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

Not an emergency, but I'd like to get some more eyes on Austrian School. For the past couple months, there has been slow moving edit warring, adding and removing some criticisms of the group. Thus far, I've fully protected the page a couple of times and issued one block. None of this has changed things, and the edit warring continues unabated. I'm hesitant to spring for longer full protection or block people for the slow moving edit war. I'd love if some uninvolved users could offer some suggestions/or take action here. (Note that this wiki-conflict has received mainstream media attention.) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thx, i will watch the ANI and offer help if possible. perhaps a good starting point would be to trim the articles length? the concept appears very straightforward not needing such a long article. one way might be ask the editors to create a sandbox version where only text can be removed then compare the results perhaps finding common ground. excess text could be recycled into other existing articles and new articles created as needed. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's great. I think I have read enough to say with some confidence that Byelf2007 (talk · contribs) is an obstructionist who is guilty of edit-warring and should be blocked if they make another Krugman-related edit to that article again. As far as I'm concerned they should be topic-banned. Now, the RfC is a bit less clear and overwhelming than I'd like it to be (for the fans: it's in the talk page archive, page 6), but it supports LK's reverts. I don't know about article length--the thing as a whole seems moderately decently balanced, but the constant bickering is amazing, and I'd block Byelf for a month (they've already been blocked three times for the same thing) if those edits had been more recent than two days ago. Does that help, Mark? Thanks for dragging me into this, pal. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

68kB is rather large, much of the bloat being trivia from critics. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, it's almost the same size as Keynesian economics. Take that for what you will, I suppose. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

48kB, good point, both could use some trimming. notice the small criticism section of the Keynesian article compared to AE. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I think I have read enough to say with some confidence that Byelf (talk · contribs) is an obstructionist" One, this ad hominem, and is irrelevant to the issue. Also, based on what arguments? Why am I an 'obstructionist'?

"As far as I'm concerned they should be topic-banned." Because?

"Now, the RfC is a bit less clear and overwhelming than I'd like it to be." The RfC included, I'm not making this up, literally "blah blah blah" in it. That's not a legitimate proposal for being voted on.

"I'd block Byelf for a month" Why?

"(they've already been blocked three times for the same thing)" That's not relevant to whether or not I should be again.

I'd also like to note that you do not mention any of the actual issues involved here (arguments for/against inclusion). I'll also add that I support inclusion of the Krugman material, just not in a particular form, but rather in another, because of what I see as a neutrality issue.

In any case, it's not relevant: other editors have repeatedly put the material in without consensus and without addressing opponents arguments. So I'm just following site policy and insisting that people who want content in address criticisms of it (prior to a consensus inclusion, which has not yet occurred).

Apparently, we're just supposed to take your word for it that I'm doing bad things on the page, but opponents to my edits are not? Based on what? I don't see a substantive contribution here, other than "Bfelf sucks". This isn't conducive to quality on this site. Byelf2007 (talk) 29 March 2013

• You can say "ad hominem" until the cows come home. An editor asked an admin to look into the slow edit war going on in this article, and I did. I discovered that you are the edit warrior. You keep removing information that an RfC has agreed should be included, and so whoever reverts you is not being disruptive--rather, they are restoring consensus. You were blocked before for edit warring in that same article--three times. Sorry, but how is that not relevant? Drmies (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes needed, indeed

Scientology was in better shape when it was edited by the Church of Scientology. In comparison, the "Austrian School" makes objectivism look like serious philosophy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol - I've looked at the article a couple of times and ran away screaming. Mind you, I also ran away screaming when I had to study the subject at university decades ago (where I had the opportunity to fly a paper airplane during a lecture by Ayn Rand with my tutor watching me and laughing). Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See #19. MastCell ^Talk 16:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal for Byelf2007

