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

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

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

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

and most recently, today: [20]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Convenience break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested close

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

As I posted on each of their talk pages:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question for Andy, Gerda and Nikkimaria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Tony, thank you for sharing your thoughts. Would you mind having this discussion at a more appropriate venue, for example project Classical music, where these infoboxes were discussed before introduction, or the template talk of {{infobox Bach composition}}. Please don't miss the Wikipedias de-fr-nn, where every Bach cantata has an infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for explaining, Tony. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner for example

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

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

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

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

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

Gerda's part:

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

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

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

Redux

I don't know whether this discussion is worth continuing. Whether Gerda is agreeing isn't clear to me, Nikkimaria sees the issue as mainly one for Andy to respond to (see discussion here), and Andy hasn't been posting, although he did email Wikimedia-l today so he may be back soon. Perhaps we should wait for his return. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we ask Gerda, Nikkimaria and Andy Mabbett to make statements in turn, clarifying whether they will (1) stop edit warring (e.g. by observing WP:1RR), (2) stop provoking other editors by adding or removing infoboxes against local consensus, (3) respect the results of past and future centralized discussions on boxes, and (4) agree not to radically alter or develop boxes that have already been created by compromise and consensus (typically at the project level).

If we do have satisfactory undertakings from all three, I suggest we end this here — if not, the alternative to be topic bans. Kleinzach 01:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I received an email from Andy yesterday saying that it will be at least five more days until he may edit again, and my personal impression is that he should take it easy, no pressure, after recovery.

My statements are above, repeating:

I didn't edit war and don't plan to do so. (1)

I will not add infoboxes to articles where I expect conflict. (2, 3)

To please editors, I will not even add an infobox to the talk page of an article where I expect conflict, although I still don't understand what can be wrong about an infobox on a talk page. (2, 3)

I don't understand (4), and certainly not what it has to do with this discussion. (I once expanded an infobox to make it compatible with another one that another editor chose to use it instead of the suitable one, - is that what you call "radically alter"?)

I ask Nikkimaria to follow my edits to improve English and formatting, but please not revert an infobox without prior discussion.

From Andy's last email: he invites (uninvolved) admins to follow his edits, as SandyGeorgia suggested here. That should solve 1–4.

May I remind that this was a initiative about stalking, not topics, and I question whose satisfaction should be established in a conclusion? I thought this was over and could be archived. I vaguely remember that I was told "Be bold" when I started editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to write WP:STALEMATE. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a request by Kleinzach on Gerda's page to post here, why do I not see such a request on Nikki's page? If it's there and I've missed it, sorry, but I'm not seeing it. PumpkinSky talk 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. I got distracted Just as I was about to post something to Nikkimaria. I will do it now. Thanks for the reminder. --Kleinzach 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Done Kleinzach 13:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kleinzach's suggested solution would work for this dispute, assuming Andy is amenable. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think a statement from you would be positive, just as Gerda's one (above) at least moves us in the right direction. Whether Andy Mabbett is 'amenable' or not is up to him — other editors can draw their own conclusions based what he says when he gets back to WP. --Kleinzach 01:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section started below is off topic or at least off process. We are here to stop the edit warring, not to start it up again. It isn't helping. May we collapse it? --Kleinzach 22:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Too late. WP:NOTSOAPBOX should apply, but the self-fulfilling Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties already has lift off. Kleinzach 01:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties

As some here will recall, a number of weeks ago I made a drive-by comment on the talk page J.S. Bach talk page regarding what I consider to be the inevitability of infoboxes on classical music articles. Profanity was used in the reply by one of the anti-infobox parties, which to my mind is about as unwelcoming a response to a first-time editor in a particular article as I can recall in a half-decade of being a Wikipedian, so I brought my very first case to ANI. The anti-infobox clique fended off meaningful sanctions, so I put several pages on my watchlist and took a step back.

I continue to feel there is a serious problem with the anti-infobox people, who insist on having their way and employ a number of, to my thinking, questionable methods to ensure that that happens. Indeed, in the reason this matter is again at ANI, an admin is stalking an editor; this means User:Nikkimaria creates a deliberate chilling effect. It was pointed out earlier in this thread that admin Nikkimaria has been blocked by other admins, and I will point out most recently in the service of the anti-infobox goal at Sparrow Mass. where a infobox deletion was disingenuously labeled "clean-up" in an edit summary. This is one unacceptable example of the sort of thing that will most likely continue until the community gets to the "sick of it" stage, which I hope we have reached.

I suggest strong action against Nikkimaria - This administrator has been blocked several times for edit warring. I include consideration of de-adminship. It is clear to me something must be done in this case. I do not buy the "But they didn't abuse the tools" argument because an admin wields power and must be squeaky clean in their actions.

I suggest a strong warning for Andy - He is hardly blameless either, but is not culpable to the effect NM is.

A Wikipedia-wide Rfc on infoboxes. This grinding infobox debate will continue to be an endless bone of contention until the root cause is addressed. Let the entire Wikipedia community decide if infoboxes are ok for every appropriate article, not just a small number of editors with a rigid agenda. If an Rfc doesn't solve the issue, then the last resort will have to be ArbCom. Let's make a dedicated push to get this nagging problem over with, and move on to more worthy pursuits. Jusdafax 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the obvious social handicap as far as User:Jusdafax is concerned of not being partial to infoboxes; but is it that alone which prevents me from comprehending the logically consequential link between his first two proposals and the third? As a Jew I'm not entirely unfamiliar with being classed as a member of an evil minority determined to destabilize the universe; now I find I'm the member of another similar 'clique'. Perhaps User:Jusdafax can tell me where I can find psychiatric help; or is it just, as Richard Wagner advises, that I need to seek Untergang? We seem to be dealing here with a classic case, on User:Jusdafax's part, of the declension: 'I have principles; you have obsessions; they are an anti-social conspiracy'. I don't disagree that in principle both Nikkimaria and Mr. Mabbett should receive some raps; but User:Jusdafax's pompous and portentous heading 'Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties' seems to indicate that his scope is not focussed on the issue here, and that his conclusions may not be entirely dispassionate. Worriedly, --Smerus (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pompous and portentous." Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable. Perhaps we could have some commentary here from those a bit less involved than Smerus, who in my view is in clear violation of WP:NPA in the service of his agenda. For the record: I have created a very modest article on a bit of classical music, Le Pas d'acier. Notice there is no info box. I don't give a fig either way, you see, and attempts to paint me as partisan are merely a smear, which I strongly resent. What we need to do is fix the problems I have outlined, not indulge in "clever" attempts to change the subject. See how this matter is being gamed, folks? Jusdafax 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming - an interesting allegation. This thread started because a big boy accused a big girl of bullying. Neither of the two are strangers to knockabout stuff on Wikipedia. And I find it difficult to believe that either suffered sleepless nights because of this discussion. But User:Jusdafax says that the outcome must include a WP wide debate on infoboxes. Gaming? Changing the subject? - As Schopenhauer says somewhere, when we blame others, we are blaming ourselves. The extent to which I am 'involved': I have made it clear here as elsewhere that I don't like infoboxes. I have never deleted an infobox. I do not want yet another debate on infoboxes as a whole because: 1) if it comes to a resolution either one way or the other, it will drive away from WP a substantial body of experienced editors and 2) if it comes, as in the past, to no decision, then a lot of hot air and time will have been wasted. There are better things to do in life. We can live with this sort of trivial knockabout stuff, if it's the price we have to pay for keeping everyone on board. Best, --Smerus (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Attack the messenger when you don't want the actual issues addressed... all too predictable." User:Smerus wrote, "pompous and portentous heading". That's not a personal attack; it's a description of a heading. "Ugly actions by a number of intractable parties" and "The anti-infobox clique" are closer to personal attacks, although I wouldn't classify them as such either. Get real. Toccata quarta (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As in the former case, I think no actions are required. I like to work "amicably" with all editors involved (thank you for the phrase, Smerus!), and I do (thank you, Smerus and Nikkimaria). Putting people in a "clique" or "gang" does not help. I can speak only for myself: I am nobodies follower here, the spirit is my own. If someone can explain to me why putting an infobox on a talk page with the intention to keep it there is a "digression", they are welcome. Talk pages are for talk, there's "freedom of speech", right? - I think this whole thread can be closed. Andy, who wanted satisfaction, cannot edit, those who want different satisfaction can start a thread of their own. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Gerda, in my view the answer to your question is a simple one. It's about power: the power to tell others what to do. Heaven forbid editors should ever have to contemplate one of your infoboxes on even a talk page, oh, how defiant of right-thinking! Someone might get the idea that an infobox could just be an asset to those casual readers interested in classical music, and copy and paste one elsewhere. No, you must be condemned and attacked as "disruptive" and the offending infobox cleansed away by rapid archiving or outraged removal, and various semi-threats made to silence anyone pointing out inconvenient facts. I have seen cliques before in my years here, but this one takes the cake. Or as a warning to me back in April goes on my talkpage (with apologies to the editor who wrote it, for my reposting it here): It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them! I say again: I really don't care that much about the short term outcome on infoboxes on classical music articles, as I am an eventualist and believe it all will get right over time, seeing as the vast majority of Wikipedia articles have infoboxes. What offends me is the rampant Wiki-bullying on display here, mostly by the anti-infobox faction who I deem morally bankrupt because of the way they try to push people around. It would be so much easier to walk away from this absurd mess and not deal with any of it, but the fact is that this no-infobox mess is an ugly boil on Wikipedia that is demonstrably driving away good editors, as you have seen. Again, power-mongering is the core of the problem here, exemplified by an admin, User:Nikkimaria who follows Andy around the 'pedia, but also others who I believe exhibit a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality towards Andy, and you, and now me for daring to stand up to them. What kind of an online encyclopedia are we to be? That's the deeper question here, and the attempts above to inject ethnicity, crypto-threats like "interesting allegation" etc, etc. are merely transparent devices to shame and blame. Conduct a well-publicized Wiki-wide Rfc on infoboxes. Nothing else directly attacks the root cause of this deeply unpleasant and ultimately absurd ongoing issue, although the alternative is to just file a case at ArbCom and see if that body cares to pour through years of edits to discern the long-term pattern, which I contend would reveal a breathtaking architecture of outright abuse. To do nothing just kicks the can down the road until finally a reckoning comes. Jusdafax 18:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It looks like you messed with the Classical Music wikiproject. This insular group of editors has stonewalled the infobox issue for years against many users' objections and has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. If you keep it up they may even try to ban you from discussing the issue, as they have tried with Pigsonthewing in the past. Good luck dealing with them!" There goes a "wall" of personal attacks and straw men (which you did not write, but apparently approve of). I notice that you have made the "bullying" accusation again; when you previously accused me of bullying, you weren't even capable of producing any evidence for your claim.

