Wikipedia, a single interested person can be unchallenged for even large moves in obscure editing spaces. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can this just be closed and policy discussion resume in appropriate location?

There's a pretty clear consensus that the removal of Filipacchi from the broader category was inappropriate. None of the related issues are suitable for resolution here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not convinced yet we have a consensus. Her presence, and the presence of all of the other bios in Category:American novelists needs resolution - are they ever allowed to be diffused, and if so to which categories? Or if not, why not? I proposed a compromise above. If they're *never* allowed to be moved, that causes other problems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that discussion is why I suggested an RFC - to clarify precisely that question. But until then, the articles in American Women Novelists need to also be in American Novelists. Period. Full Stop. Dispute the CFD consensus at DRV, or start an RFC to clarify the issue of diffusion in general, or as it relates to this category in particular, or send WP:CATEGORIES to MFD. All of that is out of scope for ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. we'll just diffuse all the men, and the women will be left in the head cat. Maybe a new article will be written about the irony of that result. :) I'm really not in the mood to open an RFC, I don't even know how to do it - if you open one, just let me know. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No! That makes no sense at all. If consensus is not to diffuse the women (which it is), then the men too should all be upmerged to American novelists instead of being shoved down a level - and this opinion from a woman. Recent edits to writers' biographies really are lacking in consistency and creating a bit of a mess; can we just leave them alone for a while? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, go to the relevant page, make an edit in your favor [13] and then argue for diffusion. This is wrong and frankly disruptive. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, were you watching the media sh*tstorm that just happened? Do you know *why* it happened? It was because we had diffusing gendered cats that should have been non-diffusing. I have a feeling you need to take more time to read diffs, this is like the third time you've accused me of something that is completely false. That edit I made above was to clarify that our guidance and current consensus is that gendered/ethnic/religious/sexuality cats should almost always be NON-DIFFUSING - so I fail to see how that edit is an argument for diffusion. Please read your diffs more carefully going forward and ease up on the bogus and unfounded accusations. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read it wrong. Bleary eyed. Struck. Sorry. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to continue to subvert community consensus

Attention should be drawn to this user talk page section, where the two named parties to this filing intend to "lie low", leave the Filipacchi article alone , and do this genre-fiddling that was rejected at the CfD elsewhere. to quote TDA, "Then when all of the articles but her bio are in gender-neutral sub-cats you can have hers be the last. ".

I believe it may be time to discuss a topic ban for The Devil's Advocate and Obi-Wan Kenobi from any gender/author-oriented categorization discussions. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks inspector gadget. You've uncovered our top secret plan, which is to leave the women novelist bios alone as requested, especially the high profile ones. Sheesh. I have yet to see a community consensus that any sort of diffusion is simply not allowed, but I have said there, and here, and elsewhere, that I'm going to avoid touching women's bios because of the current climate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are hell-bent on diffusing all the things, start an RFC and get consensus to do so. But you can't do that with these categories, and it is WP:POINTy in the extreme to assume that consensus against diffusing one gender equals consensus to diffuse the other. I don't think you are that ignorant of policies 'round here. I am strongly inclined to support Tarc's proposal - every time someone points to a very recent and well-discussed consensus, your response is essentially "nuh-uh". And it is tiresome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ultra. I'm sorry if I sound obtuse, but could you explain more clearly what you mean by "consensus against diffusing one gender"? Where, exactly, in the CfD did you see a consensus that Category:American novelists was no longer a diffusing category - e.g. that moving a male mystery novelist from Category:American novelists to Category:American mystery writers was not permitted anymore? Please provide diffs. Again, my reading of consensus was that women were not to be shunted into a woman-only category, and they should always also be placed in a gender neutral category alongside their male peers. This is not new, this is in fact our guideline, per WP:EGRS. In every edit I've made, I believe I've abided by that consensus, and that guideline. Category:American mystery writers and Category:19th-century American novelists are gender neutral, so no-one is being ghettoized by being placed within. In any case, I've stated I wont touch the "special" bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women for the time being - tensions are too high right now... As for an RFC, do we really need an RFC to ask if we should abide by WP:Categorization and WP:EGRS? If you'd like to change that guideline, maybe you could open an RFC and make some suggestions? I think it's actually pretty good for now. Best regards,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP: SNOW Oppose Obviously not going to happen. The users violated no policy at all. Per this edit, TDA was already notified of the thread prior to Obi contacting him, thus the comment was not canvassing. More time should be spent trying to actually dicuss the topic at hand then attempting to drive productiv editors out of a topic area. I think User: Tarc's increasingly hostile behavior (prime example) should be called into question, rather. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, how does one declare a "snow close" before any voting has actually begun? Or before an actual vote, straw poll, etc..has even been initiated? Did you read WP:SNOW before citing it, because I really do not think you know what it means. Tarc (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support on a case by case basis. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Lock Filippachi until this whole argument blows over (which it frankly won't until she stops criticizing Wikipedia editors, but, eh, what can we do?) pbp 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope she continues for the foreseeable future. Wikipedians are too insular, too resistant to change, too stubborn, and too narrow-minded. They only seem to do the right thing when they are forced to do it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarc, I have very little interest in making hundreds to thousands of edits to clear out a major category. All I did was say what I think should happen. I have said basically that same thing several times including further up in this discussion. Several other people, including Andreas (you and I both know what his stance on the original issue has been), have talked about such an approach being acceptable. You are basically calling for a topic ban because I made a single revert and you don't like an opinion that other people do like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Obiwankenobi has now moved to novels categories by placing Category:Asian-American novels at CfD as a "test case" without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature; continues to edit war, [14]; has actively edited against consensus formed here as shown at the top of the thread. We will almost certainly need an RfC to settle this issue, but it's best to let the dust settle, move away from it for a while, give people time to give it some thought and figure out what to do going forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature" So, the people who started the CfD on the women's category didn't have an apparent understanding of Women's literature? You can't have it both ways. Either it is proper or not. Silverseren^C 20:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not what I'm saying. Amy Tan is an American, a novelist, Asian-American. I'd categorize her as an American novelist, and now that we have the category (though I think it's unnecessary and is rightfully being upmerged) as a woman novelist. Her novel The Bonesetter's Daughter is rightfully categorized as an American-Asian novel: a novel written by an American about an Asian theme. Deleting that category, and presumably others, will only cause more fuss and we don't need that right now do we? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what nomination of categories for deletion have to do with this ANI. I've nominated several cats for deletion before and after this mess, mostly in an attempt to clean them up and comply with our guidelines. Please AGF. In any case, this particular one on Asian literature I've withdrawn, pending further research to build a better case. Also, you have "edit-warred" as you say on the Hemingway article just as much as I have, so don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. you even said you were willing to be banned in order to maintain your specific set of categories on Papa Hemingway. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchforks down, please

• Given the amount of bickering between the two groups involved in this debate, I would like to kindly ask those involved to step away from the WP: DEADHORSE, have a nice cup of tea, and remember WP: CIVILITY. We're here to discuss the enforcement of a RFC, not to try and synthesize it's results. That's WP: DRN territory. This thread began with a simple call to restore order to this heavily disputed category, and now the debate has spiraled into politicking and ridiculous calls for a topic ban. With this terrible media assault, this is no time to be turning on our fellow editors. These are the kinds of threads that tend to blow up in everyone's face, and someone ends ends up blocked or banned, usually to the detriment of the 'pedia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's definitely not a DEADHORSE, and blaming the media is equivalent to circling the wagons and encouraging groupthink. Yes, the media got the specifics all wrong, but the general problem is recognized as valid. Meanwhile, "our fellow editors" caused the problem, and it's probably time for a few topic bans to be awarded to the more obsessive, IDHT users in our midst. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, it isn't ridiculous at all, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting. We have two editors here who edit-warred against a clear consensus reached at a Categories for Discussion close, that is why I brought this here. Since filing last night, these two have done nothing but politick and browbeat everyone in this conversation, attempting to re-argue the debate that was already over and done with. A topic ban is more than appropriate to call for for otherwise productive editors who cannot seem to avoid disrupting a particular topic. And for the record, I did not weigh in at all in the CfD. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to us then, why issuing a TB to two editors in good standing because they wanted to step away from the project for a breather. What policy does that violate? This is the kind of thing i'm talking about. Making WP: POINTy edits like that only serve to dilute the topic. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One point is that AN/I is not the place to be having a discussion about how we should be categorising articles - having a discussion/argument on policy here only inflames the issue and creates more behaviour problems. AN/I should stick to editor behaviour. And people really need to calm down so that a proper discussion on the policy can be had at the appropriate placedNigel Ish (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it isn't the place for a policy discussion, but a policy discussion is essentially the basis for the filer and those supporting his complaint so it is pertinent. They claim the CfD consensus meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to gender-neutral sub-categories is against the CfD consensus. I would contend that it meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to a gender-specific sub-category is not to be done in a manner that makes the ostensibly gender-neutral category the de-facto category for a specific gender. So, by my estimation, the community consensus was being respected and thus there is no basis for the complaint.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically

We need to diffuse all the men first. Got it. I'll go help out with that then. Silverseren^C 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that, I mean diffuse them into their novelist specific cats, but not the gender ones. I'm not even touching the men novelists and women novelist cats, just the genre ones and the century ones. Silverseren^C 06:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they all stay in "American novelists" as well, knock yourself out. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what diffusing means. It means putting them into the multiple specific cats they belong in and not the higher cats. There's absolutely no reason that the American novelists cat should get special treatment in this regard compared to all the other cats, especially since the question again is raised that, why stop there and not keep going higher? And then you run into the problem of having dozens of cats on an article, it looking extremely ugly and also being extremely useless. Silverseren^C 15:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A useful comparison: Category:American novels, which is fully diffused. User:Truthkeeper88 opposed diffusion there too, but ultimately consensus was to diffuse. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus appears against diffusion. Again, please stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

consensus is as consensus does. Today, there are over 3000 novelists not in the main cat. Thus up till now, consensus has been pretty clear that diffusion is aok. You've made assertions but have not backed them up. Can you point me to the rfc or other dicsussion that says diffusion - for novelists, or for anyone else - is now not allowed? If you like, start one - but then, i dont see a consensus against diffusion of this or any other cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am only diffusing men and I am not diffusing them into the American male novelists category (which may be deleted soon, from the CfD). So, basically, I am diffusing them the same exact way we have always done, via century and genre. And there is most certainly no current consensus against doing that. So, in short, no. Silverseren^C 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A useful way to determine whether or not to diffuse could be determined by this: is there literature discussing this diffusion? If there are books discussing as a topic American female novelists, by all means we should have a topic on that. If literature discusses American male novelists as American male novelists, then we should have one also. Sometimes literature about a topic puts more emphasis on one gender, and not another, and naturally Wikipedia would go by this. For instance "female incarceration" is treated as a special phenomenon. Most prisons house men and most prisoners are male, and so female prisons and prisoners are treated specially. Therefore I created the article incarceration of women. On this topic it is 100% acceptable to make a "women prisoners" category and devolve women to that category, and not devolve men as male prisoners. But this may not be the same for all topics. Examine the literature and see how it treats gender. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned to note the recent block of Blackcountrygirl (talk · contribs), a good-faith editor, with no apparent prior discussion, and allegations of spamming. She last edited on April 8.