I propose that Byelf2007 (talk · contribs) be topic banned from Austrian School. His activity there has included edit warring (continually reverting in lieu of discussion), failure to respect consensus, and general WP:IDHT behavior. I think his presence on the page prevents any improvements to the topic because he feels he has the license to revert any content he doesn't want included. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

since one cannot edit-war alone, perhaps the editors who reverted each of Byelf's reverts should be topic banned as well? i cant think of any edit or revert Byelf has made that has survived recently? Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the past few days, I see Byelf has been reverted by three different editors. I'm not sure there's enough evidence to case either of the three individuals as edit warriors. Looking back over the past couple months, Byelf seems to be the only user who is continually removing the content from the page. But if you have specific concerns about any other editors on the page, feel free to raise them here. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

scroll thru the older 500 view, notice how few/none of Byelf's edits/reverts have remained. it appears he lost every edit war, and regardless if the other editor was correct, or wp:truth, the fact remains it was a war with 2 or more belligerents, right? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Yes, it takes two to tango--but it takes only one person to undo the conclusion of an RfC, which is what was happening here, and blocking the other person for restoring agreed-upon content is wholly unfair. BTW, I think that article needs a couple more RfC, on individual points, and it needs a rewrite: count how many sentences start "Economist X". Drmies (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

not so sure this will fix it, a rewrite would be a great place to start. count up the economist x, the overwhelmingly majority are critical of AS. Was refactoring the content 10+times really the best way? instead of edit warring there are other tools available and the reverting editors failed to use the appropriate method to end the disruption, possibly making the situation worse, definitely wasting many bytes and bandwidth intertubes. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Sometimes one editor's conduct in an edit war is just wrong. That appears to be the case here. Byelf's pattern of behavior on the article and their inability to get it here warrant an article ban. If someone else has the fortitude to rewrite all or part of the article, more power to them.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

all editors edit warring are wrong, even those attempting to help. wp has specific guidelines to follow in this type of issue, obviously the editors choose to ignore. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a problem of labels. Let's not call the other editors' conduct edit warring but simply reverting. There's nothing necessarily wrong with reverting that doesn't rise to the level of an edit war. But even if it does, it doesn't necessarily make it blockable. I close a lot of reports at WP:ANEW, and I exercise a fair amount of discretion in when to block and whom to block. Things just aren't as black and white as you seem to think they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good point. i doubt the block will improve the article as none of his edits are in there now, perhaps mediation would be the best way forward? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled by your statement: "there are other tools available and the reverting editors failed to use the appropriate method" Byelf could have been taken to the 3RR incident noticeboard for multiple violations prior to the RfC. For one example see here: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 and here: 1 2 3 4 5 6. Instead, several editors patiently cited WP policy to Byelf and asked him to desist. Shortly thereafter, user:Lawrencekhoo initiated the RfC on December 10, 2012 [1]. So in fact LK did escalate, and in a constructive collegial manner, by initiating the RfC. Moreover on several occasions editors have asked Byelf to propose alternative text for talk page discussion or consideration in a second RfC. Instead, Byelf has recited an ever-changing litany of reasons for his opposition to the Krugman text, but he has not chosen to propose an alternative version.

I think that other editors have shown admirable restraint and patience toward Byelf's behavior. He has engaged in tendentious editing on Austrian School for approximately two years now. Other editors have calmly recited WP policy to him but he responds with WP:ICANTHEARYOU. In this diff, he appears to WP:CANVAS user:Darkstar1st to ensure his RfC vote here: [2]. He repeatedly denies the legitimacy of the WP RfC process.

I did not initiate the discussion in this forum, but since the matter appears to have come to a head, I will state that I favor an indefinite topic ban for user:Byelf2007 in Austrian School and related topics. Naturally he would be free to appeal the block in the future, according to WP standards and norms for such appeals. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I reviewed the history of tendentious editing, and agree following an RfC and months of IDHT that Byelf deserves a ban. If the editor contributes to related articles for e.g. 4 months without similar problems, then a return would be considered. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comment above. Every other avenue has failed and this important article is suffering in gridlock. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per SPECIFICO's comment. --☥NEO (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- I've done a bit of occasional work on that article, and it's almost always Byelf's clear attempts at POV-pushing that need addressing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: -- Since the last post on this topic, user:Byelf2007 has continued to edit war on Austrian School and has engaged in WP:BATTLE behavior on Liquidity Trap, (a non-Austrian economic subject) and on his talk page. On April 2, he was blocked [3] for 72 hours. It appears appropriate to consider the operational terms of a prospective topic ban for Byelf2007. Under the circumstances, I suggest that a ban be defined to cover any article related to Economics or to Libertarianism. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from economics