Editors may also like to note another straw man in the quote above: you omit to mention the fact that we have arguments: "has fought to control the debate through canvassing, cementing it within their own nonbinding policy, and generally bullying those who disagree with them. [emphasis added]" Toccata quarta (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A number of stalemates that were probably similar have been documented in guidelines, for example WP:CITEVAR or WP:SHE4SHIPS. I see the MOS lead itself has the catch-all provision "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." 86.121.18.17 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-term observer largely uninvolved with the issue (all but one of my peer-reviewed articles, IIRC, has an infobox, and I have no particular interest in classical music), I think your assessment is almost completely wrongheaded, Jusdafax. The current state of play for infoboxes, which I think is largely reflected in policy (and would probably be borne out in an RfC) is that they are appropriate for some, indeed, most articles; inappropriate for a very few; and that there is some gray area of articles in between for which an infobox may or may not be appropriate. The provisions about forming consensus on an article-by-article basis and so forth are intended to encourage rational discussion and consensus formation among interested editors. Of course, the "problem" with that approach is that editors might decide *not* to have an infobox on a given article, which for Pigsonthewing is an unacceptable outcome. He, with the occasional aid and support of other technically-inclined editors, has spent years filibustering these "gray area" articles to try to prevent discussions from reaching the no-infobox answer. (One of the more ingenious tactics that I recall was to show up at an article, declare that the author's opinion could be discounted because of WP:OWN, that of WikiProject participants could be discounted because of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and that as the last person left standing, his opinion determined consensus and the article should have an infobox.) This insistence on shoving infoboxes into articles where they aren't generally desired, to demonstrate that no editor or group of editors can block them, earned him a topic ban last year.

This is not a new phenomenon. He was banned for a year by ArbCom in 2007 for abusive conduct, largely surrounding his attempts to...force infoboxes onto articles about opera and composers! SIX. YEARS. Trying to make these WikiProject kiss his ring and accept that he could force an infobox into any article he chose, regardless of their arguments. Frankly, looking over the behavior complained of in that ArbCom case (not only music infoboxes, but the use of coord templates) and seeing that he's largely recapitulated it within the past year, it's a wonder he's escaped more serious sanctions.

Now, all that said, I am concerned about some of the actions on the other side, more so as regards interference with Gerda's use of infoboxes in her articles than any response to Pigsonthewing. But the major "chilling effect" here has been that created by his behavior, which regards good-faith discussion and compromise by other parties as way stations to getting his way in its entirety. Deal with that problem, and you'll go a long way towards clearing the unpleasant atmosphere in this area. Choess (talk) 06:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that Andy's behaviour results in a chilling effect. There would have to be demonstration of some obvious trend not to participate for fear of reprisal for that to be the case. What reprisal is supposed? The worst that happens is a talk page thread, and the occasional reinstatement of an infobox that is invariably summarily removed again the next time one of the bloc happens to chance upon it. It's unfortunate that certain WikiProjects take such umbrage with occasionally being asked to actually explain themselves to outsiders (and no, "we decided this a long time ago, and we worked hard on these articles, and you're hurting our fee-fees" is not an explanation), but there's plainly only one party here who genuinely has to worry about reprisal (including but not limited to flagrant personal attacks, hounding and general degradation on any soapbox that's handy, along with being threatened with a new topic ban every other day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice from my daughter

My daughter visited for father's day, and we went for a walk. We talked about a number of things, but I asked her for advice on a Wikipedia issue. I couldn't give her all the background—we were only out for two hours, but I covered the basics, including BRD, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. When I mentioned that Andy had documented 22 cases where his edit was reverted, but only three edits were followed by a post to the talk page, and none included a response by Nikkimaria, she suggested that we tell each party that they should be using the talk page to reach consensus. If one does regularly, and the other does not, we will be able to identify the problematic editor. My initial instincts were to suggest that this was too simple, but now I'm wondering why. While I won't pretend it will make the entire problem go away, it seems like a reasonable request. Does anyone disagree?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The situation has been clearly explained, but it's difficult to see unless you have participated in one of the punch-ups on the talk page of a contested article. The problem is that people who are unwilling or unable to make useful contributions to a serious encyclopedic article on a composer nevertheless feel an urge to add an infobox. Since everyone is equal, the view of an editor new to an article is just as valid as that of the editors who created and maintain the article—in fact the outsider's view is more valid because the creators and maintainers are just violators of WP:OWN who do not understand the policy that all articles must comply with technical standards. I have seen a couple of the discussions and they are extremely unhelpful because editors are human, and they don't like being pushed around by people with an agenda—good editors become frustrated and stop editing. It only takes a moment for someone to add an infobox, and there are lots of people who like to do things like that, and then the editors who build the content have to spend another six hours in pointless back-and-forth. There is no good solution to a problem like this because the infobox adders can rely on relentless pressure to win (there are more of them than there are content builders), and those on the other side can only grind their teeth. One not-good solution would be to have the ultimate RfC to decide whether it is mandatory for every article to have an infobox. If yes, add them. If no, block those who persist past 1RR. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sphilbrick: Yes, in fact, I do disagree. The editors involved have been drowning one by one in these discussions. Here is a list of music-related box infobox discussions since February:

IMO a one revert rule-based approach would be more practical. Of course, we can have talk page discussions when necessary, but not used as an attrition tactic to wear out the music editors. Kleinzach 02:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @ Sphilbrick: as regards the issue of this thread, yes, your daughter's proposal is of course highly relevant. (What a way to spend Father's Day!). I don't myself see the point or relevance of pursuing the infobox theme further under this discussion.--Smerus (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue of this thread - a little reminder - is NOT the infobox. I invite everybody to look at the (18?) linked discussions. The cantata BWV 103: The discussion was constructive, the infobox improved, Smerus reviewed the article and approved as it GA: peace can be so simple if we respect each other and talk instead of revert, - that seems to be daughter's advice. For those who still think this thread is about infobox: project opera introduced their optional use for operas yesterday, the template {{infobox opera}} was developed with Andy's great help and has a cute example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kleinzach for those links. While I am aware that the infobox wars have been contentious, I haven't read all of the background, and that is a useful resource when it comes time to revisit the infobox question. However, that's not why we are here. As Gerda pointed out, the issue in this thread is not infoboxes, nor even the broader problems as pointed out by Johnuniq. The issue is that Andy alleges he was being stalked, and wants to know what the community plans to do about that. Andy points to 22 instances where edits of his were reverted, but the evidence is that neither he nor Nikkimaria followed up as required by accepted community practice in almost all of the cases. I am a firm believer that the community ought to address the underlying issues (but not here) as we ought to be resolving the policy questions, not just papering over the symptoms. However our narrow remit at the moment is to determine whether Andy's claims have merit, and if so what response is appropriate. My view is that, in view of the failure of both parties to follow accepted community protocols, there's nothing to be done here. I do appreciate that much virtual ink has been spilled over the underlying questions in other places, but the burden is on Andy to provide the evidence to support the claim, and I find the claim wanting. I think it is time to close this thread.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I think it is obvious that User:Tabarez (banned indefinitely on 11 June 2013 for copyright violations) returned with User:Tabarez2 as his sockpuppet. It just takes to look at their names and contributions to see they are the same person (WP:DUCK). It really looks like WP:SOCK to me, so I guess an admin should look at this case. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained fully this with admin that blocked me. Please leave it in his opinion. Tabarez2 (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To my mind, very obvious - but possibly mistaken in intent (WP:AGF). Blocked and warned. Peridon (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt about it being a sock of Tabarez, he even admits it here. Thomas.W (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I've posted at the Tabarez blocking admin's page too. I've pointed out to Tabarez2 that a block on one account applies across the board, and feel there has been a misunderstanding on their part of how we work. Peridon (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He returned again, this time as 2.178.181.147. Again, same contributions as Tabarez and Tabarez2. --Sundostund (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thereby moving his actions from the category "possibly good faith" to the category "bad faith". Creating socks even though he now knows that the indef block applies to him as a person, and not to a specific user account. Thomas.W (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems that he plans to start an edit war on List of Presidents of Iran. Of course, I have no plan to follow him in that. I guess he wants to add edit warring to his breaches of Wiki rules (copyright violations, sock puppetry and block evasion). --Sundostund (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has been blocked 48 h for block evasion by User:Future Perfect. Thomas.W (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's back again, now as 2.178.181.45. --Sundostund (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's now 2.178.185.87, this really becomes pathetic. --Sundostund (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's now Namejavid, same contributions as before. --Sundostund (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by FuturePerfect. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That guy is really stubborn. I've caught him on five different IPs by now, plus this sock account. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RFCU should help, considering he's evading this block now. I'll open one now. Dusti^*poke* 19:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tabarez Dusti^*poke* 20:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, some additional information is needed to kick off that SPI. --Sundostund (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They declined that SPI request. I don't understand why, its so obvious this is a sockpuppet case... Maybe a new SPI request should be open. --Sundostund (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appealed the decision, but whomever that dick of an clerk is apparently disagrees with logic. Maybe an admin can open a SPI request? Dusti^*poke* 06:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the personal attacks. The clerk didn't reject your case, he just said that it was so obvious that admins could handle it without checkuser assistance. Admins have blocked everybody in sight now, so there's nothing to complain about.—Kww(talk) 06:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no personal attack there KWW. I'm voicing my opinion on the clerk who denied the case. The CU is actually needed to get those "out of sight" as well, and to help with a potential range block to ensure that those who need to be blocked, stay blocked. That's just my $0.02. S/he has figured out IP's get blocked, the obvious sock got blocked, and now there's a new username. That's where a CU is called into play - apparently I didn't format a "request" well enough to "document the case" - so WP:DUCK doesn't quite work with CU SPI requests. Dusti^*poke* 06:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the clerk as a "dick" isn't a personal attack? And Rschen is actually an admin, if you had bothered to check. Obvious DUCK cases do not usually require a CU, all admins are able to do rangeblocks but only a few are confident enough with that tool to do it. Tabarez isn't sophisticated enough to do more than just randomly create accounts and use IPs. To an admin well versed in rangeblocking, how severe would the collateral damage be to apply a rangeblock to these IPs? Blackmane (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already rangeblocked them and that seems to have stopped them for the time being. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not. "Dick" may have been poor descriptor to choose, and I struck it. Dusti^*poke* 14:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that User:KhabarNegar lacks the social skills and competence to contribute.