Disclosure: She's writing about the Black Country Museum, where I have previously run a Wikipedia "backstage pass" event. I don't know that I've ever met or corresponded with her, and have not been asked by them to intervene. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of articles created by Blackcountrygirl which were deleted around the time she was blocked, they were all promotional in nature (and as far as I can tell, all concerning the Black Country Museum) but these were created back in April, around the time she last edited. I'm not convinced a block serves any useful purpose in this case given the user hasn't been editing at all for a month. There are other issues here, it looks like Blackcountrygirl has been uploading copyright material from the Black Country Museum too, so someone is going to have to spend time going over the various policies with her. A generic copyright violation template, a CSD tag and block notice are almost certainly going to leave this user confused and disheartened, indeed I wouldn't be too surprised if that's why they've not been back to edit in a month. Nick (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, if some other admin want to unblock her and take her by the hand, I'm not going to get all pouty about it; but it appears to me that she really, really doesn't understand the limits on promotion, WP:NOBLECAUSE and all that. She basically created a whole article on every little display in the museum, sourced solely to her venue's own website and often copyright-violative. (Yes, some kind soul did give her links that could have been used to waive copyright.) There's a line between AGF and allowing shameless advocacy, and it seems to me that she crossed it long ago. Nick: "back in April" can mean "four days ago". --Orange Mike | Talk 12:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of blocking someone who hadn't edited in weeks for 31 hours for an offense committed weeks ago? That's not a preventative block, that's a nonsensically weak punitive block. If you were going to block, it should have been indefinite; and, you should not have blocked. --Golbez (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She last edited on April 8 - hardly "four days ago". Please explain why you blocked someone who has not edited for almost a month; and why you did so with no warning, let alone an offer of advice. Your reference to "every little display in the museum" is a gross exaggeration. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy - Seven articles - now deleted - on exhibits at the museum. I agree with Mike's assertion that a line has been crossed with regards to promotion and shameless advocacy. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven articles - each of which will meet WP:N with a little more research - is not "every little display in the museum". She's not blocked for breaching WP:N, nor copyvio, but for spamming, With no warning or discussion of that. Perhaps you'd like to answer the questions I put to Mike? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how e.g. Lench's Oliver Shop would ever meet WP:N, let alone "with a little more research". The only reliable source for this is the Museum, which is not an independent source at all. Fram (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your false claim about a supposed "only reliable source" ignores journal and press articles, in print not online, about the relocation of the shop. How is this relevant to a block based on an undiscussed allegation of spamming, made a month after the event? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a false claim at all: the article had only this to offer, "Black Country Museum (2012) Black Country Museum Guide, p21". Deletion was valid. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic was the potential for evidencing the article's notability in the future, not its state when deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lench's Oliver Shop opens up a rich seam of important topics which we have poorly covered. Industrial history is a neglected field and we should be supporting a museum which covers it, rather than persecuting them. The editor in question should be unblocked and an apology given. Warden (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, sorry, meant to say a month ago rather than last month. Nick (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked. I'm not really sure I see where the surprising or unusual aspect of this case comes in. That said, their whole problem relates to this one museum, so I would support an unblock with a firm agreement not to edit within that area again in the future. I think the risk of this account doing other, generalised spamming is low. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." You realize that blocking is preventative, not punative, right? Blocking for only 31 hours nearly a month after their last edit makes no sense whatsoever. --Golbez (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"They spammed numerous times, got caught, got blocked." Where? Where were they warned for it? I see no reason or policy basis to topic ban a new editor for being enthusiastic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care about the museum or its contents - the articles may or may not have ended up acceptable over time, I dunno. But the user's talk page runs as follows: Copyvio notice, Copyvio notice, Link to Donating Materials, Copyvio notice, Block. Not once is the editor told that she may be blocked, nor is she told to discuss the matter. Now, if I post repeated copyvio, damn straight I expect to be blocked - but I'm not an editor who registered in March 2013 and has 81 undeleted edits. The block may be valid, but I think that one note saying "Stop posting this and discuss the matter" would have sufficed rather than a block. Of course, that note may not have had an effect since the editor stopped editing a month ago! What urgency was there in blocking her today? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Perhaps an experienced admin could advise OrangeMike on the appropriate use of his tools; and the potential harm caused by misusing them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two factor test applies: 1) is the name promotional, or violating the username policy. In this case, without looking at the edits it's borderline. Test 2) is the promotional/COI edits, which in this case is apparent (whether or not the possible articles are "notable"). In this case, the articles are promotional/COI and provide a direct link to the inadmissibility of the username. As such, the block appears correct - no matter when the block has been made (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the editor had stopped editing on April 8th, what harm to the project was prevented by this block? Even if it was a correct block (a fact I do not stipulate), what purpose is served by blocking in this instance without issuing a final warning, as is standard? Put another way, if this was sent to AIV I would have likely warned the editor - but would also have declined the report as stale. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you said, if there was any block, an indefinite block would apply - but a 31 hour block? That makes no sense at all. What do you mean "no matter when the block has been made"? How does a 31 hour block a month after they last edited prevent any further damage? --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utter tosh. The Black Country is a geographical region of the United Kingdom; the username is no different to "NewYorkGuy" or "BerlinBabe". The alleged "promotional/COI" nature of the articles has not been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and no. It has been demonstrated by the mentions of their speedily-deleted articles, and you know as well as anyone else does that, in this case, it very much appears that the Black Country part of their name references the museum as much as it does the area. The reason it's a borderline username issue is that it IS ambiguous, even with the apparent COI nature of this account. That said, I do agree that the block is rather too late and rather odd. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus agreed to have the arrest added. However, one user, Delicious Carbuncle, removes it, citing a policy as a reason to overcome consensus. Shall the "arrest" info be re-added or left out? --George Ho (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the situation: Maharis was arrested in 1974 in a public washroom in Los Angeles. He plead "no contest" to a charge of trespassing. Detailing such a minor charge is completely out of proportion in the biography of a living person which does not even have a "personal life" section. We would not include a minor traffic violation in an actor's biography and this is no different. I believe that some editors may be motivated by a desire to use this incident to imply that Maharis is gay. I have removed the inclusion as a violation of WP:BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), this seems to be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE to include this at all, 100 years from now this will not be regarded as significant to this man's career. — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it hard to disagree with DC's logic here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Wikipedia is not a collection of dirt, WP:BLP applies even if the matter is reliably source because this is so trivial. Its 'gay-connection' thing is a huge concern is creating suggestions of a particularly damaging nature. ANI does not handle content disputes, but it seems another RFC is open on it. This isn't a behavior matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George is most kind to alert us that the locally established consensus on Talk:George Maharis is problematic. We should all find time to head over to that page in order to ensure that the consensus there pays more attention to WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I didn't want to be called out for my earlier point of content versus behavior focus. That's all, if I didn't mention such a thing I would surely hear about it later in my own content dispute. Though that is another topic entirely. I'll comment there about my stance, ANI really isn't the preferred spot to make high level decisions on content like this, so comments should go into the rfc. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Ho started this discussion because of my actions, not to discuss the underlying content dispute, and they were correct to do so. But it doesn't hurt to remind editors that consensus or RfCs on an article talk page cannot override policies. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with DC and the comments supporting him, with the caveat that if the article that DGG cites on the talk page came from a genuinely reliable source, rather than a non-notable family-friendly gossip columnist/celebrity journalism repackager, there might be a reasonable contrary argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally an edit like this must be scrutinized, criminal activity on a biography of living person should not be added unless it is significant to either their career or produced a significant amount of literature. When in question, I completely agree with DC's actions, the questionable material should be removed until a consensus that is in line with policy can be established. I think George did the right thing by looking for another venue of inquiry (although I would have gone elsewhere before the ANI), and I think he has his answer that a community of experienced editors questions the inclusion of this material. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also struggling to see where the consensus for this edit actually came from. I see a couple of people voting for it, and a couple voicing concerns, not anything like a cast-iron consensus. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Steven G. Kaplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs) have performed BLP violation and vandalism respectively, over a sustained period of time.
2. Both accounts appear to be WP:SPAs with the sole purpose of adding negative info to about this BLP to Wikipedia, and removing positive info about the same BLP individual.
3. The page itself has been cleaned up with sources and referenced info, as I had noticed it after doing a quality improvement project to WP:GA, on the article, Fuck (film).
4. Requesting admin intervention to address the numerous BLP violations and vandalism of a BLP page by VINTON2468 (talk · contribs) and Babybirdhouse (talk · contribs).

Selected diffs and evidence

• VINTON2468 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BLP violating edits including numerous edit-warring to insert negative allegations sourced only to a website "Ripoff Report": [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

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

Page blanking vandalism with odd edit summaries: [23] [24] [25]

Note: I was referred here from WP:BLPN at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Steven_G._Kaplan.

And one of the accounts above did it again, just now.

Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been protected and the users warned, I'll keep an eye on the page and the editors. J04n(talk page) 18:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think more than a first-level warning is necessitated here, like either a block, or a final-warning. These are significant blatant BLP violations that have been going on for months with one account and years with another. — Cirt (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edits and comments in the talk page by both accounts, it seems like they're using Wikipedia to further some sort of vendetta or off-site dispute. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the community actually cared about the excessive sockpuppetry on this article in general (let alone sockpuppetry altogether), then Dinh Bo Linh should be full-protected for a very long time. --MuZemike 03:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inspire (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors have repeatedly inserted links to archive copies of the magazine's articles.[26][27] This is abnormal. At most there would be one link to a magazine's official website. In this case, because the magazine promotes criminal activities, it is dubious whether Wikipedia should be linking to any copy of the magazine at all. We should not allow our high visibility site to be abused for promoting outside causes, especially causes that violate the laws in the country where Wikipedia is published (and in other countries where Wikipedia may be accessed).