At this point, I'm comfortable that the evidence and consensus here support a topic ban from economics for Byelf2007 (talk · contribs). I'm going to implement that topic ban as follows: Byelf2007 is indefinitely banned from pages related to economics, broadly construed. The topic ban may be appealed at any point by Byelf2007 on the administrators' noticeboard, although he is advised that any appeal or request to have the topic-ban lifted is more likely to be successful after demonstrating a track record of productive editing on other topics.

I will leave this thread open for now to allow for any additional comments, concerns, or feedback. MastCell ^Talk 18:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this pop up at WP:DRN and it looks like something that would require some immediate oversight. At first glance, this doesn't look too good for Nyttend, unless I am reading the situation wrongly. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The NRIS lists the site as "Address Restricted".[4] according to the source being used. This information should not be available on wiki. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But the address is published by other official and reliable sources, as anyone who actually looked at the Dispute in detail would know. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this question is in Dispute Resolution, and Scjessey has clearly not done any background research on the situation, bringing it here seems precipitous. See this on Commons for some background. There is no privacy concern as the owner does not live on the property, which is licensed as a hotel. In any case, this has no business being here, and I suggest Scjessey be trouted - especially since the email was not revealed by Nyttend, as is implied. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Beyond My Ken, this is a hotel of sorts and nobody lives there full time as far as I can tell. See the official website. I don't see any great need for the address in an encyclopedia article, but this is more of a MOS issue than a privacy issue. James086^Talk 18:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict × 2)Agree with BMK, I've also closed the DRN as unsuitable for a number of reasons, but someone should block Scjessey The opener of the DRN (sorry SC) for legal threats, as they've claimed to be speaking with police, etc. at the DRN (I didn't redact or remove that, just collapse, so feel free to go verify that). Addresses of a property that is named are public information in my opinion, i.e. the address of the Texas Capitol building is public information, the address of the Vice-President's Mansion or whatever we are calling it now is public information, etc. If this person wants it removed, he needs to go through WMF legal because we are under no obligation to remove it here. gwickwire^talk_editing 18:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments and those of other people at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:John and Dorothy Haynes House, May 2011.jpg, as well as the one that Beyond My Ken. Location information is relevant for a building article, and as numerous books (as well as a reliable website) provide the address, we have no obligation to remove it. I agree with Gwickwire that a block is suitable: the owner's arguments have always been based on claims that we're revealing personal information such as his home address, even though his home address is actually more than 600 miles away. Do people really knock on his door just because they got from Wikipedia the address of a property he owns hundreds of miles away? If they're doing that, they've gotten his address from somewhere else, like the online Allen County property records database, which is where I found it — and from which I've not copied it anywhere. Try to get something removed based on an argument that's demonstrably a lie (and convince other people that removal is justified on WP:BLPPRIVACY grounds), and you're being quite disruptive. Finally, reading this story will give even more background; the owner has been fickle, and he won't even explain his motives to government officials! Nyttend (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Disruption occurs, hasn't responded to warnings about legal threats, disruption, nor this discussion. Someone please indef block him until explanation is given, legal threats are retracted, and he agrees to stop pursuing this. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• He could also be construed as violating 3RR at the house article, and he's definitely edit-warring. Even if his individual edits were unproblematic, he would be blockable for edit-warring. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look in the history, you'll see the address has been added and removed several times, but it's been approximately stable without it since March 2012. Nyttend has repeatedly added it back in citing "not censored", which is really not a great reason to do anything. This seems to be a case where someone's got annoyed and provoked, but I don't think demanding indefinite blocks is even remotely appropriate - we're certainly not blameless here. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not-censored is a good reason to restore something that's relevant and properly sourced, and articles about buildings always provide their locations when possible; location is a major component relevant historic-sites list, so it's definitely relevant. So I'm at fault for restoring reliably-sourced information when someone's deceiving people to try to get it removed? Throughout the history of the page, he's claimed to live there when he doesn't, and he's convinced other people that it violates his privacy. This is very much a case of unclean hands, even on top of the always indef-worthy legal threats and the approximately 5RR violations. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Gwick, you know I love ya, but don't be a DOLT. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 09:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • (edit conflict)This person is way over WP:3RR, has made legal threats, etc. etc. and you're saying we shouldn't block? gwickwire^talk_editing 20:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope the IP editor has also contacted the police about this article at the News-Sentinel, which lists the address of the house in the second sentence. A columnist explains why the owner wants the house removed from the National Register and mentions that it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)"Not censored" does not, and never has, mean that we publish all information just because we can! I am entirely sympathetic to claims that a street address should not be published for a private residence.