He was taken to WP:DRN from his behavior on Sanctions Against Iran, the result is here. They refused/recommended WP:RFC/U or WP:ANB/I. He was taken here before but it feel through the cracks (result here).

Every edit he disagrees with is harassment, trolling, vandalism. He does not participate coherently in the talk page. He is incapable of understanding basic concepts like the difference between an opinion piece and a news article (eg here). He introduces copyvio's into articles. He's got so far as to edit war over over archival, apparently not understanding what it actually does (edit war and confusion). I took specific opinion-piece-supported passages to a RfC and he obliged but continues edit warring over similar usages of one of the articles which is also a copyvio (article history). He ignored the discussion in the talk page unless his version of the article is not the current version (eg here).

Currently, there's an opinion piece being used to support facts, rather than opinions (WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion demands an inline qualifier). Furthermore, the supported text is taken directly from the article without quotes in violation of WP:COPYVIO. I don't think he actually understands any of these concepts, due to a language barrier. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that User:KhabarNegar lacks the social skills and competence to contribute.--Isaacsirup (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that Khabar's edits are problematic. First, they are edit warring. Second, their version has three copyright violations, two in the lead, and one in the body. Third, their edits are non-neutral as they are supported by opinion pieces (mainly one). I don't think their language skills are the problem. They may not be perfectly fluent in English, but their communication skills appear more than adequate. At best, they have some fundamental misunderstandings about Wikipedia policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor's viewpoint: User:KhabarNegar has been frustrating to work with because he doesn't seem to understand policies and takes offense easily. Just one example below; too tired to look up a few more:

• June 7 at Right-Libertarianism using very poor sources he attempted to define the term as an actual philosophy, against the existing sources which support the consensus on the talk page.
• June 7th I reverted this writing in relevant portion: "can't used self-published webpages and little known groups as refs"
• His response was to revert to his material and put "citation needed" next to every one of his sentences.
• At this June 8 diff left an edit warring notice on his talk page
• Complaint on my talk page about edit warring notice: "When I see your harassment on my talk page, based on nothing just a harassment attack I couldn't believe what I seen there. Never try to put your view on anyone using force even if you think you will make him frightened. It is just not good, & I think it is not just you. I really cannot believe your harassment there based on nothing when actually you were not true, where actually I talked to you on Talk page of the article."

At the very least he needs some strong mentoring. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 01:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As one of those who has been patiently trying to explain to this user for many months why his behavior on Sanctions against Iran is inappropriate, I am glad to see some serious discussion. Mentoring hardly seems sufficient. He has had his chance. Even though he sometimes makes valid edits, he often makes problematic ones and then will not permit any corrections to his edits, even with a clear consensus against him. As a result, any article he edits loses credibility. I don't know what the appropriate sanction is for this behavior, but something needs to be done to correct the damage he has done and prevent further damage. NPguy (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Comment

Thank you guys, First of all The stories you have given are not true stories... I will come here in next few hours, meanwhile kindly please gather anything else you may think is useful because I will comment just once, so please don't make anything remain. Specially Users:TippyGoomba & User:Isaacsirup you better have explanation for some edits by you. So, I will be here in few hours(right now I'm busy) please gather everything you think may can be useful. Regards, KhabarNegar ^Talk 06:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the beginning of your statement, and is a precursor to seeing your overall attitude, this will not be going well for you in the near future ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KhabarNegar, please remember that contributors to this page are not paid staffers, but unpaid volunteers, many of whom lead busy lives as well. Each will contribute when they can. There is no deadline, so this doesn't have to be resolved today. While I haven't been here forever, I've been following this thread for quite some time, and do not recall anyone whenever requesting that all other parties should respond quickly so that a single response will be sufficient. I'm quite sure that no such request has been granted. If you would like to propose a change in policy, we can show you where to make such a request, but I urge you not to waste your time, as I am quite sure the community will not find such a request reasonable.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Above there are lots of words mostly wrong stories and lies, and only 11links provided which are about 5 different interesting issues:

1- [47]

2- [48]

3- [49]

4- [50]

5- [51]

6- [52]

7- [53]

8- [54]

9- [55]

10- [56]

11- [57]

1- According links (1&2&3&7&8) User:CarolMooreDC should be warned not to give fake wrong warning to other user and should be mentioned about WP:Ownership.

2- According link (4) I should give one explanation and some links, although it doesn't against about violation of a Wikipedia rule.

3- According links (5,9) User:TippyGoomba acted against WP:3RR, and done WP:Trolling. Its easy to prove that and you will read it below...

4- According link (6) you will see its actually again removing sourced parts of the article ignoring Talk page of article & again WP:Trolling, all details provided below.

5- According links (10,11) you see personal attacks and trying WP:harassment, which is continued till now by making this section here.

OK, now details and the real story with more links:

Case 1:

The lead section of Right-libertarianism have no source so editors come and add anything they thing is true to the lead [58] .

And this continues [59],

I was watching that [60], and so I decided to make the lead section sourced so to stop this [61] . User:Carolmooredc revert me, and made the lead without sourced again [62] the reason she gave was that the sources are not Reliable! my reason was at least they are better than no source original research so why you revert me? Then she gave an alert of edit waring in to my talk page also actually she was the one which revert me twice, plus in talk page of the article I was discussing and they are users who tell she is wrong. This is the warning she gave me[63] just because of editing on the article, she had told I will be blocked? The question is why? and isn't it an attack?! When there is actually no edit waring giving warning for what? telling you are going to be blocked?

You may check Talk Page of the article for more information. It is so useful, I strongly recommend checking the talk page of the so called article.

Case2:

Case tow is the only case which is actually not a lie. I'm talking about these edit[64].

And now the reason of this edit:

Here in this edit User:NickCT joined User:RightCowLeftCoast & User:TippyGoomba in remove of a part of the article. In this RfC [65]. As you see the reason he gave is "Remove' - Poorly referenced. Clearly a matter of opinion and Wikipedia is not opinion."

He is talking about this [66],

By the way when I explain to him that [67] & [68], because it was obvious he didn't even see the sources, as you see.

Then instead of changing his vote, he changed the words[69].

So then I said this at last [70],

and he told this[71], that is the main whole story.

Case3:

About this[72] User:TippyGoomba Forcing to archive the Talk page of the article and the reason I am disagree with that now.

User:TippyGoomba starts this RfC[73],

although we have talked about anything before in the same page above.

When I joined the RfC User:TippyGoomba said:"I'm glad you've finally joined the discussion."! [74]

Then I said!:

""I'm glad you've finally joined the discussion.", Nice joke, Thank you. But don't forget all people are able to read and understand this.... "[75]

Then suddenly he decided to archive the talk page! [76]

...

Once again read above if anyone don't get the point...

...

[77] No Comment...

Then he went to Village pump on about this Talk page & the answer he got is interesting: [78]

But he continued putting archive bot on page...! again. [79] & plus again & again...

I said: "They are necessary PLEASE DON'T DELETE THEM AGAIN. STOP IT."[80]

and this continued by him again & again & again...

I said:"Its says It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, there is no rule. Its helpful, There is active dispute in this article do not archive previous discussions." There was active discussions and RfC in the Talk page[81]

No Use:[82]

I got tired...

and its done[83], talk page is archived...

and this is the only link he is giving to you [84] :))

He this time make it 60d [85] Archive bot...

Case 4:

About this removing by him [86],

I asked[87] him to say which part have problem and he wants to remove first in Talk page, so we can see if he is right...