I doubt that we have well formed policy about this case. Common sense would be not to link to this magazine at all, and that the article should rely exclusively on secondary sources. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and if appropriate place the article under permanent semi-protection to prevent the article from being abused as a means of spreading propaganda and inciting criminal activities. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 20:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding legality/morality of the activity the magazine promotes, copies archived on websites would be copyright violations, right? I would think we should keep them out for that reason at a bare minimum. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted and semi-protected based on my understanding of the copyright issue, per WP:LINKVIO. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Copyvio is the easiest way to stop the publication. Though if it has a real website... chances are if pushed Wikipedia would have to include the link. This stops the problem for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion of 190.111.10.32/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) under the IP of 190.106.222.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Guatemalan IP that's under a six month IP range block for adding dates despite repeated warnings. This IP was blocked from another IP range 190.106.222.0/27 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which was blocked for three days but has continued again to add dates. At this point, do I continue reporting here or at SPI? EDIT: And this IP too: 190.106.222.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) EDIT2: Add this 190.106.222.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Erick (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

190.106.222.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is continuing reverting my edits despite go against the MOS regarding linking dates. I need help! Erick (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This person changes their IP easily. I am reverting 190.106.222.67 (talk · contribs) and Template:190.106.222.77 at the same time. Or s/he is in a computer centre or there are more than a person within this. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked 190.106.222.0/25 for two weeks (talk · contribs) (up to 128 users would be blocked). I have to go to the gym now so someone else will have to widen the range while I am away if the activity does not stop. -- Dianna (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Diannaa. Erick (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• _{Please review the section on WP:NPOVN, as the discussion spills over into there, currently Rgambord (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

full disclosure: I currently have a request in at WP:NPOVN regarding issues of content and WP:UNDUE at Male privilege.

Because two editors who have been involved in ongoing disputes at Men's rights movement, Kyohyi and Rgambord (the latter of which appears to have left) have over the last month or so become involved in editing Male privilege, I would like to propose that this article be considered part of these sanctions; I feel it relates substantially to "Men's rights (broadly construed)" but I want to get other input.

Maybe this doesn't need a formal proposal and is just discretionary, in which case feel free to let me know that's the case. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

for reference, here is the article probation information which I found in the list of general sanctions -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to post this to the neutrality board, but it's more appropriate here, since UTCL has brought the matter to ANI. I apologize for the extremely long comment, but I have a lot to say.

Let's clear up some misconceptions here. First off, I am not currently topic banned from any article as far as I am aware. There was a misunderstanding on Men's Rights Movement where I tried to clean up the talk page by merging multiple related section together; something went wrong, and the original sections I merged were not deleted, making duplicate sections. I noticed a few hours later and deleted the old sections, unknowingly deleting a new comment in the old sections. After that, I removed another user's comment on the same talk page (inserting text saying I had removed it for violation of WP:BDP), which violated WP:BDP (Calling a suicide victim a domestic terrorist as an insult). The person who's comment I had inadvertently deleted thought I was vandalizing the page, and asked why I deleted their comment; I assumed they were referring to the terrorist statement, and responded that I had removed it for WP:BPD violation. A series of miscommunications and misunderstandings later, and User:TParis hastily topic banned me without taking the time to try to get to the bottom of what had actually happened. Yes, I was rude and I apologize for that; I thought I was responding to someone who was indignant on being chastised for labeling an ideological opponent a terrorist. Now, if we can continue with the rest of this nonsense?

I am taking a break from wikipedia, especially the humanities (shudder), but I received an email notification, so that's why I'm here. UseTheCommandLine and I already argued over this page, and it already went to AN/I, and there seemed to be consensus that she was acting out of line and POV pushing. She got upset and decided to take a break, leaving this note on her talk page "I am tired of dealing with sexists and racists. I am taking an extended wikibreak. Perhaps it will be permanent.". I found it quite offensive, as it was clearly pointed at me. Here's the deal. I have been an editor on wikipedia for a very long time; this is a fairly new account. I have contributed quite a lot both logged in and as IP to various articles, mostly in history and science. Only within the last couple of months did I become aware of the extremely biased Feminism etc... pages on wikipedia, and I brought the same perspective I bring to all articles I edit in removing content that violates various clear wikipedia policies, as well as occasionally removing content that just plain old makes wikipedia into an unreliable encyclopedia (Per WP:IAR). I am by no means a perfect editor. I have always edited in good faith, and assumption that has not been granted to me by many editors on the feminism related pages, mostly because I am not a feminist, and don't adhere to or blindly accept any feminist beliefs without evidence. Neither am I an "MRA", racist, or sexist, as has been accused. I am simply one person who wants to see BETTER ARTICLES on wikipedia about this subject. I originally found out these articles because I was curious about their subjects, and then disgusted at the quality of information they provided.

One feminist belief is the existence of Male Privilege. There are quite a few very intelligent, (dare I say experts? Why not -- their credentials are no better or worse than mainstream feminist scholars), who argue for the exact opposite. UTCL pushed to deny those sources be included, and to remove evidence of the disagreement before, and she is doing it again. I have argued before, and I will argue now, that we should either have a legitimate (non-stub) male privilege and female privilege (currently a redirect to male privilege -- almost a slap in the face, really), or one article entitled Gender privilege. Both are notable and completely contradictory points of view, and no editor is qualified to determine which one is correct or which one deserves to be the main title of the page. Imagine the outrage if I changed the name of the article to Female Privilege, and just swapped the main article content and the criticism sections, changing a bit of the wording? I'd probably be banned for vandalism and POV pushing; but that sort of editing is perfectly accepted here if it's the other way around. There are other, similarly US and Feminism centric articles on wikipedia, such as White Privilege, and Christian Privilege-- which hardly applies in places like: China, India, Pakistan, Iran, etc. Religious privilege, in general? --Yes, that exists, I agree, and that's the scope an encyclopedic article should cover. Gender is no different. There are numerous examples of female privilege in our society, and they are backed by WP:RS.

Finally, I posted in the Male privilege talk page my intentions for the article, before being distracted by school work, and the mess over at Men's Rights Movement. UTCL is aware of my intentions yet has avoided any attempts at consensus building, instead seeming to want to "protect" the previous state of the article before my arrival (which was absolutely abysmal and contained numerous unsourced paragraphs, as well as clear violations of WP:Synth/WP:OR). I don't believe that the article needs protection, something that should not just be doled out willy-nilly (This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit). I merely think that UTCL needs to have some mentoring, as mentioned in the previous AN/I topic, as well as possibly having her edits to Male Privilege placed under moderation or whatever it is they do here. Maybe then we can build consensus, like I tried to the first time around, instead of having constant edit wars. Rgambord (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, this sort of line "Well, it does help make it quite obvious that misogynists have overrun the page... that's how I ended up in here. Publicarch (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)" on Talk:Male privilege shows the sort of pre-polarized attitude editors are bringing into the page. It is exceedingly clear that User:Publicarch is calling me and User:Kyohyi misogynists. UTCL's behavior has been roughly the same. It's absolutely unacceptable and unprofessional conduct and has no place on wikipedia. Rgambord (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

my reasoning for the separate ANI and NPOVN cases was that the NPOVN query was about the content issues while this notification was about its relation to Men's rights and Men's rights movement. If there's a willingness to get everything sorted at once, fine, but I was trying to separate out the content from the behavior. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior at issue is your history of repeated edit warring and revert warring [28][29][30]. Thank you for bringing it to the attention of ANI. Rgambord (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation RGambord

• Note: Rgambord (talk · contribs) is currently topic banned [31] from editing the article men's rights movement. Male privilege is certainly a related article as many men's rights activists argue that women are privileged (see section "female privielge" in the men's rights movement article) and men are not privileged relative to women (see lead section and "relation to feminism" section in the mrm article). Perhaps an uninvolved admin can take decide if Rgambord violated his topic ban. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not topic banned. I can only guess that TParis looked into the matter and saw that I made a good-faith mistake. I see you have an axe to grind, after I've repeatedly apologized for an honest mistake. I have no kind words for you considering you denied my repeated attempts to resolve the issue during and after. You're quite unconstructive, yourself. Rgambord (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[32] Rgambord (talk) 09:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "article ban" not "topic ban". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit Rgambord has violated his article ban [33][34]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed there was a topic ban. That was false. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Topic banned from editing the article men's rights movement" is what was actually said. It is absolutely clear what was meant and splitting hairs over the phrasing is ridiculous. Rgambord, don't make any more edits to the article. AniMate 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To use the exact words of the blocking admin in the log of sanctions: "Rgambord (talk · contribs) topic banned from MRM article and talk page for 1 month until May 23, 2013." [italics mine]. Either way, Rgambord did violate his ban with today's edit in the mrm article. If we assume that it was a topic ban – and the blocking admin said that it was and if you look at the log of sanctions you'll see that the patrolling admins have issued topic bans rather than article bans – then I believe that there is reason to believe that Rgambord violated his ban by editing the male privilege article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Admin told him he has to stay away from one article and then made a log entry entire topic without telling him about it... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a topic ban violation doesn't get more ovbious that this [35][36]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable, I think, that Rgambord him or herself describes their ban as "topic" rather than article in the initial (not meant to be derogatory) wall of text response, above (here). -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that until now, he didn't even know what "ban" means, so I'd just not pick on words anymore. He self-reverted just now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. stricken. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 10:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We're not seriously contemplating blocking an editor for an innocuous formatting improvement, are we? Reyk _YO! 09:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but this one nails it. Didn't see that until now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't understand what's going on here. Firstly, don't start saying I violated a topic ban for removing an extraneous space to show a point. That's ridiculously bureaucratic and unhelpful. If you're seriously going to start arguing about whether I violated my ban (which apparently isn't present) because of that, I'm just going to go ahead and actually leave wikipedia for good, because this nonsense is getting pretty damn ridiculous. Second, how do I formally appeal the ban, which was made in error? Especially considering TParis claimed two different time periods for the ban, and then never actually banned me? Considering that sonicyouth86 misrepresented my actions and TParis likely did not look much into the situation before "banning" me, considering it took him only a couple of minutes to make a quick decision. Rgambord (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) How do you explain this then? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not. We are considering blocking him for violating his topic ban with a big side of WP:Point thrown in for good measure. AniMate 09:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What topic ban? I can still edit the article, so where is the ban? Explain, please. Seriously, this is getting old. And now I am not allowed to defend myself? Rgambord (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Article ban". And there's no doubt you were informed about that. And you violated it on the talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can still edit the page, so how am I banned? And WP:POINT doesn't even apply to my edit, so idk what animate is talking about. So what you're telling me is that I'm going to get blocked because I assumed that TParis removed whatever ban he threatened on me and then attempted to defend myself against lies? Just don't even bother. Don't even. This is disgraceful. What a waste of time. Seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 09:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A ban is not a technical measure. You can, but you're not allowed. And you were told you're not allowed. But you did anyways. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so let's sloowwwwwwwww down a bit, ok? I'll undo both edits. No harm, no foul, turn off the sirens, put down the guns. Now that that is settled, the actual reasoning behind the ban "Refactoring or altering the comments of others you are in a dispute with and deleting entire sections of an ongoing discussion on a talk page are disruptive." just... isn't true. That's the problem. I wasn't in a dispute with these people. I didn't delete entire sections of an ongoing discussion. I clusterfucked a section move, and even put in the edit summary that I hoped I was doing it right. Clearly I did it wrong, and got shat on for it. So, I guess if I can't appeal that ban and if you're all intent on stringing me up for it, so be it. I can edit something else. It still seems ridiculous to me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs)

The patrolling admin TParis told you clearly and unambiguously that you are banned from editing the mrm article and the article talk page. Another user advised you to revert your edit in the mrm article [37]. Despite all this you went ahead and edited the mrm talk page [38] on top of the mrm article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you have tremendous experience with topic bans, but I had no idea that's how it worked. Thankfully the admins are reasonable towards newbies here. You sure have taught me a lot in the last couple of weeks Sonicyouth86!!! Forever in your debt xoxoxoxRgambord (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors are reasonable towards newbies but you are not a newbie by your own admission [39]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't mean to be rude, but with all this hubbub about topic bans etc, I'm still left wondering if there is consensus that Male privilege qualifies as part of the Men's rights movement article probation. I feel like it's important that once this topic/article/etc stuff is sorted out, that we return to that subject. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

• What a night. My dog says hi. Rgambord (talk) 09:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to appeal the topic/article ban, I think the appropriate venue is WP:Arbitration enforcement. We don't do a good job at all of making that clear. AniMate 09:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, there technically was a violation of the topic ban, but Rgambord didn't understand the restriction, so there won't be any block. UTCL, this has been open for such a short time. Consensus for or against hasn't even begun to form. You're stretching yourself awfully thin here. I'd concentrate on one thing at a time rather than opening an arbitration case while simultaneously trying to expand discretionary sanctions. You're really, really not doing yourself any favors. AniMate 10:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have never once had to use any of these arbitration thingys in all the years I've been an editor here, nor have I ever had any warnings of any sort, let alone bans. I hope I never have to make my way to this page again. Holy monkeyballs this has been a really unnecessary nightmare!!!Rgambord (talk) 10:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rgambord writes that he has been an editor for many years. It is a stretch to argue that he does not understand the TParis' words ""Rgambord (talk · contribs) topic banned from MRM article and talk page" and "you are banned from participation on Men's rights movement and it's associated talk page". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly not the first time that Rgambord has described himself as an experienced editor ("I have been an editor on Wikipedia for a long time"). He also appeared to know the meaning of "ban" when he argued that my comments (he confused me with User:South19) on the mrm talk page would have gotten me banned [40]. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For now I think the best thing to do is assume good faith, and believe that he thought an article ban was technically enforceable. If he violates it again, a block will be in order. AniMate 10:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not split hairs: an "article ban" and a "topic ban on an article" are identical in meaning, so it's obvious that Rgambord would understand that they meant the same. He has also been around long enough (and is able to follow wikilinks) to understand that bans are not technical implementations - it was part if his original warnings. I might be able to overlook a simple removal of a space (if I have my AGF tinfoil hat on) but nothing more significant. He has violated the article ban. Two options: 1) slap him on the wrist and extend the topic ban for a full month (and close his ridiculous AE request to have the topic ban removed), or 2) block him for a week AND extend the topic ban to indefinite. I !vote for 1. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• TP's comments I dont have a lot of time today to discuss this and I am sorry for that. Seb is correct, I made a discrepency. The intention at the time was an article ban for six months. The log is in error and I am very sorry that my oversight has caused this confusion. I have to go now, but I hope I've cleared some of this up. If my error is so huge that I should recuse from patrolling the topic area anymore, let me know. Also, because of the confusion, if ANI should see reason to come to it's own decision over the terms of Rgambord's sanctions, then I'd ask that up until this point that he be treated as if he were under an article ban. I appreciate those who have given this subject attention and I also apologize for the time wasted.--v/r - TP 13:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afg96 has been disruptive in editing Mehmet Oz by ignoring the talk page discussion about whether the article should say that Oz is a Muslim. Instead, Afg96 has repeatedly undone the article changes called for in the talk page decision, despite four warnings that this behavior was inappropriate.

Here are some of the edits by Afg96 going against the talk page decision, and the corresponding warnings I placed on Afg96’s talk page:

• [41]
• Warning: [42]

• [43]
• Warning: [44]

• [45]
• Warning: [46]

• [47]
• Warning: [48]

Here is the latest edit by Afg96, which was made after the fourth warning:

• [49]

Afg96 has never participated in the discussion on the article’s talk page, but did leave this message on my talk page:

• [50]

Here is my response to Afg96’s message along with the response of another editor (the only one to respond to Afg96’s message):

• [51]

I appreciate any help you can provide with this conflict. Thank you. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My previous ANI was about his behaviour, when he reverted my version of the Dravidian languages article without solid reasoning: Link to Archive795
After a couple of days of discussion at the talkpage, I come to the conclusion, that he has no interest in seeking any form of consensus, which doesn't equate his own opinion. In the discussion, he uses only false information to "argument" his case, whatever this may be. He also reverted to his own version again, after I implemented, what most people thought, a consensus version. This misunderstanding happened because he chose to completely abstain from the main discussion! And only after another reverter Taivo helped to sustain the edit war, and I started a RFC, he chose to come to limelight again, only to spread false information again, in a most destructive manner possible to mislead the general public! Please read the talkpage there. Users have called it a farce already. I hereby request an appropriate action against Kwamikagami, which prevents him to do such activities again. Thanks!-- Dravidian  Hero  05:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Dravidianhero read WP:NPA. I clearly stated my reasons for reverting this unprofessional and uninformative map in the infobox. You, Dravidianhero, fail to understand Wikipedia procedures as expounded in WP:BRD. You made a bold change, but when you were reverted, rather than discussing reasonably and trying to build a consensus, you simply tried to force your will upon the article by edit warring. When your proposed change fails to achieve a consensus, then you must abandon it. Your map is inferior to the map that has been in the article for a long time. That has been plainly stated to you. Indeed, you have initiated an RfC at the article, so rather than letting the RfC play itself out, you have now initiated an ANI. That smells like WP:FORUMSHOPPING to me, another violation of Wikipedia policy. --Taivo (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What others could do easily, you couldn't. Frame legit reasons for reverts. That's why I needed assistance by filing an RfC. To better understand your problem. Anyone, who reads the talkpage discussion will discover that I took everyone into confidence with ease. You consequently denied any serious discussion until RfC was opened. Suddenly you guys actually talk, wasted hours over hours of my and yours time in the process.-- Dravidian  Hero  07:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI sometimes goes off on wacky tangents, so I figure I'd better ask: Is there anything for me to respond to here? — kwami (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our Navajo friend is right. --Taivo (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the subject as it vaguely contained a personal attack, which was not intended.-- Dravidian  Hero  13:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Taivo is colorblind" is not "vaguely a personal attack". --Taivo (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be fair. I said "Maybe" and you guys provocated me to use strong words. I deleted those.-- Dravidian  Hero  18:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close this please..-- Dravidian  Hero  21:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealing with an IP edit warrior from two ranges, 12.154.167.xxx and 12.46.106.xxx, on the BK Chicken Fries article. The contrib has been constantly adding trivia to the article which was reverted by myself and two other editors. Despite the removal and a couple of page protection on the article, he keeps reposting. I've tried to discuss this on the talk page and explain why this is inappropriate for inclusion, but the IP poster is sockpuppetting via various IP addresses from AT&T wireless and Charter (all assigned in central Massachusetts and Northern Rhode Island) to make it look as multiple editors are chiming in - a clear violation of policy. Obviously, no valid conversation can be had. The contrib has shown that he has no intention of good faith, truly discussing the issue, adhering to our standards of neutrality, or following any other policy of Wikipedia. Further he is lobbing personal attacks at me instead of discussing the issue.

Now he seems to have decided it is a good thing to wikihound/stalk me (example, minor). He has gone to several articles and reverted changes I have made to those articles using 12.46.106.77 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked for vandalism). Additionally, he posted a rather rude commentary about my dyslexia making me ineligible to contribute to WP on the Talk:BK Chicken Fries page. This individual has me rather upset due to his constant personal attacks and tendentious editing patterns. The issue here is IP hopping, I believe that he is going to just jump around to continue his trolling.

Could some one put a temp range block on those two sets of IPs to discourage him?