But no use he didn't answer and continue removing parts of article, [88]

and this removing continued: [89]

Case 5:

I want an admin take action I'm tired of these attacks and harassment, here User:NPguy [90], Then he copy pasted the same thing in WP:ANI! I was unaware of this![91], [92]

Thanks, if anything else is there please bring it here. Regards, KhabarNegar ^Talk 18:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. WP: TLDR is another issue added to the list. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 18:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly bump :). TippyGoomba (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still hoping someone can have a look at this. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy cow, I would rather slam my head repeatedly in a car door than read all this mess, but I'm reading all this mess. I don't have the full story yet, but it doesn't look good for KhabarNegar so far. I see a serious clue deficiency, warring over archiving using arguments like "don't worry about performance" (we don't worry about server performance, we DO worry about people trying to read using a smart phone or tablet, or who don't want to read a million lines of text on any computer...). Still reading, but wanted to say I'm looking at it, and encourage any other input here as well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have read virtually everything here, trying to understand the context of the entire sequence of events to the best of my ability. I absolutely hate these types of conundrums. The short version is that KhabarNegar's enthusiasm exceeds his clue to the degree that it is causing disruption for a number of people. While he may have some good intentions mixed in there, his methods are fatally flawed. Edit warring, copyvios, misunderstanding policy to an extreme degree, not understanding what is and isn't a reliable source. I don't want to claim incompetence, but it is an inability to cooperate in a collaborative environment and abject misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. I think his language skills are adequate to communicate, even if not perfect, but there is a serious listening problem. There are only two possible scenarios here and both require mentoring, learning the policies on sources and copyright as well as pledging to cooperate in a way that does violate the spirit of WP:TE. The only real question is whether or not a block is needed. At this point, the disruption and intensity is such that I can't help but to think an indef block is the only way to immediately stop the disruption while he works on the other issues. This shouldn't be seen as an infinite block, but it should stay in place long enough that the editor is able to gain some clue on what the community expects from every editor, themselves included. Unfortunately, I feel like I don't have a choice here. I have implemented this block and would ask that volunteers work with him to get him up to speed on the expectations around here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PantherLeapord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to show conduct that I have concerns about, such as an aggressive stance on several NFCC 1-related discussions. He has also publicly accused several editors (such as me and Masem) of being "deletionists", and listed them on his user page; which I had removed for being an attack page. After being warned of this policy, he then refactored the warning given on his page to say "Please do not create pages that show the truth about their subject. These pages and files are not tolerated by the people having the truth revealed about them." (in violation of the talk page guidelines). He also removed further comments clarifying the rules on refactoring talk page comments with increasingly aggressive remarks ("Is this YOUR talk page now" "EXCUSE ME!? AFAIK I AM ALLOWED TO DELETE SUCH COMMENTS ON MY OWN TALK PAGE" "Again; WHO'S talk page is this!?" "Stop harassing me about removing comments from MY talk page")

He was blocked for edit warring an image out of Xbox One that he felt was of a poor quality (and then began campaigning to have a non-free image restored because his interpretation of NFCC 1 does not consider the free image to be of good enough quality), on the condition that he stop edit warring over PlayStation and Xbox images. I don't think any of the things he's done today are worthy of blocks, but I'm becoming concerned about his conduct. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on making a mountain out of a molehill? PantherLeapord (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a molehill. As has been explained in a statement that you deleted with no apparent effort to read and understand it, if you repeat an edit like that, you will be blocked again. I'm unlikely to repeat the last go round where you were unblocked after a few hours, as your behaviour since your last block has been pretty abysmal, including using your user page as an attack page.—Kww(talk) 07:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well pardon me for pointing out how stupidly powerful free content purists that always prefer worse content that is DETRIMENTAL to the encyclopedia because free have become! PantherLeapord (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to fail to understand that the exception to using non-free content is when suitable (note: I did not say high-quality) content is available, AND your attitude is going to be one where you create attack pages to disparage those who actually uphold the law, the rules, and policies, then I do not foresee your username appearing on Wikipedia for much longer. Do it again - ever - and you will be blocked, period (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that if you're going to express your opposition to our non-free policies, it is probably best to (a) dial back the attacks on people with different opinions, and (b) perhaps choose an issue to debate which isn't actually cut and dried - the PS4 image issue was absolutely straightforward as regarding our policies and not even close to a grey area. People are far more likely to engage with you if you make your points in a reasoned manner. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No; the only problem here is how free image purists have brainwashed people into thinking that fair use is bad and the crappy and unencyclopedic free > encyclopedic fair use. PantherLeapord (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your level of cluefullness < 0 ... you have not read a single fricking thing that has been presented to you? You can't make your own shit up - especially regarding copyright and fair use. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think claiming that anyone on a project that contains many dozens of thousands of non-free images - most (if by no means all) of which actually do meet WP:NFCC - is a "free image purist" is never going to fly. Black Kite (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~473k non-free files exist on wikipedia. Werieth (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like everyone sees what's going on pretty clearly, but just to chime in: this user has been rather difficult to work with. There's no discussing policy with them, every time its "I want to use this image, so IAR!" And every time they're told "No, that's not how it works", then we get an earful about "power hungry admin", "conspiracy", etc etc. Its one continuous example of WP:IDHT. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest topic ban from NFCC and related areas since this user refuses to get a clue, is extremely hostile, combative, and rude. Werieth (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I support that, but will note that I am "involved"- I have been discussing non-free content issues with this user this morning, and I am one of the people listed on the deleted userpage. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that a very clear warning that such a topic ban will be imposed if the behaviour continues would be better at this stage. A very last chance, but leaving no doubt as to what the next step will be. That'll probably still mean we are a bunch of brainwashing dictators, but at least we will have offered every possible opportunity for change before sanctions. I know, I'm an old softy... Begoon ^talk 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add IMMEDIATELY that ANY referring to an editor or group of editors as "deletionists" lead to immediate block? This guy is quite clearly creating a WP:BATTLE by his sheer forceful lack of competence and compassion for the community (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to apply that as a criteria, Dream Focus would have been banned ages ago. For better or worse, we've legitimized the use of that term by not acting on it in the past.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, that's a very good point. But regardless of the use of that term or not, WP:BATTLE is the crux, and that's what mustn't be allowed to continue. Competence can sometimes be learnt or taught, battling with other editors is a style choice. Begoon ^talk 17:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, being called a "deletionist" as a pejorative merely elicits a "yeah, whatever" from me and an assumption that the person using it isn't capable of creating a policy-based argument; however the major problem here is incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia, which definitely is a personal attack. That needs to stop. As I said above, it isn't constructive and will result in editors not engaging with even any reasonable points one makes. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As on involved presently and in past issued with DF, at least DF argues the point for decent debate, which is the core of consensus building, even if DF refuses to budge. On the other hand, PantherLeopard is making no attempt to understand the rational of non-free and thus making any chance of debate nil. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Still going - [109]. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That kinda undermines my earlier suggestion of a "very last" warning, doesn't it? You'd have to assume he's reading this, and that's his reaction. I support the topic ban immediately now, since I agree with incorrectly accusing other editors of being detrimental to the encyclopedia ... definitely is a personal attack. Begoon ^talk 00:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my cynical take; what we have here is a generation gap, a wave of new adolescent-to-young-adult editors who grew up in an age of having every virtual thing at their fingertips. Want a song or movie? Torrent it. Want a picture for meme generation? Google it. Welcome to the collision of Web 2.0 and the 21st century, this is just a taste of things to come. Tarc (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's cynical at all. Just observant and realistic. A whole new use for the term "free culture" perhaps..? Begoon ^talk 00:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed topic ban

Although User:Werieth proposed it, let's formalize the wording, as it appears to be necessity:

I propose: User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, participating in all image-related discussions, and from any other mention of images or those who have uploaded images across the English Wikipedia, added broadly construed. This topic ban is for a period of 6 months. After 3 months, User:PantherLeapord may appeal for a loosening of these restrictions on WP:ANI. Violations of these restrictions will be met by escalating blocks. The restrictions will be logged at WP:RESTRICT

• Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 15:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - if an editor won't abide by image policies, then they should not get to work with images at all. (Though I think any future appeal should be at WP:AN rather than WP:ANI?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I can understand Kumioko's concerns about "broadly construed", below, and I prefer BlackKite's alternative wording - it's not enough to make me withdraw my support as worded, but I do think we'd be on more solid ground with the more specific wording -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as above. — Richard BB 16:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with clause, it should be indefinite, (IE until it can be demonstrated that the user's behavior has changed) setting a hard time limit just delays the issue. Werieth (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with regret, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this, but the repeated attacks on other editors, after warnings, who are actually following policy is not acceptable. Black Kite (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with the broadly construed language - As mentioned in detail in the subsection below.Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The user has continued the behaviour without any sign that they even acknowledge the concerns. After 3 months of non-disruptive editing elsewhere they can appeal for relaxation. It would be a different matter if there were any indication that they recognise this problem and intend to address it. I don't see that, and continued personal attacks and disruption of discussion must not be allowed to continue. Begoon ^talk 00:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Obviously some harsh re-education is needed! PantherLeapord (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - well, if the subject of this topic ban seems to support this (hurr), so shall I. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Lol, I was about to point that out. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose #1 I'm not seeing any truly troubling links. Kww's link is certainly combative, but it's own his on talk page. Modifying a templated message isn't that horrible. His edit warring on images is a more serious problem, but he was blocked for that. He needs to have it made clear that he needs to act like a reasonable person. That said, his views on NFCC are fairly similar to my own. I don't like the idea of banning someone from an area because they hold a minority view. Especially when (IMO) the view is quite reasonable. I feel this is moving into WP:CENSOR range. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So what you are saying, is that editors are free to (clearly, and absolutely) violate our policies and then (clearly, and repeatedly, after warnings) personally attack those that point this out, calling them destructive? Interesting idea, can't help thinking it wouldn't be generally constructive though. Although, given that the issue is NFCC it doesn't surprise me; there appears to be some sort of exception for WP:NPA when it is aimed at editors upholding NFCC. Nothing changes. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You make a good point. I will point out that NPA isn't exactly our most enforced set of rules--I think you'd agree many editors get away with personal attacks stronger than these. Though yes, this user has going past what I think is blockable under NPA (Kww's block was a good one and further blocks for NPA would have been quite reasonable). But I'd personally prefer a short block for NPA (week?) rather than a topic ban in the hopes of improvement. That's what we generally do I think.