I have not put a note about this posting on all 508 possible addresses of the two ranges, as that would be too time consuming. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• All those are obviously the same person, and I've blocked all three (extending the original) to two weeks. If he comes back with more IPs, then WP:RFPP for semi-protection is one option, along with longer blocks for the IPs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Various IPs have been making repeated changes in the article Chola Dynasty regarding how big the empire was. They keep on adding all of the present-day Southeast Asian states, (see article history: [52]) which isn't supported by mainstream scholarship. I've tried to discuss the issue: Talk:Chola_dynasty and no one seems to object to my points. The page supposedly has 137 watchers as of today but I'm not sure how many of them are active users. No one else seems to be taking any action to check on these outlandish claims repeatedly being added in this former featured article, and these changes by IPs go unchallenged for days. Please look into it. Hybernator (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LarryTr7 (talk · contribs) is a classic case of WP:NOTHERE. They've been previously blocked for two weeks for sockpuppetry, and their raison d'etre is to spew bile and violate WP:BLP in a crusade against Ping Fu. I thought they'd lapsed into inactivity, but they've come back again, with [53] and [54]. Given their history, and the fact they've never contributed anywhere else, I'm asking for an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• His previous statements on that talk page before being blocked for socking are more worrisome than these, which he attempts to use sources for. Unreliable sources, but sources. There does seem to be an inner POV warrior attitude at play here. His previous comments there to Yworo [55] [56] border on at attempt at outing, if they don't outright violate it, and are at the very least personal attacks. Had he not already been blocked for socking back then, he might have been blocked or at least strongly warned for that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• After reviewing the case more, including the activity of his socks, it seems apparent that he is here for a single purpose, and that single purpose isn't the topic of Ping Fu, but rather to insure his particular perspective of Ping Fu is represented in the article (WP:NPOV). In other words, I think Luke is right here. I'm inclined to indef the editor as there isn't any specific time limit that will prevent the disruption, but would prefer input from others first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Those diffs were simply today's two edits, I wasn't portraying them to be the worst this user has posted. I thought about providing more diffs, but the contributions of this user are small enough and focused enough on disparaging Ping Fu, that I didn't feel the need to. And that's not listing anything this user has made in deleted articles, or with their socks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor has made four edits in last two months; none are particularly disruptive. Yes there's some oblique reference to off wiki Amazon stuff, but multiple editors have done so. Talk:Ping Fu is a cesspit of Ad hominem attacks, so picking LT77's out of the heap isn't compelling to me. WP:NOTHERE isn't a blockable offense but rather a shorthand for actual policy violations (e.g. disruptive editing), and "Focusing on niche topic areas" is in the WP:NOTNOTHERE rather than "not here", anyway. Sockpuppetry is historic; editor was already sanctioned for it so bringing it up ANI again is escalatory. I encourage OP to stay focused on content discussion and don't think there's anything actionable. NE Ent 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHERE is certainly a factor when determining a block duration or necessity. The underlying problem in different cases might be spam, or disruptive edits, or POV warrioring, but when someone is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia and doesn't mind disrupting the entire encyclopedia to push their agenda, it does form part of the rationale to block them. This kind of disruption goes beyond the boundaries of a single article, affects retention, and wastes time. The sockpuppetry was just a vehicle to continue doing what is the primary problem, pushing a POV agenda, so it absolutely part of a pattern. I'm not inclined to not block someone simply because other POV warriors exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• NE Ent, I presume you haven't realized that a vast majority of the SPAs at the Ping Fu article turned out to be related to LarryTr7 - and confirmed by CU, not just a "likely". As such, all the confirmed socks' edits may be treated as this editor's, and you get gems such as [57]. Bringing up sockpuppetry is perfectly relevant when discussing the history, especially with a CU confirmed set of socks, which means that the accounts belong to one person. It's apparent to me that LarryTr7 is going to keep popping up, just when it seems the battles have died down, to relight the fires (so to speak... why am I being poetic? :D) and the user is not a benefit to the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there evidence of socking after 13 March? (If yes, it should be added to the existing SPI.) NE Ent 21:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to my knowledge, and there doesn't need to be. I think you're missing the point; CU confirmed socks' edits should be treated alongside the master's edits, especially when they're one and the same format. Even aside from the sockpuppeting, we've got an SPA with an agenda that violates BLP, almost all of their edits are POV-pushing, if not downright unacceptable, so they don't benefit the encyclopedia and should not be able to remain. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ent, if the events were unrelated, I would agree, but they are actually all acts in the same play, all connected to the same problem, all indicating a singular problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am largely unfamiliar with administrative processes on wikipedia, though I am a longtime editor, so please assume good faith if I say something erroneous.

This all started with me Boldly removing content which did not meet wikipedia's criteria for RS. [58] Sonicyouth86 demanded that I reach consensus before making edits, which is not part of wikipedia policy WP:EDITCONCENSUS. He then accused me of "arbitrary removals of people's comments [59][60]".

1. In the first case, I removed a small section of South19's comment, in which he referred to a suicide victim as a domestic terrorist, in violation of WP:BDP. I made the edit as transparent as possible, inserting red text in brackets that I had redacted it for violating WP:BDP, and by leaving a message on South19's talk page [61]. My comment was arguably uncivil, though I wonder what sort of reaction South19 expected when calling a suicide victim a terrorist. I quickly struck out the contentious part of my comment [62]
2. In the second case, I wasn't arbitrarily removing anything. I was attempting to delete a section I had accidentally duplicated, when attempting to refactor the talk page. It just so happened that in the time between duplication and my deletion, Sonicyouth86 had posted a single comment, which I then deleted and re-deleted without knowing.

Initial argument and confusion on my part

Now, in that context, I also didn't closely look at who's username I was responding to, assuming that it was South19 complaining about me editing his terrorism statement, since that was the only comment I was aware I had removed. At the time, there was a large amount of editing on the talk page, and I kept running into edit conflicts, so I did not take the time to carefully read nor carefully reply as I normally would. Here is how I responded [63] Insinuating that Sonicyouth86 is dense was due to my misunderstanding, in thinking that he was South19 and really trying to put up an argument that calling someone a domestic terrorist isn't a violation of WP:BDP. I was also responding to his incredulity regarding my edits, in calling them arbitrary, when they most certainly were not, and in demanding that I adhere to his personal editing rules. I would hope that a reasonable observer understands that I had good reasons for both of my edits, though one had unintended consequences, and that I was following WP:BOLD and WP:Consensus in edits to the actual article. A reasonable observer should also see that I should not have called him dense. I take responsibility for that, and I almost immediately redacted it, as well: [64]. WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL is the relevant policy for properly retracting uncivil statements.

Escalation to ANI

Now, Sonicyouth86 immediately took the matter to ANI [65]. He claimed that I had been warned by two seperate editors (himself and User:Slp1), when slp1 had in fact been the editor involved in a small revert war over the duplicate section, which I admitted my error to immediately upon realising it. I don't think Slp1 was complaining that I was deleting Sonicyouth86's comments, but that I was deleting the entire duplicate section, and I think he quickly realised why I was removing the section. I replied to him saying that. Sonicyouth86 then [66] claimed that I "deleted comments by User:South19 because you dislike to his opinions [3]. "People like you disgust me", that's what you wrote as an explanation why you removed his comments.", which is not true. I deleted it because he violated WP:BDP, which Sonicyouth86 was well aware of, because I said that exact thing in the edit summary, in the replacement text of the comment, and on South19's talk page. Sonicyouth86, knowing full well this fact, decided to frame it as me POV pushing by deliberately mischaracterizing what I said. That, itself, is a violation of WP:Civil section "2.(d). Lying" and "2.(e). quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them;".

My attempts to explain myself and resolve the dispute

I responded to his post on ANI [67] by attempting to clear up all of the confusion, in a civil manner. He took offense to me saying he was confused, which I don't really see how it's an insult to say that someone doesn't have all the facts. It was then, at the first mention that I had been uncivil, that I agreed to and promptly stuck out the edits which Sonicyouth86 had identified as being uncivil. Does that mean I'm absolved of all wrongdoing? No, not at all. It does show that I admitted I was wrong and wanted to reconcile. I also immediately posted this apology [68] to Sonicyouth86's talk page, attempting to explain my actions and defuse the situation. Sonicyouth86 immediately deleted my apology and continued to argue with me. I then admitted my error on AN/I [69], in mixing up who I was talking to, and that that might explain why I reacted so strongly to Sonicyouth86's rebukes, since I thought he was the one who had called someone a terrorist.

Sonicyouth86 then reiterated [70] that I had acted uncivilly, which I had both admitted to, apologized for, and redacted. I don't know why he continued to push that point when it was already settled. Based off of his edit summary, I think it's safe to assume he wanted to "teach me a lesson".

Here was my final response: [71] before being topic banned by User:TParis. I still stand by what I said. South19 should be ashamed of what he said. South19 should apologize and redact his statements. It is reprehensible to say such a thing about another person. It is a violation of wikipedia policy. WP:Civil says nothing about calling out a person's behavior for what it is, but it does say something about the type of comment South19 left originally, which started this whole ordeal. Here is my complete justification for my first edit: "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." -WP:BLP TParis told me that I should have brought the violation to his attention instead of editing South19's comment, which contradicts this very clear policy.

Topic Ban appeal and continued WP:Harassment by sonicyouth86

The reason TParis provided for the topic ban was such: [72] "Refactoring or altering the comments of others you are in a dispute with and deleting entire sections of an ongoing discussion on a talk page are disruptive. In the future, when you feel there is a violation of WP:BDP to address, feel free to take the issue up to myself or another uninvolved administrator." Since I did neither in the manner that he understood me as having done, I argue that this ban was placed erroneously and should be removed. I have also posted an apology for my behavior to both Sonicyouth86's talk page [73] and to TParis's talk page [74]. Sonicyouth86 proceeded to delete that apology immediately, and continue to attack me, adding unnecessary confusion to an already confusing AN/I discussion by repeatedly demanding that other editors discard good faith assumptions [75]. He then went on to post on my talk page [76], showing that he still fails to Wikipedia:Forgive_and_forget and continues to push the same tired points which have already been discussed in great detail. He's essentially beating a dead horse hoping candy will fall out. The threat to take me to AN/I (when we're already there?) was a cute touch. So, here I am, taking this to AN/I, so that I have a chance to take the time to fully explain my action and the series of events that led to the situation we have now.

Discussion of AN/I topic this morning, in which I accidentally violated the topic ban due to my own confusion

Also, relevant reading might be the above AN/I topic from earlier today. As I said numerous times, though Sonicyouth86 repeatedly denies I could be telling the truth, I did not understand the nature of a ban on wikipedia. In every other sphere, a ban is an enforced ban from editing content. As I was still able to edit the page I was supposedly banned from, I was very confused. Because TParis was inconsistent in notifying me of the ban, and because I had posted on his talk page asking him to reconsider, I incorrectly believed that he must have either decided not to ban me, or had removed the ban. I checked my block log, and seeing that it was empty, made the assumption that he had decided not to follow through with banning. Considering that I made two edits, one to show that I was not banned (lol oops) and another under the assumption that I was not banned, and that Sonicyouth86 was just trying to stir up trouble, I think it's hardly fair to impose further punishment on me for such a thing, especially considering I immediately reverted the edits when it became clear to me that I was in fact not allowed to have done that. Please take into account the fact that I have been an editor for many years, yes, but that I have never been involved with administrative action until very recently, and am still pretty unfamiliar with it. I am also unfamiliar with the pace of some of these more contentious articles, and I am unfamiliar with some of the distinctions between how editors in the social sciences expect others to act and how hard scientists (which I am) expect others to act.

Also, I have made this case to WP:AE to appeal the ban, and they redirected me here. Rgambord (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC) [77][78][79][reply]

Hi. I'm gonna respond to this before someone in a crabby mood does. Currently several of your diffs are incorrect (probably just misadventures in copy-pasting), and there are several things you reference that you don't link to any diffs for. While a lengthy ANI post is usually a bad idea, I understand it's your first time posting here, and would strongly encourage other editors to not respond to this with a simple "TL;DR" or the ever-ridiculous "massive wall of text—block nom". I, for one, would happily read through all this, but at the moment it's too hard to tell what you're talking about. I'd also suggest that if you can find any way to make your post a bit shorter, you do so. Thanks. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will look into the diff issues and try to shorten things. I know it's a lot of text, but it's a big complicated scenario full of misunderstandings and animosity that all needs to be addressed, IMO. I ask that commenting is refrained until I have fixed the diffs. Thanks. !Rgambord (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I found one diff that was incorrect. The others seem to work for me? A couple links are to sections on old revisions of pages so that it's easy to see the whole discussion as it progressed. Hopefully this is ok? If I'm still missing something please point it out and I'll fix it as best I can. I've added section headers to divide up the text into more comprehensible chunks. Hopefully this helps. I don't want to get TL;DR! Thanks again. Rgambord (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rgambord didn't just merge section on Talk:Men's rights movement. He also refactored comments of editors he was in a dispute with [80] and deleted others' comments [81] so that I had to restore [82] them. He also removed sections [83].
  Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation#Remedy states that any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. I made an ANI thread [84] on April 23 about Rgambord's personal attacks against editors involved in the men's rights movement article including "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" and "you should be ashamed of yourself. People like you disgust me." Other instances of personal attacks and/or incivility on April 23 include [85][86][87][88] in addition to assumptions of bad faith [89].
  Today Rgambord violated his topic [90] or article ban [91] twice [92][93] and continues to accuse me and others of wrongdoing, including harassment and erroneous admin actions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was not involved in a dispute with the editor who's comment I edited as per wikipedia policy WP:BDP, which I stated many, many times, and you continue to post boldfaced lies about me to the contrary and it's a very clear violation of WP:CIVIL. Not once did I comment in that section, yet you continue to lie saying I was in a dispute with him. You are using the fact that I deleted a section which I created to request that the talk page be cleaned up, as evidence of me making disruptive edits, even though that makes no reasonable sense to anyone except you. You are a liar. you are lying. You have been caught lying. I have pointed it out multiple times that you are not telling the truth. How many different ways do I need to say this before admins take appropriate action? You are now harassing me. Did you even bother to read the post that I made? Or did you just copy and paste the same thing, as you've been doing this entire time? How many times can you beat a dead horse before it's dead? You have not responded AT ALL to any attempts I have made to reconcile. You are the problem here. You are the abuser. You are the one who is misusing administrator trust to satisfy your twisted vendetta. I may be sanctioned for this comment, so be it. I want nothing to do with a place that supports "contributors" like yourself. Rgambord (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sonicyouth is also disingenuously accusing me of violating my ban when everyone else can apparently see that I made a mistake, which I even addressed in this post, yet he somehow failed to respond to. This guy is simply making things up and twisting the evidence to paint me as a bad guy. I have done nothing to deserve that sort of treatment. I am being bullied and I am being harassed. Again, he's violating sections 2.d and 2.e of WP:CIVIL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs) 17:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You violated your topic ban twice today. The diff links show that you violated your topic ban. The only question is whether you are experienced enough – you have stated on mutiple occasions that you've been an editor for many years – to know that you are not allowed to edit an article and its talk page if you are told by an administrator on your talk page that you are banned from editing the article and its talk page. Nothing about this simple chain of events – you were banned, your were informed that you were banned, you edited the article and talk page although you were banned – involves making things up. I provided diff links that you refactored and removed a comment and deleted a section on the mrm talk page. Prior to that you argued that the SPLC criticism should be removed and South19 disagreed with you (see talk "Is this section really necessary?") and you disagreed with me on various issues. You removed my comment and altered Soouth19's comment and the patrolling admin saw that as altering comments by users' you were in a dispute with.
I believe that it is quite obvious who is being abused. "You are a liar", "You are now harassing me", "You are the problem here. You are the abuser. You are the one who is misusing administrator trust to satisfy your twisted vendetta." I'll just add that to your other personal attacks including "jerk" [94], "People like you disgust me" and "Are you dense? (That's a rhetorical question, don't answer it.)" --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the diff which you think proves I was involved in an argument with this editor. Could it perhaps be that upon going in to merge the three sections, I saw his top comment, in which he called someone a goddamn domestic terrorist, and corrected the material as it violates wikipedia policy which DEMANDS ITS IMMEDIATE REMOVAL. END OF STORY. PERIOD. NADA. I don't need to ask an admin. I don't need to ask you. I need to delete the material. I am objectively right that it violates WP:BLP, and so far NO ONE has argued that it does not and I was in the wrong in removing it. Provide an argument for WHY THAT EDIT VIOLATES SOME POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA. SHOW PROOF. Why are you defending those comments? Why are you defending South19's behavior? Why am I the bad person, when I'm not running around calling people terrorists. I ask again, did YOU MISS THAT PART? WHERE HE CALLS THE MAN A TERRORIST. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT KIND OF COMMENT AND THE SORT OF ATMOSPHERE IT CREATES ON WIKIPEDIA? That is the atmosphere you are arguing to perpetuate.

So far, your entire argument has rested on the premise that I removed his comment due to a disagreement (false). That my reasoning was because he "disgusts me" (false -- the reasoning was provided 3 different places). That I maliciously removed sections on the talk page (false -- that was my own section, which had been created by me to request someone clean up the talk page. Do you think that if I was so skilled at talk page cleanup that I would have requested that someone else did it? Is it not such a stretch that given my lack of skill, that I would have deleted it, not thinking it particularly important to archive?). That I maliciously removed your comments from the page because I was in a disagreement with you (False -- we both know that was accidental, and I have explained myself numerous times, yet you persist in your claims).

Personal attacks: do you understand that lying about what I did, what my actions were, and failing to assume good faith, all of which you have done, are all violations of wikipedia policy which should require your removal from the articles in question? Do you you understand that following me around to different pages and constantly pushing for my punishment especially with a bunch of made up non-issues clearly trying to frame me as some horrible vandal IS harassment? Do you have some sort of obsession with me? I have tried to apologize on numerous occasions, but that would be too easy, right? Yes, I should not have called south19 disgusting, even though he is. I should not have called you dense, though everything you have posted tells me you are. I should not have called TParis a jerk, cause I was pissed off at the time. The really interesting thing here is that as of now, South19 has not been reprimanded for calling this man a terrorist. You've managed to completely distract everyone from the real issue here, which is South19's behavior. My response to it was not savory, but I did not run around calling people terrorists.

Now, I have wasted the better part of a day on this bullshit. And that is, in no uncertain terms, what it is. I am done trying to defend myself; I am done trying to stay civil with you, because insults and swearing were invented to express emotions, and that's what I am going to use them for. You are the greatest troll I have ever seen. Bravo. I come on here for fun because I am interested in the subjects and what better way to become better acquainted with them than through editing an encyclopedia on them. I do not come in here to see people calling other people terrorists because they disagree with their actions. I do not come in here to spend all of my time on ANI like I have (which seems to be your favorite fucking thing). I come in here to collaborate with other people. I neuter my language by imagining I am talking to a person face to face. In no uncertain terms, I held back a lot of negative comments for South19 and for the type of environment people like him create on wikipedia, and if we had spoken face to face, I would have said exactly what I posted on his talk page. I stand by what I said. South19 disgusts me, and should be ashamed of himself. So, I am done. You win. Goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgambord (talk • contribs)

The real issue is that you continue to personally attack editors, that you violated your article ban twice today, got caught, and started this thread to argue that you are the wronged party because I had the audacity to point out your ban and your behavior that led up to it. Yes, you called TParis a "jerk", you said repeatedly that people like User:South19 disgust you, you called me all the screw-ups under the sun – "You are the greatest troll I have ever seen" and "You are a liar" deserve extra-extra-special mention to show the originality of the insults – and you continue to accuse me of this and that (e.g., harassment, abuse, attacks, that I called you a "vandal", and what not) without providing any evidence in the form of diff links. Your violations of WP:NPA are so extreme as to be comical and I assume that that's the reason why you haven't been sanctioned yet.
I agree that you have wasted people's time with the attempt to get your ban rescinded, your denial that you are article banned, and this thread. Not to mention your verbose commentary on my and others' alleged character flaws and intellectual shortcomings. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed header from "User Smallbones is Blocking any Attempts to Modify an Article" for neutrality; as the top of the page says, "New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral". Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Smallbones has blocked any attempts to make edits or revisions to the article concerning Eugene Plotkin. Most recently, he has taken my significant revision of the article, including an expansion of scope, an addition of multiple new references, a streamlining of the writing, an incorporation of a broader NPOV, and he has rolled back all of those changes. A reading of the Talk Pages shows that user Smallbones has treated this article as Smallbones' private domain, aggressively rolling back any changes made to the article over many months. Smallbones has bullied any editors making changes on the article's Talk pages. An administrator's intervention would be greatly appreciated. Factchecker25 (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't bothered to notify Smallbones (I have done this for you). Also their most recent edit was reverting your page move, while WP:BOLD they are within their right to revert and open discussion. There also seems to be a big issue with sock puppets on this article. I suggest you try to discuss more on the talk page. Mike (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not notifying Smallbones sooner. I was planning on doing that. Thank you for making the notification.Factchecker25 (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Factchecker25 has also posted about this article on BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous - Plotkin is notable for nothing but his involvement in an insider trading scheme, along with other individuals. There can be no justification whatsoever for a 'biography', but no article on the scheme. Either the scheme meets Wikipedia notability guidelines, or nothing does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say for now that I won't be prepared for a careful detailed discussion of this case for a few days. Everything I say here is just what I recall without checking diffs, etc. There are some quite delicate issues here that are difficult to discuss, e.g. BLP and OTRS issues. I'll just say for now that:

• About 5 years ago I wrote most of the Eugene Plotkin article based on a massive amount of material - articles in all the best financial sources from 3 or 4 continents.
• Almost all the info back then was on Plotkin with little or nothing on the other guy (There are also 4-5 "little fish" in the scheme, but these folks don't need to be highlighted). The amount of new info may have changed relatively but there are not so many new sources around, except perhaps the "American Greed" episode on the scandal which is a bit flamboyant and is perhaps a border-line reliable source.
• Near a fairly easily identifiable date, some very strange things began happening with the article, involving a whole flock of sockpuppets. The first adventure involved about 80% of the content and sources being deleted and then having the article nominated for deletion.
• On a fairly regular basis strange things keep on happening to the article.
• A request was made through OTRS about the article. I believe the thrust of the complaint was that Plotkin didn't plead guilty to many of the things the article said he did. A quick check of the press release issued by the *Federal Court* showed that he did plead guilty to everything I was asked about. The OTRS volunteer quietly disappeared.
• There are some incredibly bizarre aspects of this case that I haven't highlighted in the article and don't see any need to, e.g. the stripper scheme. The grand juror scheme should probably be highlighted as it seems to be a first in insider trading - but - if I remember this correctly - the juror turned state's evidence and got off with probation, and Plotkin only pled guilty to something related to what appears to be part of that scheme. Info on that part of the scheme is fairly hard to get. The really bizarre part is the movie that those convicted made before getting caught.
• The most believable criticism that I have heard of the article during these regular strange periods is that this is about a single event - after all, only one trial for Plotkin - just one scheme. Well actually not - there were convictions on about 25 individual stocks spread out over a year's trading, multiple schemes, e.g. trading on pre-publication info and the schemes mentioned above.

Frankly, I feel a bit constrained discussing this at all in public - the sources speak for themselves (when not removed!). Is there a way to have a private hearing on this, short of the Arb Committee. Actually I'd be willing to have it go to the Arb Committee if we could get a final ruling, and I wouldn't have to deal with it every 6 months.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arb Committee doesn't decide content disputes. Can you explain why we have an article supposedly about Plotkin, rather than about an insider trading scheme involving multiple individuals - the one thing that Plotkin is supposedly notable for? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this has died down, but the article refers to both and it's at the name of one of them. I say either move the page to Eugene Plotkin and David Pajčin (or something else! Goldman Sachs insider trading controversy is not unreasonable) or separate the two articles - I'm quite happy to do either, but I want consensus one way or another before I do anything.--Launchballer 19:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Smallbones makes a number of factual errors in his discussion of the article above. The Grand Juror that he notes got off with probation is Jason Smith, who actually received 33 months for his involvement. When the case initially broke in the news in 2005, it focused on Pajcin and his aunt. There were multiple news stories at the time, which are easily accessible via a simple Google search. Plotkin did not appear until April of 2006, when he was arrested. Coverage at that time centered on not only Plotkin, but also Shpigelman. In any event, whether or not there are bizarre components to this article's history or its story is irrelevant to the issue being discussed here. Factchecker25 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the article was originally written about Plotkin was because all the information from reliables sources was about Plotkin. The other guy was just a shadowy figure who appeared in passing in the multitude of reliable sources. There may be better information now, but I haven't seen it. So-called Factchecker hasn't offered any good sources as far as I can tell - but what he seems to have done is put in vague, undocumented accusations against the other guy and in the process hide or confuse the documented facts (that Plotkin pled guilty to, or appeared in the Wall Street Journal together with other sources such as the Financial Times and New York Times, etc.) I frankly don't have anything to say about the other guy - most of what Factchecker says could be made up as far as I can tell. Before you start an article entitled "Joe X and Bob Y" please make sure you have documented facts and you've checked them yourself personally. If it turns out to be then case that the other guy has as much to do with the case, then please go ahead and write it. I certainly haven't seen anything that says they got equal sentences.

As far as a Z company insider trading conspiracy I don't think that would work because the perhaps 2.5 guys who seemed to have run it, seem to have worked for at least 4 companies. Also note that it can't be named a "controversy", there's nothing controversial about their convictions, it was a conspiracy or perhaps a scheme. If you were to pick the most commonly used name - there's no true nifty name here - it would probably be "Plotkin's insider trading" or the "Underwear seamstress insider trading conspiracy". I'm very serious about the last, that little juicy detail seems to have caught everybody's imagination but nobody would actually publish that name (all the while emphasizing the not so important detail), so a catchy name was never thought up. I've asked Factchecker for a better name, but haven't seen one yet. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name is irrelevant. Either the insider dealing scheme (which involved more than just Plotkin) was notable, in which case we should have an article on it, or it isn't, in which case we cannot have an article on Plotkin. This bogus 'biography' simply doesn't comply with policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A note for those unfamiliar with the subject: the so called "other guy [who] was just a shadowy figure" is David Pajčin, Plotkin's co-conspirator, who's trading first attracted the SEC's interest. It was the investigation of Pajčin that led them to Plotkin. [95] Far from being a 'shadowy figure',Pajčin was central to the case. Furthermore, there are sources dating from 2006 which cover Pajčin's involvement perfectly well. Smallbones' arguments simply don't add up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy's being a bit grumpy here. I don't think there is any rule that says you have to have an article on the insider trading case before you can have an article on the insider trader. Michael Milkin and Ivan Boesky are handled by us under the person's name with no articles on either case. And yes, there were many other people involved in each of those cases. The weight that I put on the different people in the case reflects the weight of the sources I had when I wrote it. It would probably be slightly different now, but I'll say that "Eugene Plotkin" gets more than 2 times the google hits than "David Pajcin" and "Stanislav Shpigelman" gets almost none. We should just take this to the article's talk page. There's no great injustice or violation of the rules. There's just a convicted con man ... or two or so. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before we "take this to the article's talk page", would you care to expand on why you accused Factchecker25 of having a "possible COI" in an edit summary? [96] Given that Factchecker25 hadn't edited the article previously, it is difficult to see how you could have arrived at such a conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Factchecker25 edited the article and the talk page last August 23. This was about the same time somebody sent in an OTRS request, which as far as I can tell was about the article saying "was convicted of" when the OTRS sender wanted the wording "was accused of". A brief review of the court documents showed that Plotkin pled guilty and was "convicted of" in every case I was asked about. The diff shows Factchecker25 changing "convicted of" to "accused of" and a similar or same edit was done later by an anon. There is a history of SPAs and sockpuppets making similar types of obstructive edits. Looks like a possible COI to me.

I'd like to ask everybody who is involved in this to take some reasonable precautions. Plotkin pled guilty and was convicted of a couple of dozen counts of fraud - theft by deception. The words "insider trading" are commonly used in the papers, but the actual crime is fraud, "insider trading" is just one way to prove fraud (sorry for being a bit technical). Given that there is a history of deception in the actual case, and a history of sockpuppets and similar tricks here on Wikipedia, I'll suggest that you occasionally ask yourself - "Am I being deceived here?" You can still AGF, but just check everything very carefully and in detail. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Orange_bar.2C_prominent_talk-page_notifications, the famous Orange Talk Page Notification Bar (tactfully and lovingly nicknamed the OBOD) has been deactivated. Until the issue is fixed next workweek (hopefully), I suggest that administrators be much gentler with good-faith editors that appear to be ignoring messages on their talk pages--they probably legitimately are not noticing them through no real fault of their own. My suggestion is, for the short term, to avoid blocking editors except where there is clear, outright vandalism or other evidence of outright bad faith. Red Slash 16:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably a good idea even with the orange bar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Although note that the bar is working for IPs. What does OBOD stand for, anyway? Nyttend (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orange bar of Death. Tiderolls 18:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I do have a suggestion, if community consensus is in favor, Writ Keeper wrote a script that can be installed in the common js page so it's re-enabled again.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• That RfC may as well close already. Even though it's only been four days, consensus is overwhelmingly in favour of restoring it, and I really can't see it swinging away from that stance. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that consensus is fine, but we are talking about the developers and the Foundation. They are not obligated to follow consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but perhaps we should remind them what happens when the owners of the website thumb their noses at the community. It's sickening to see the lack of respect shown by the WMF people; this isn't some legal thing, and it's not even a good idea that conflicts with a few higherups' blindly-held positions — it's a simple formatting thing over which they're toying with us. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the new notifications system, all you have to do is mention them here to get their attention. Should we still notify users?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We could mandate the linking of a user's name as an alternative.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. When my name was mentioned here - and it was in the section header - the new system did not notify me. Also, as mentioned on several other message boards the new notification system is easy to miss (especially if someone were color blind) so I would suggest that we continue to notify users and IPs with a message on their talk page. It is a simple courtesy to perform. MarnetteD | Talk 21:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. NE Ent 21:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be at the talk page? I've had the same problem as Marnette; I've not yet gotten any notifications except for messages at my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had at least one person on the noticeboards use my linked user name, and I did not receive a notification. Can someone test it to see if it actually works? I thought it only worked on talk pages. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you getting a notification, Viriditas or Nyttend? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just got one from this message; it's the first I've received. Thank you, King of Hearts. Something must have changed, since Writ Keeper's orange bar script just came back. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's working now. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking assistance and advice on how to deal with USER:KhabarNegar. I submitted this first as a dispute resolution request, but the request was closed by saying it was a conduct dispute.

Since that request is set to be archived, here is the full discussion:

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Sanctions Against Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• NPguy (talk · contribs)
• KhabarNegar (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is no single issue in dispute, but a seemingly unending series of issues, which will be evident by looking at the article's history and discussion page.

I have tried to edit the article so that it is factually correct, supported by reliable sources, and balanced. I have explained every edit in the description and often on the talk page. Though I have tried to meet KhabarNegar halfway and work with the valid substantive elements of his additions, he/she has repeatedly reverted my edits and insists on having every word exactly as he wants it. And he typically adds insult to injury by reverting my edits and then adding further dubious content.

I have the impression that few if any other editors look at this page or, if they do, they have given up because of the seemingly intractable dispute.

I also have the impression that KhabarNegar has limited English proficiency, as many of his/her edits and comments on the discussion page are ungrammatical and he/she often seems not to understand what I am saying.

Finally, i have the impression that he/she is motivated by a strong political bias - taking the side of Iran against the United States.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to resolve on the discussion page, to handle things step-by-step. For awhile it seemed like we were making progress, but the dispute has returned to a standoff.

How do you think we can help?