Further, I do think our NFCC enforcement is broken. And I can fully understand why people get extremely frustrated with it, because I'm extremely frustrated with it. When we have people speedying pictures when it is claimed to be the only picture of the creature (and that wasn't disputed at the time of the speedy though it is false) or arguing that a picture of an 80-year old is sufficient for an article on a person famous for his boyish looks. Yes, it's frustrating. And yes, I understand the anger. Further, and more generically, I really don't like topic banning people with minority opinions without first trying other options. Mentoring, escalating blocks or other options haven't been explored. Not sure it would work, but it hasn't been tried. Hobit (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm on the other side of that one. I would have thought, given that the user does have constructive edits away from his obvious problem with images, that a topic ban on images would be better than escalating blocks, especially as it would keep them away from the issue that clearly irritates them and which is likely to get them blocked (if that makes sense). I agree that our NFCC enforcement is broken though; that's because it's actually impossible to enforce - even to the extent of admins backing up those violating NFCC - which is why we have so many non-free images. Black Kite (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a 6 month topic ban shouldn't be the first step--especially on a wiki-political topic. A block associated with the NPA policy would have been a better first step. I don't think I've seen a topic ban before with only one previous block on the account. I'm sure they've existed, but... And if you think the NFCC policy is broken on the side of over-including non-free images, I can't imagine what you would want FfD to look like. I suspect the delete rate there is already over 90%. Hobit (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about broadly construed

I do not agree with the language broadly construed. This language has been used in other restrictions and ends up turning into a means for abuse because its too open to interpretation. The sanction needs be defined and if need be can be revisited later. We shouldn't be using weak language like broadly construed, whenever you feel like it or on the admins whim. They all mean the same thing. If the intent is that the user be restricted then it needs to be clearly stated what the restriction is. Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take this as anything regarding files/images. Upload, FFD, DRV, NFCR, and anything else that we may have forgotten to spell out in regards to files. This basically means anything to do with files is topic banned. Using a broad brush prevents attempts at wikilawyering around the edges Werieth (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it also allows 1400 people with differing views and interpretations of the rules that they can do whatever they want. If you say anything to do with files fine. But adding broadly construed some admin that doesn't like the editor could justify that editing Photoshop is a blockable offense because its releated to files "broadly construed". It has happened a lot. Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pushing it a bit, but I get your point. How about "User:PantherLeapord is topic banned from uploading images, commenting on image files or their usage, and participating in image-related discussions or discussions of policy related to images, across the English Wikipedia"? Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No admin would make that leap. You are building quite the strawman. -DJSasso (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite, I think that's much better thank you.

@Djsasso, I wish I was just building a strawman, but I'm not. It has happened many times. Liberal blocks have been doled out many times by admins, frequently involved ones, for things that are far removed from the purpose or intent of the block. I've seen it here on this page, at Arbitration Enforcment and in other venues and frankly I'm tired of editors being beaten up over poorly worded sanctions. I'm also a little disappointed you think so little of me for trying to improve the project....but I don't really care either. Kumioko (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting specifically on the language as I've not read the rest of the thread. The counter argument is of course that many editors have tried gaming a ban by editing a closely related topic in the same problematic way while technically obeying the wording of the ban. This is an attempt to avoid this happening. Although I agree somewhat with your concern we also don't want editors gaming a ban. Striking the right balance is difficult. I do hope however that if a single admin interpreted "broadly construed" too broadly their action would be overturned here. Dpmuk (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that as well but historically that has not occurred. I also understand and I sympethize to a degree but we shouldn't be dealing in what if's. If we say they can't edit images because editing images and we are afraid they may start editing videos, then by all means say images, video's and files. But we should leave it completely to the discretion of the admins becaue unfortunatly best intentions aside we don't operate in a utopian society where best wishes prevail. If the user starts editing something else (infoboxes maybe or Portals) in the same problematic manner then they can be brought back and we can revisit the issue. But we shouldn't be so generic that we have this "and stuff" language. On a related point and although I didn't fight this issue yet we should be specifying a duration. Is it 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, forever? The way these are written they infer forever when in many cases 6 months might be sufficient. Kumioko (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kumioko and Dpmuk's views. Not to mention that having a "broadly construed" topic ban implies that the editor being topic banned has been consistently disruptive in too many places such that a broad ban is required when in reality this is not necessarily the case. It's analogous to being banned from going into all bars in a city because you got rowdy in one or two places. Blackmane (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:‎Underlying lk is POV edit warring at List of Freemasons (A - D) to omit the inclusion of Ataturk in the list. I have tried amending the entry to alleviate his/her concerns (rejected), I have tried adding additional sources to support the inclusion (all rejected), and I have tried explaining on both the talk page and at WP:RSN why the sources provided are, in fact, highly reliable (arguments ignored). It is clear that he/she is determined to omit the entry, and plans to reject any source that supports it, or any effort to reach a compromise. Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is thus: his sources have been rejected by multiple uninvolved editors at RSN diff, diff. For my part, I provided multiple scholarly sources that implicitly reject his claim. Failing to achieve the consensus he wanted, he resorted to threats, and WP:FORUMSHOPping, hoping to find a more sympathetic audience here. His conduct is definitely uncivil, and I think a ban for incivility would be appropriate.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Blueboar here. He has (at least 3 that I checked) sources that explicitly state that Ataturk was a member of the freemasons and you expect an implicit non-mention to counter-weight that? I would say that you'd need a biography on Ataturk's life to explicitly state "It is a mistaken belief that Ataturk was a freemason." It's not my area of expertise, but I don't see why the sources must be scholarly.--v/r - TP 13:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, this has been discussed in detail at the Reliable Sources board. Bluboar's sources are weak, and scholarly literature on the specific subject of Freemasonary and the Young Turk movement does not state that Ataturk was a member. Paul B (talk)