First, review the history and provide an independent view of the dispute. I hope you will conclude that KhabarNegar is being unreasonable, uncivil, and has violated Wikipedia standards of conduct, and I hope you will make this clear to him/her. Ultimately, if he/she refuses to budge, the only solution may be to block him from further edits.

Opening comments by KhabarNegar

Well, Above you see a 1754 character insults from first line till the last line without a single link of what is really going on.

FIRST OF ALL, the biggest lie he is telling is the last line which he is telling.

That is so unfortunate which instead of relying on the facts he makes this discussion USA Vs. Iran discussion, This points of view and injecting national patriotism in to the articles is I think the core problem that above user have,... & its obvious to anyone by using the last line he is trying to make a team to influence the article by his patriot views.

Mr. NPguy instead of insulting and trying to just put views of some current U.S administration foreign policies in to articles try to know the facts from reliable international sources.

If anyone see the history, you can see what he is doing, deleting the reliable sources for example like Al Jazeera & The Christian Science Monitor...KhabarNegar (talk) 06:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The exchange illustrates one aspect the conduct in question: verbal insults instead of substantive replies. If you look at the history of the article in question, you will see a certain amount of edit warring (in which I am not entirely blameless), but also that my efforts to reach a constructive compromise have been persistently rebuffed. Please advise. NPguy (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a spurious public accusation of libel made against me by user CarolmooreDc, made on my talk page and the talk page for Hans Hermann Hoppe (the person I supposedly libeled), I wrote the following message(posted to my talk page and the Hoppe talk page):

This is nonsense. You are welcome to argue that it is WP:Syn to say that BLock says Hoppe says Hoppe advocates coercive violence against gays. (For the record, I disagree: What Block says is that Hoppe's advocacy of "banning gays from polite society" violates the libertarian non-aggression principle, which by definition (according to him/mises institutel ibertarians generally) equates to advocating or engaging in aggressive violence). But the "libelous" title (of "Alleged advocacy of anti-gay violence") I created merely restated and summarized what CON text in the sub-article said and what was tacitly or explicitly accepted by all editors for weeks. Given that CON text, it was an accurate description of the sub-article. The only libelousness is in an accusation of legal wrongdoing being thrown at me. Please note that even if your charges were well-founded, your making them in this fashion is in public defiance of WP: Guidelines. See: WP:Threat, according to which "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended." Steeletrap (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

USer S.Rich -- who has acted in an intimidating manner toward me, including making imputing bad faith and speculating on my motives without evidence, despite my being a noob, responded thusly --

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You've posted your notice on the editors board. That's enough! Let that discussion, in that forum, run its course. But for you to repeat the commentary here [97] and here: [98] and above is not acceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His threats are unacceptable given that my comments constitute no personal attack. As can be seen, my words were solely focused on refuting a particular accusation. I ask that he be rebuked for his intimidating/harassing behavior against me, a noob someone who has been here for 17 days. Steeletrap (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 17 days, and you're already making multiple postings to the admin boards? That's a new one. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I've got a plugged up garbage disposal at home and some plumbing is needed. So, rather than deal with 2 aggravations at the same time, I'll respond tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copied here from WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LFaraone, an admin, hasn't made a significant number of edits in about 4 years [99]. Yet he has returned and started closing discussions where there are only a few comments.

In the article I nominated, based on policy and guidelines I can see no justification for closing that discussion as keep, rather than relisting for more input Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Talbott_(3rd_nomination). The justification made here: User_talk:IRWolfie-#AFD seems, quite frankly, a bit bizarre. Especially considering that when he says "User:Dricherby were reasonable insofar as that there has been critical commentary on his work combined with non-trivial mentions in sources. User:Phaedrus7 builds upon that", even though Dricherby panned Phraedrus's reasons; what consensus was he reading? If this was an isolated case I would take it to deletion review, but there appear to be many other discussions closed by the now-active editor which I think are problematic.

Other examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Powerking One comment of "Per nom" and it was deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Writopia_Lab One comment which says they have press coverage and links to their page resulted in a keep
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wheels_Entertainments No comments actually address notability, yet it was kept
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vince_Conti One comment, said they couldn't find sources, was deleted

This list is not an exhaustive one, I only selected a minimum number for demonstration. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, when editors brought up closings they felt were incorrect, I have occasionally revised the outcome. However, I believe in general that my actions in interpreting consensus are reasonable and fall within the realm of administrative discretion. If you have issues with specific deletion discussions, couldn't you have otherwise resolved them amicably by bringing them up at deletion review? I disagree that my gap in editing indicates, as you said on your talk page, being "out of touch" with policy, and stand by these closures. LFaraone 22:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large amount of problematic closes; and it would be non-trivial to bring them all to deletion review.

Many are where there is little input but they are closed, here are some more examples:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Courchaine_(ice_hockey_b._1989)
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Smith_(Charity_CEO): one comment
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A_Wolf_At_Your_Door_Records: one comment, basically a per nom, was deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saving_Aimee_(3rd_nomination) I fail to see the consensus.

IRWolfie- (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Talbott close seems to reflect consensus. NE Ent 23:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked through the examples here, which I assume are the "worst of the worst". Some were relisted twice, others once. I also think it was kind of quick to bring it here. We can debate each close individually at WP:DRV but from what I see, the main problem was low participation, even after relisting. In this one, the nomination was weak, this didn't have a single keep, this one didn't have a delete, etc. I don't see abuse nor obviously bad judgement. I do think that DRV would have been the better venue. Some AFDs just don't get any attention, which can be evidenced by at least one of the examples being relisted twice. I don't agree that we should run every AFD until it gets $x votes, which is the only other alternative. And the David Talbott article you nominated? This was the third AFD, and the first two closed as "keep", so I can't see a third keep as being all that unusual.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are telling me, that in your opinion: this is an appropriate close? Closing with keep or delete when there was a lack of participation is bad judgement, if there isn't enough participation we have "no consensus" or relisting.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wheels_Entertainments did have a delete; the nom and noone addressed the points he raised. Also with the Talbott article, saying that discussions years ago were closed keep and that means the current case is justified is rather strange justification. Read the actual keep arguments; one hints at possible reviews of a book, one of the keeps makes irrelevant points that the first keep voter countered as well, and the third keep voter said he would have voted delete if this wasn't a third nomination. These aren't the worst of the worst, since I didn't look through all their recent closes. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with IRWolfie on this. The level of participation and the number of keep "votes" should have nothing at all to do with the closing decision. An AfD is not a vote! That is a core Wikipedia policy. AfDs should be closed with reference to the stated policy positions, not the popularity of the subject. Policy should always triumph over votes or sentiments. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an anarchy, but anarchy is surely the result when policy is thrown out the window. Qworty (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a slight clarification that if the participation is very low, people can't generally gauge the general consensus, and it should probably be relisted, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin please block InconvenientCritic (talk · contribs) per WP:NOTHERE? He does not seem to be interested in helping construct the encyclopedia, and in fact seems just to be here to try to stir up trouble on talk pages, as Tarc points out. If InconvenientCritic does want the help with the encyclopedia, by all means we should let him. But we don't need more people here to just create more drama. 75.147.18.214 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose a community ban WP:AN is usaully the place to do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I have reviewed the user's contributions and have taken a firm decision to completely ignore them. I strongly suggest everyone else does likewise. --Shirt58 (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is the right forum in which make this complaint! I am new to Wikipedia (have been here 17 days) and I feel as if most of my additions to the community have contributed positively to it. I am concerned about the conduct of user CarolmooreDC. She recently accused me of "libelous" conduct and threatened me with bans here, writing "given your biased edits and admitted strong Negative POV and the fact your PhD advisor recommended you look at these people for your dissertation, you really are getting into an area where you could be banned from editing these related articles at all under this this biographies of living people-related arbitration." (elsewhere on my talk page she implies that my getting banned is "just a matter of someone being sufficiently motivated to present the copious evidence of your BLP violating habits to the proper venue", which I regarded as an attempt at intimidation.)

Her attacks re: "bias" stem from a personal admission of mine that I am studying fringe political groups for a Master's thesis, and don't like some of them; an *unprompted* admission I made in good faith when I was trying to understand WP's COI policy.

Her attacks re "libel" stem from my changing a sub-title of the Hans-Hermann Hoppe piece from "Allegations of Homophobia" to "Allegations of promoting anti-gay violence." As can be seen from the history page, this title was simply a paraphrase of text within that section -- CON text which had been accepted for weeks by editors as a fair characterization (she is of course entitled to disagree with the CON text and argue that it is WP:Synth, but calling someone -- particularly a noob -- "libelous" and threatening a ban for his/her simply paraphrasing accepted CON text in a title sub-section is, in my judgment, extremely inappropriate. This follows a broader history of demeaning, insulting conduct and personal attacks she has leveled against me. She has formed a sort of tag team to attack me with commentator S. Rich, who previously accused me of "bad-mouth[ing] the various people you are writing about in WP" based on a "subtle" motivation "to preserve the work you are doing on your thesis" (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Steeletrap/Archive_1). His comments have not been quite as egregious as Carol's, but given his history of personally attacking me, it is also a cause for concern.

Thank you for hearing my reply. I apologize if this isn't written in the proper format! Please let me know if you want any more information surrounding Carol's previous comments to me or mine to her. Steeletrap (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems it wasn't just your change of the title, you added the entire section which does not have adequate sourcing: [100][101]. CarolMooreDC's accusation of libel, unless I am mistaken, seems to fall afoul of WP:NLT. That doesn't mean the text in the article should not have not been removed, which it should be per WP:BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edits you refer to (from April 17-18th) definitely should have been removed. But please note that that was my first/second day on Wikipedia, when I was not yet appraised to WP rules such as WP:OR and WP:SYN. Also note that she was accusing me of libel for changes I made related to the title I added yesterday, not for the older stuff. I appreciate your remarks agreeing that Carol violates WP:BLP WP:NLT. Steeletrap (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misread what I said, I did not agree that Carol violated WP:BLP. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke, and meant to say: "I appreciate your agreeing that Carol violated WP:NLT." I encourage anyone to strike my previous comment through to avoid confusion (I don't know how). Steeletrap (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You can do that yourself using <s> and </s>. NE Ent 23:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOLT would apply in this case, I think, negating the perceived spuriousness of the libel threat. I think both of you need to take a step back from the article; I'm getting a sense there are issues of WP:OWN here.--WaltCip (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the charge should be carefully evaluated and I encourage everyone to read the edits I made to the page to verify that they match my characterization of it. Steeletrap (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]