You'll have to educate me a bit, this isn't my area. Why are scholarly sources required here? Would I need a scholarly source to say that Steven Seagal was a member of the Screen Actors Guild? We have 3, maybe 4, sources that explicitly state a thing is true and another user arguing that no sources exist saying otherwise is evidence of the contrary. Please tell me how this is anything more than a "truth" argument? Because if it is, I'll remind everyone that we report on what the sources say, not on each person's own truth.--v/r - TP 14:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what a "truth argument" is. Blueboar's sources are generally either weak, or they are overall histories that mention Ataturk in passing. Mistakes in such sweeping histories, even by experts, are common. I happen to have some expertise on William Blake. You can find many sources that say he had Irish ancestry. In fact this was a fantasy created by WB Yeats based on someone's speculation. Books on Blake by Blake specialists do not say this, but you'd be hard put to find one that explicitly denies it, because it's irrelevent to deny. You do find it in books on the Irish through history. You have to look in detailed historical literature on Blake to find rebuttals. In this case we are dealing with a list of freemasons. People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established. Paul B (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A truth argument. And can you explain what "People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established" means? What level of sourcing is needed to clearly establish a fact? In your example above, you failed to counter my argument. Why would a book on a person's life not mention common misunderstandings such as "It's a common misconception that Ataturk was a freemason"? Spell out what is needed. Because as it stands, that list should probably go up for deletion because it seems to me by your standards that none of those could be uncontroversial or clearly established. What is different about this guy? Why is his membership controversial? I feel like someone is dancing around a relevant fact of this argument that would make them appear to have a POV and I don't have a clue what it is.--v/r - TP 14:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of Wikipedia:Truth. This dispute has nothing to do with that whatever. The only person who claims to know "the truth" is Blueboar. I have great difficulty understanding what the rest of your post is trying to say. Why don't you read the Reliable Sources discussion? I have no interest in whether any other person should or should not be in the list. That's irrelevant distraction. The question is whether or not Ataturk should be. It's not a "common misunderstanding" about Ataturk. It seems to be something that only interests some Islamists (for whom Freemasonry = evil western conspiracy) and Freemasons, who want to associate their movement with great people and progressive movements. This is commonplace - just like Irish poets wanting Blake to be Irish. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've seen you around and I've generally had a good impression of you, but you must have forgotten your coffee this morning. Blueboar has sources. He's not saying he has "the truth," he's got sources to support it. All you've got is your insistence that Blueboar is wrong. Luckily Zero found a single source for you, but Blueboar still has four. So, my question, if you're not trying to be deliberately obtuse, is what level of sourcing is required to reach the level of "their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established."--v/r - TP 14:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I've seen you around and am surprised by the vey confused position you are adopting. I repeat read the debate. BTW, this is not about me. I came to this from the Reliable Sources board. I don't know why I have to repeat myself over and over: 1. Bluboar's sources are poor. 2. Other sources contradict his. 3. Specialist sources do not say what his - poor - sources say. You introduced the irrelevant wp:truth link. I replied that Blueboar is the only one who is claiming to have the truth, because other editors are saying that we do not know or cannot be sure based on the sources. Note that all independent editors have taken the same view. You are the "outlier" here, because you dived in without reading up on the debate. BTW, I found the same source Zero did, as you would know if you bother to read the debate. The debate, by the way, is essentially over, and Blueboar is now forum shopping. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the debate. What I don't get is why the level of sourcing required was raised to "scholarly sources." Here's what I see and I'm begging for you to help me to understand: Blueboar wants to add Ataturk. Sources are required. He finds them. Those who dispute the claim raise the bar by requiring scholarly sources. I question why the bar was raised and you say "People should not be included on the list unless their membership is uncontroversial or clearly established." If it seems I support Ataturk being included, I really don't care about the guy. What I don't understand and why I'm inclined to support Blueboar is I don't understand why the level of sourcing is higher for this subject than what is required by policy. By that argument, you can dispute ad infinitum, or filibuster, any topic on Wikipedia to it's exclusion; which is why I brought up the subject of no one on the list being included. So, what is the logic for the higher sourcing requirement? I understand why things like WP:MEDRS exists. So please, explain why this is necessary.--v/r - TP 15:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was obvious you hadn't read the debate when you commented that "Zero found a single source for you", since several sources are disussed in the debate. I was the person who added reference to the source you claimed Zero found, and this was not a conflict between Blueboar and me, but Blueboar and eh bien mon prince. Still, I'm sure you have read it now. I don't know why eh bien mon prince first disputed Ataturk. You will have to ask him/her. All I know is that when the dispute came to the RS board several editors, including myself, looked in sources on Freemasonry and Ataturk. It became increasingly obvious that the claims were problematic. Disussing the reliability of claims in sources is not a matter of simply following clear and simple rules. There are degrees of reliability. There are cases in which nominally reliable sources are clearly in error. That's why we have the board: to examine disputes. Paul B (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh puh lease. I'd argue some of those sources as well on better terms than "I just don't like them." The last one, for example, was paraphrased incorrectly unless the untranslated text says something drastically different. That discussion has very little merit, in my eyes, which is why I'm barely acknowleding it. Why you ask? Because I've yet to understand why the discussion jumped to scholarly sources so quickly. Moving on, you said that the claims are problematic. What determines it so? What prevents someone from arguing for higher and higher sourcing? What prevents a dissuaded party like Underlying_lk from continuing to demand more and better sources to push his POV? That's what I see happening here, and that's what I'm questioning. What is RSN's process to determine when 4 sources arn't enough? The way the process has worked in this case, it seems and again I'm trying to understand why my perspective is wrong, is that if someone argues loud enough that any level of sourcing can be disputed. I've got other questions, like Kmhkmh's argument about Freemasons writing on Freemasons automatically becoming primary, but this seems the most glaring.--v/r - TP 15:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your responses are degenerating into taunting. This is frankly pointless. If you wish to join the debate about sources do so on the appropriate board. Your "questions" are so generalised as to be useless. This has nothing to do with anyone arguing "loud enough". It's about the quality of the sources, the context of the claim and the nature of scholarly writing. I've stated this repeatedly, so I see no need to do so yet again. It's getting into "I didn't hear that" territory. That's why we have detailed discussion of real examples at RSN, not of abstract claims that anyone can question anything. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taunting? It's not taunting if you've avoided answering a very simple question. Be gone then. If you can't tell me where you derive the authority to raise the bar on WP:V because you don't like what the sources say, and you can't explain yourself, than you should not be making these kinds of decisions. All I asked was for clarification.--v/r - TP 23:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can I answer a meaningless question? You are acting like a spoilt child repeating "why" over and over after every answer. No-one in particular has the "right" to raise the bar on reliability - everyone does. It happens all the time when issues are contentious. Reliable sources are often in conflict, even over matters of fact. Somnetimes they are demonstrably wrong. There are degrees of reliability. I've said this repeatedly already. The debate revealled the complexity of the issue. That's what such debate ideally should do. Paul B (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, so when the answer makes you look bad, you deem it meaningless and resort to name calling. The question was, why was the bar raised. Policy is WP:V which was met. The counter-"sources", with the exception of Zero's link below, don't hold water. It's a decent thing that User:‎Underlying lk was kind enough to actually explain what the issues are. You should've tried that first instead of dodging the question. It was a simple one.--v/r - TP 14:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar is as much involved in edit-warring as ‎Underlying lk is. At RSN, Blueboar has failed to receive any support for his position. Reports here are not supposed to be for the purpose of winning edit wars after failing to achieve consensus. I first saw the argument at RSN (having had no involvement in freemasonry articles and barely any interest in the subject) and consider that the evidence regarding Ataturk is highly suspect. Some books and an article by senior freemasons claim that Ataturk was a freemason, with none of them mentioning the basis for their claim (afaik, correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, of the vast number of academic studies of Ataturk, nobody (again correct me if I'm wrong) has found even one making the claim. A book published by the Turkish government example claims he was not a freemason (but such books are also suspect, for different reasons). These guys should seek mediation or something. Zero^talk 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Zero, did you read that? It says "For Mustafa Kemal, who was not a Freemason..." It didn't claim Ataturk wasn't a freemason at all.-v/r - TP 14:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, TP, you do know that Mustafa Kemel is Ataturk? Paul B (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not.--v/r - TP 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something to note... there is a strong Anti-Masonic movement in the Islamic world (where Freemasonry is associated with a "Jewish conspiracy")... and thus there is a concerted POV effort to reject the idea that Ataturk might have been a Freemason at some point in his life. Whether this factors into the edit warring at the article I will not say, but it should be considered at least a possibility. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That argument cuts both ways. Islamists who see Ataturk as an evil agent of secularisation want to say he was Freemason, which is just as likely to be the origin of an erroneous meme as denial of it is. Likewise Freemasons have a motivation to associate their organisation with the modernising values of Ataturk. It's easy to understand how the involement of Freemasons in the Young Turks (which is undisputed) can slide into the assumption that Ataturk himself was a Mason. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I search for Ataturk and freemason, I get a hit from Radio Islam and a website called atajew.com on the first page of google. So at least we know some of those who might have interest in promoting that. And how great Google Panda is (or not). 86.121.18.17 (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if the article attempted to use such sources, I would be the first to say the entry should be deleted. The fact is, the sources that support Ataturks inclusion on the list have no axe to grind. They are reliable secondary sources written by very respected Masonic historians.

But I did not raise this dispute here to argue sources... I raised this dispute here so admins could examine an editor's behavior. As I said in my opening comment... I have attempted to resolve this dispute in multiple ways... when User:‎Underlying lk challenged a source, I went and found a different source. When that was not good enough, I found a third. When he/she quibbled that the sources disagreed over the specific lodge, I agreed to omit mentioning the specific lodge... still not good enough. Every time I have attempted to resolve the situation to his/her satisfaction, he/she sets the bar higher. It's become clear that he/she is not interested in anything other than removing the entry for POV reasons. That's a 'behavioral' issue, not a sourcing issue... and that behavioral issue is why I raised this here at ANI. I would like it to be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You only came here because you didn't get the 'right' answer at RSN. You should be mindful of your own highly uncivil and disruptive behaviour, rather than blaming others.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No... I came here because of your behavior during our dispute. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You came here because you didn't get your way with either consensus or threats.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blueboar is correct to write that there is an anti-masonic movement in the Islamic world. It seems a lot of people in Turkey believe in conspiracy theories involving masons and Jews. In Turkey it is illegal to slander Ataturk (a ridiculous law from the 1950s I think) and calling him a mason has been judged by courts to be slander. That's why a government-published book about Ataturk is not reliable for a claim that he was not a mason. But, as someone wrote above, the same can be said for the masonic side of the story. How better to rehabilitate the image of masons in Turkey than to co-opt one of the most respected people in Turkish history? Where is the independent scholarly study of this question? Did Ataturk himself ever make a public statement about it? Zero^talk 02:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A number of editors have been having difficulty on the Battle of Kursk page with editor EyeTruth. He has been reverting edits and is not waiting for a consensus of opinion from other editors. Some of the reverts include this: [112] and this: [113]. His tone on the talk page strikes me as condescending and dismissive, and as a group we have had difficulty communicating simple guidelines such as what is MOS on wikilinks. I have notified EyeTruth that I am bringing these actions to the attention of the administrators. Gunbirddriver (talk) 04:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, one or more admins/mods should look into this. Yes, I've reverted edits based on original research when the editor failed to discuss it in the talkpage. This editor is fond of inserting original material into cited passages or deleting cited passages based on his original research. And I've cleaned up many of such edits without even complaining. And no, my tone was never intended to be condescending. And yes, my tone has been dismissive towards this editor until he supports his opinion with sources, which he has almost always failed to do. And yes, I've been cautioned by others for being superfluous with my writing and wiki-linking, and I've conceded on that. Granted, I did question the reasoning behind their suggestions, but since it harboured even a modicum of sense and was also in accordance with MOS I conceded, before my scrutiny is misunderstood as lack of cooperation. EyeTruth (talk) 05:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the edit that EyeTruth believed consititued original research on my part: [114]

The key porition was:

It was the most impressive fleet of German armour yet amassed for a single offensive.^[1] Even so, Hitler and several senior officers expressed doubts and concern.

which I reduced to:

It was the largest assemblage of German armour yet brought together for a single offensive.^[1]

The phrase "most impressive fleet" was exchanged for the phrase "largest assemblage". Gunbirddriver (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it was not correct, yet you fiercely defended it. And that is just one instance among others. You are fully aware of this. Besides, why do you keep attaching that extra sentence as if it's part of my edit? Why are you trying so hard to distort the issue? Why?!! You're aware any admin that is going to attend to this report will most likely read the relevant talkpages, right? So why?!!! EyeTruth (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin observation So I searched around for the source in question and found it here [115]. The exact wording in the source is "Thus, the Germans amassed the most impressive armored armada yet assembled for a single attack." So the source does not say "largest assemblage." However, it seems to me that "most impressive fleet" may just be Glantz's opinion, and I would say that unless a source can be found for "largest," the sentence should be removed altogether. There's probably more to the dispute than the one sentence, but I just thought I'd share my two cents. Howicus (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence had already been removed by Gunbirddriver. But as you suspected, the dispute is more than that. Gunbirddriver is now out to contend every step I take on that article. But I'm not giving in until he justifies his contentions, which thus far he has categorically failed to do. EyeTruth (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat made by User talk:RJMI in this diff: [125] Ravenswing 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If the references to Richard Ibranyi are not put back in the "Most Holy Family Monastery" article, I will try to contact the owner of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, and have you removed as an administrator because you will then be a twice-convicted liar and thus a very un-credible person to decide who or what can be allowed in an encyclopedia. If the owner does not correct it, then he will stand accused of the same." Easily meets WP:NLT. And their User page is not really helping matters... PantherLeapord (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Considering that this was the account's first edit we may need to check at WP:SPI in case there are more accounts... PantherLeapord (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Therefore your removing Richard Ibranyi as a former member and thus implying he was not a former member is a bold-faced black lie which makes Richard look like a liar instead of you. Hence, if he had the time, money, and desire, he could take you to court for libeling his name and reputation," being the actual passage I had in mind, since the editor wound up his long tale by claiming that he was himself Ibranyi. Ravenswing 02:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that part among the WP:TLDR! PantherLeapord (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I started an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlaviusConstantinus while the AFD was ongoing. I didn't provide diffs (all from the AFD) and the case was closed without a CU after the AFD was closed and the article deleted. Stalwart111 03:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• QUACK!  It looks like a duck to me - may be time to re-open it! PantherLeapord (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Um .. since when is "threatening" to go to Jimbo considered a violation of WP:NLT? Since, um, never. The usual response to such blowhard-like activity is "well, I have policy and links to support me ... so go ahead, and WP:ANI is thisaway, or WP:RFC/U is thataway" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, maybe "he could take you to court for libeling his name and reputation" refers to a basketball court... or a food court! We need to consider all the possibilities! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the whole statement includes having time and/or money, with a big "IF" at the beginning. He's not trying to chill discussion, he's trying to promote himself ... in 3rd person too. He quite clearly does not make a legal threat because he says he cannot afford to do it! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, seems like RJMI is just trying to use WP for attention seeking and self promotion, revert his edits reasonably and if he ends up edit warring report him for 3RR. The SPI if had proper diff's might have been valid, but also the three different user-ids though pointing to the same kind of edits might have been just one of his friends or colleagues. Amit (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which, nonetheless, is a violation of WP:SOCK. There are four accounts, all opening within a week of one another, all with much the same editing pattern, all discussing the same fringe personality and the same two fringe subjects. Whether sockpuppet or meatpuppet, it's all the same. Ravenswing 20:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP editor's mainspace edits are relatively normal, but his conduct on talk pages and in edit summaries is quite rude (he generally called people "idiots" in one instance). It's hard to describe, so I'd rather you take a look at it yourself. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - completely ridiculous. Who does he think he is - trying to be helpful to actual users??? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to be helpful, with an attitude is a different story. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 173.68.110.16 has been rather hostile with edit summaries such as "soulless android strikes again?", "The link is not "dead" - learn to recover it, idiots!" and "Wikipedia being worthless again? You don't say!" doing the exact opposite of helping matters... and the edits themselves are not really much better! PantherLeapord (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the difference. As long as the readers (who are by and large not interested in wasting time on editing the articles by themselves or on article's Talk pages) will find relevant, objective, non-offensive information useful - it is irrelevant how and in which way the info appeared in an article, or what actually happened on miscellaneous pages between editors themselves. I am certainly not here to find "virtual friends" or anything like that. If you believe otherwise and more concerned about playing "morality policeman" instead of spending more time on articles themselves - well, then, that's your choice, I cannot do anything about that. That is my final reply on this page. Enjoy your another "achievement" (whatever you intended it to be).173.68.110.16 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Whether or not your edits to articles are good, you are still required to speak politely to other editors, and can be blocked for not doing so.Euchrid (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has edit warred in Microsoft Security Essentials over a rude contribution of his, which is reverted twice, once by 108.82.12.77 and once by User:Codename Lisa. Then he has started this talk page thread, calling one of the editors a "soulless android". Fleet Command (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for intentionally misrepresenting my actions. Also, thank you kindly for replying to me on that exact talk page with an intentional use of a "WP:HITLER" template shortcut (a template which also has more neutral shortcuts) - my grandfather fought against and perished in a war started by that murderer and you were most thoughtful to remind me about that part of our family's history and compare me to that person. It is great that Wikipedia is filled with such helpful editors as you are.

P.S: There's a big difference between using a harmless sarcasm and an intentional use of inappropriate insults targeted at a person's sex/religion/nationality or family members, something which YOU apparently do not understand, judging by a previous use of same "WP:HITLER" shortcut towards a German person here. I feel sorry for you, whomever you are. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Deny recognition: Hello everyone. Currently, an administrative action is not necessary, because so far, the users seems to have not been persistent in his disruptive actions. However, there is little hope in telling him to stop being rude – as evidenced by the fact that even after three people have expressed their disagreements with one of his edits, he is yet to get the point. I advise denying recognition for the time being. We will deal with any future development accordingly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporary Block, Editor should understand that a certain amount of civility needs to be used in the edit summary too. Amit (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This IP sounds like The Artist Formerly Known As Malleus Look at this recent edit summary and message, from one of our top contributors. Is he facing a block for that? If our IP friend is anything like Eric, he should be welcomed with open arms. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 02:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC),[reply]

Alas, poor Malleus! I knew him, Hillbillyholiday; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy... Srsly, though, I am most certainly not like him, nor am I attempting to be. But thank you for such thought, kind sir! 173.68.110.16 (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor (User:Llibtrof) has taken it into his mind to make an addition to the article Metrication of British transport which I, along with four other well-established editors and have deemed to be inappropriate to the article as per policy WP:UNDUE—User:David Biddulph, User:The Rambling Man (an administrator) and I have reverted the changes. User:Steve Hosgood and User:Mcewan have given us backing on the article’s Talk page. This edit has been reverted 10 times] and the editor in question has been invited to address the WP:UNDUE matter both via his the Talk:Metrication of British transport#Road signs - height above sea level and his own talk page, but he is adopting a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach. Instead, an IP editor, who to date has never edited Wikipedia has reinstated the changes. I believe that the IP editor who reinstated the changes last night and this morning and the IP editor who added the changes in the first place is really User:Llibtrof.

These actions and the use of the abbreviation "POV" by User:Llibtrof here suggests to me that User:Llibtrof might be a sockpuppet of an established editor who has been banned from Wikipedia.

Martinvl (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh my word. With the notable exception of The Rambling Man (who did one revert), you are all edit warring, and can all face sanctions. Furthermore, Martin, given you were blocked for edit warring on exactly the same subject back in January, you might do well to remember the old adage "those in glass houses should not throw stones." Take it to WP:DRN. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like User:Rschen7754, I suspect that User:Llibtrof is a sockpuppet of DeFacto, (See below) but at the moment I cannot prove it. User:Ritchie333 might not be aware of all the details, so may I fill him in. User:DeFacto is a banned user who's sockpuppets have been popping up all the time. My initial brush with DeFacto came when he tried to make an addition to Metrication in the United Kingdom identifying one promotion campaign of one product line by one supermarket as being significant, just as User:Llibtrof is trying to make an issue surrounding one road sign that is not catalogued in the TSRGD. I objected on grounds of the policy on WP:UNDUE. I tried using WP:DRN to resolve the issue. Ritchie333 might care to look at the discussion. It spanned these six threads

1. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 4#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story
2. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 2#ASDA
3. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#Asda report - 12 October update
4. Talk:Metrication in the United Kingdom/Archive 3#MedCab mediation offer
5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 107#Using reports of market research surveys
6. Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 34#Polls and surveys

DeFacto was banned shortly afterwards for gross disruption to Wikipedia.

In my overhaul of Metrication in the United Kingdom, the section on transport was threatening to become large, so I spun it off as a separate article Metrication of British Transport. Two attempts were made to kill the new article a deletion attempt and an attempt to Talk:Metrication of British transport/Archive 1#Merge discussion. The supporters of both actions were User:Pother, User:Ornaith, both sockpuppets of Defacto and one other editor.

The episode in January this year when I was blocked for 24 hours involved me making 3 (not 4) reversions within 24 hours of changes introduced by User talk:MeasureIT who was blocked at the same time. Three days later MeasureIT was banned as yet another sockpuppet of DeFacto.

Given the above background material, Ritchie333 might like to reconsider his posting. Martinvl (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the above put to one side, the simple facts are that two administrators thought you were edit warring. When you get involved in a dispute, you don't repeatedly override the other editor's contributions unless you are very sure they are bad faith, such as obvious vandalism or BLP violations. If they are bad faith, somebody else will probably restore the article anyway. By all means, come here and get him kicked for socking, but "he started it" and "it's the wrong version" never let your own behaviour off the hook. Be the better man. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto maybe? --Rschen7754 08:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stemming from a conflict regarding WP:COPYPASTE at Talk:Muawiyah I, User:Flagrantedelicto has engaged in three days of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA breaches despite having been warned for such behavior by multiple users over the past few months.

• From the original content dispute itself:

1. " I am also going to reinstate some of my CITED entries. And if you delete again without discussing it with me, I will REINSTATE it again."
2. "Don't mistake me for a non-Muslim WP editor who is unfamiliar with Islamic protocol and etiquette."
3. "And who are you to decide what the "facts" are ?"
4. "And please do not offer me anymore unsolicited advice as to where to discuss matters here on WP."
5. "Don't go into any WP guideline bureacracy with me. You are a POV pusher who appears to be manipulating WP guideline policies to what you deem "neutrality"...There is nothing contested here. The sources have been cited and that is that."
6. "And where do you suddenly come out of the blue and question and accuse me of copy-pasting from polemical websites ?"
7. "lol...You must have me mistaken for your friend Johnleeds1...And I could care less what you suspect. Who exactly are you to accuse any WP editor?"
8. " you are a latent pro-Muawiyah Salafi/Wahhabi POV pusher who is manipulating WP guidelines and policies to impose your latent POV"
9. "First of all, my supposed or perceived "bad attitude" toward other WP editors is none of your business. Don't mix up your issues with someone else's."
10. "I don't really need to know who you are, nor do I particularly care to. But I am aware of your POV"

• Flagrantedelicto being uncivil due to my attempts at seeking conduct dispute resolution

1. "Where do you come across with such wild accusations ?"
2. "If anything, your actions give the impression of someone who is out of control."
3. " I shall introduce (or perhaps re-introduce) myself as the editor who is supposedly "out of control", or so I have been labelled...lol"
4. "And I don't need to report you, since you already brought attention to yourself when you went and cried to WP admin Diannaa."
5. "Your above semi-rhetoric of a response would even have been mildly effective had it not been for you running to a WP Admin and crying...You also falsely stated that I was "out of control" and had "outbursts"...lol"
6. You ask me to assume good faith, but lodge a false complaint of me being "out of control" and engaging in "outbursts"...You can offer all the policy rhetoric you want, but your POV is transparent"

• Flagrantedelicto's rejection of attempts at solving the dispute

1. By User:Toddy1 at 01:04, 17 June 2013, flat out rejected at 01:13, 17 June 2013
2. I asked Flagrantedelicto to cease his unprovoked mockery of me for quoting Stephen Jay Gould at 08:03, 17 June 2013, he simply denied what he was doing at 19:25, 17 June 2013
3. Toddy1 also expressed the view that Flagrantedelicto's comment was rude at 01:59, 18 June 2013, Flagrantedelicto once again flatly rejected this at 12:29, 18 June 2013 and denies that such concerns exist at 13:34, 18 June 2013.

• Flagrantedelicto's seeking of a third opinion even contains incivility

1. "::@MezzoMezzo. Your Stephen Jay Gould adage to Faiz Haider certainly sounds profound. It would be nice if you applied it to yourself."

• Flagrantedelicto's speculating about the religion of other editors

1. "Toddy1 (who gave the impression of being a non-Muslim) titled a new section header in Johnleeds1 personal Talk Page HAZRAT MUAWIYAH--Which almost no non-Muslim WP editor would have used. This reveals a Muslim affiliation..."

There is quite a bit more, but I'm only describing what requires urgent attention. In six years of editing, I've seen this maybe twice, and both instances ended with blocks. The longer this continues, the more bold this editor becomes, and thus I feel this requires immediate attention now. It is also worth noting that the admin I contacted, who previously warned Flagrantedelicto for incivility (he responded by saying "Before you start lecturing me, I couldn't care if you are the founder WP, please review both sides and don't cop to a double standard. If I am blocked do you think that really scares me ? LOL I don't like threats...Not from you or anyone. I also don't like your tone, either"), politely declined to mediate the dispute this morning due to other commitments. I don't see any other solution other than ANI at this point; this is a rather extreme case, at least in my experience. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Editor seems rude which cant be helped, otherwise the only issue I see is his use of religious beliefs as a reason to question other editors capability (as noted above and also in some of his talk page contribs). WP:PERSONAL Amit (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• MezzoMezzo must learn how to handle talk page disputes himself..this is the 2nd time he has opened an ANI thread in these couple weeks..whats ironic is that there are cases of him being uncivil but he turns a blind eye on his own actions..apparently this user isnt aware that talk pages sometimes do get heated during discussion...this is another frivolous filing on Mezzo's part instead of attempting to calm things down he expects other users to do it for him. Baboon43 (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The last thread was regarding you, Baboon. Nobody called it frivolous; I simply chose the wrong place and was encouraged to file an RFC/U by multiple editors, with one even calling it necessary. I thank you for your advice and perhaps I have made mistakes, but given that I drafted an RFC/U about your conduct I am inclined to be somewhat reserved in accepting your constructive criticism. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two related articles Muawiyah I and Yazid I. Flagrantedelicto has made more edits to these articles in the past six months than everyone else put together. Flagrantedelicto was asked to provide further details about sources that he/she was citing, so that other users can verify that these sources support the statements allegedly based on them. He/she has been asked this before. The kind of details requested include, publisher, date of publication, ISBN (if any), etc. Page numbers would also be useful. These details are not difficult to provide if you really have seen the source you are citing (though finding the right page numbers is more time consuming that providing publishing details). I would of course entirely understand a delay - a "hold on" message would have been acceptable.
• When I asked for further details on sources being cited on Talk:Yazid I on 2 February 2013, Flagrantedelicto did not answer, but instead a reply was posted by someone who has only ever edited Wikipedia on 8-9 September 2012 and 5 February 2013 explaining that other parts of the article had no citations, and giving reasons why there was no need/point in providing further details on citations.
• I raised this issue again on 9 and 11 May 2013 on Talk:Muawiyah I. Flagrantedelicto's reply was the other stuff exists argument, listing some problems with some citations by other people, which I fixed on 12 May, but he/she did not respond by fixing the problem with his/her citations.
• MezzoMezzo has raised the same issue (using different wording) on 16 June. He/she has advanced the theory that the citations have been cut and pasted from online forums, which is certainly a plausible hypothesis. If Flagrantedelicto is acting in good faith, why does he/she refuse to provide further details on the books that he/she claims to be citing?

• Flagrantedelicto has a habit of providing walls of text on talk pages. It is often hard to see the relevance of these.

• The question is whether or not the article should have sufficient details on sources for other editors to know what book is being cited and verify statements in the articles. What possible relevance is outing me?

• Personally I find some of the remarks that Flagrantedelicto makes to be uncivil. For example, please see User talk:Toddy1#Yazid I Talk Page, which was in response to my asking him to remove some uncivil words from one of his postings about a new user. Unfortunately Flagrantedelicto appears to believe that everybody apart from him/herself is a POV-pusher...--Toddy1 (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, please can the comments by Flagrantedelicto outing me be removed by admins from Talk:Muawiyah I and any other talk pages with them on. I have a right to privacy, and speculation about my religion is not relevant to the topic.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even realize that, his speculation about your (Toddy's) private beliefs does seem like outing. He was already warned by two admins for trying to out another person back in January - User:Someguy1221 and User:The Bushranger - and his reply was that "My contributions on WP outweigh any undesired conflict. Is that understood (?)" and to accuse one of those admins of threatening him. An outing attempt in January isn't directly relevant now, but it does show that there is no excuse for this current outing attempt.

Look. The guy gets warned by an admin for incivility and he tells her "I also don't like your tone"; I don't know why User:Diannaa didn't slap a temporary block there but I admit I know little of how that works. He tries to out an editor that same month and accuses the warning admin of threatening him. Apparently on the Yazid article he's also behaving rudely and now, he launches into a tirade of insults and abuse for three straight days (hence my feeling that this is urgent and appropriate for ANI). This is clearly a case of a person who has been emboldened by the lack of action. He's violated WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVIL enough times in three days alone to warrant administrative action and his history indicates no reason to believe that this behavior will stop. The two or three articles for which he has very openly claimed ownership are now essentially locked from discussion due to his rudeness. Something needs to be done not only in response to all these violations but for the good of the encyclopedia as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NFCR#File:PBS idents
• WP:NFCR#File:Prince logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:Women's World Squash 2008.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Geelong2008Logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:AFCS-Uniform-HU2.png
• WP:NFCR#File:AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG
• WP:NFCR#Lots of images of sports uniforms
• WP:NFCR#File:2013 European Youth Winter Olympic Festival logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Gnnsjb001.jpg
• WP:NFCR#Screenshots of websites
• WP:NFCR#excerpt from famous music review
• WP:NFCR#File:1930 Rover Light Six Sportsman Saloon by Weymann (Photo).jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:LibertyFlames.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Scrabble Showdown (title card).jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Azad University Tehran BC logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Windows 95
• WP:NFCR#File:Alice (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)
• WP:NFCR#Illmatic and the Source excerpt image
• WP:NFCR#File:GG Allin sshot.jpg
• WP:NFCR#Video game images in Color Graphics Adapter
• WP:NFCR#File:BBC News titles.png
• WP:NFCR#Bradley Joseph
• WP:NFCR#File:Watson's avatar.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Logo WSA Wolrd Series.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Djarum Indonesia Super League.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Adaptations of Les Misérables
• WP:NFCR#File:OasisTowerRender.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Botola vf.PNG
• WP:NFCR#File:Atlantic Coast Conference logo.png
• WP:NFCR#File:División de Honor.PNG
• WP:NFCR#File:Ivy League logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:LourdesGrayWolves.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Pac-12-Uniform-UA.png
• WP:NFCR#File:PaladinsLogo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:1953 Playboy centerfold.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:UFL-Uniform-LV.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Poster World Junior Squash 2012.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Logo World Squash Federation.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:NFL(Australia).png
• WP:NFCR#File:UFL-Uniform-OMA.png
• WP:NFCR#KOFY-TV
• WP:NFCR#File:Royal Aus Regt.JPG
• WP:NFCR#File:TheSprektors.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:MendelPalaceSampleGameplay.gif
• WP:NFCR#Question
• WP:NFCR#File:2013 Boston Marathon finish line explosion.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Server Core Notepad File Save Dialog.gif
• WP:NFCR#File:Osaka University logo.svg
• WP:NFCR#File:Frosty paws.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Milton Avery - 'Green Sea', oil on canvas 1958, University of Kentucky Art Museum (Lexington, Kentucky).jpg
• WP:NFCR#Energy Tower (Midland, Texas)
• WP:NFCR#File:FrankaNorthernSunComic.jpg
• WP:NFCR#Huge category
• WP:NFCR#File:NBL Logo 2009-2010.png
• WP:NFCR#File:Waterboard3-small.jpg
• WP:NFCR#File:Eminem - Role Model single CD cover.jpg

All of the above are discussions which have exceeded the discussion period and need closed so that it can be resolved. Werieth (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]