WRT the other details, that story merely says he has a primary address in Connecticut and also rents the house out on occasion; it doesn't say that he does not live there at all. I am really uncomfortable with doing OR based on local news stories to definitively conclude someone is "lying" and "decieving" us, and then to edit-war with them to get information kept in the article, over a several-year period. I'm really disappointed with the way this has been handled, and I really do sympathise with Herber here. Whether or not Wikipedia publishes this information in the end, we've handled it terribly and in a very inflammatory way. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We routinely publish addresses for buildings that are the subjects of articles, as long as the addresses are reliably published elsewhere in secondary sources. "Publishing all information because we can" would mean publishing the owner's home address, which is already published by the Allen County government website; there's even an easily-linkable page specifically about this house on the website, but I'm not linking it because we don't need to have in on-wiki. The address of this house is not private information any more than is the address of the local Holiday Inn. Nyttend (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where was his email address published?--Auric talk 23:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Dispute Resolution request, he says something like "I'm the owner and I can proive it, here's my email address". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[5]

Regardless, asking for oversight here instead of via email/IRC wasn't a good idea.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  00:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. And the side comment about Nyttend just made it worse, hence my suggestion of a trout. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought linking to the RL identity of an editor was a violation of WP:OUTING? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... the editor himself posted his identity and e-mail address, and although he claims to be the person who owns the house in question, he doesn't live there, he lives in Connecticut. One has to look at the entire situation. Besides, suppose the owner of a house on the NRHP in which the address is not restricted joins Wikipedia and make their identity known. It would be unreasonable to expect that we should remove their address from that house's article because of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like these [6] (Streisand effect and all that) add nothing of encyclopedic value to an article but seem to be made purely for the purposes of letting somebody know that "we do it because we can!". It's petty crap. I haven't followed all the ins and outs here but it does seem that this John_D._Haynes_House fellah has a legitimate grievance. And by extension then, so does Scjessey. This reminds of the situation with that radio talk show host who did not wish to have his birthdate published on Wikipedia but some guy just insisted on putting it in there, more or less to fuck with him and because s/he knew it upset the guy. I'm not sure if that's the same case here, but "petty" is definitely involved. And yes "Not Censored" is an idiotic and bad faithed defense in situations like these which amounts to "I get to be spiteful and you can't "censor" me!". It's a very sophomoric understanding of what "censored" means.Volunteer Marek 00:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read WP:NPA and heed it by removing your final two sentences. We include locations for any building for which we have reliable sources, and removing the location on the grounds that the National Register people are prohibited from publishing the location (grounds that the owner used, multiple times) is definitely related to "Wikipedia will not remove content because of the internal bylaws of some organizations that forbid information about the organization to be displayed online. Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion to show a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." This is far from persistently publishing someone's birth date in defiance of his wishes; that's personal information, while noting the location of a building isn't personal information about the absentee landlord. It's a restoration of information that was already in the article and shouldn't have been removed in the first place. Anyway, he was the one who identified himself as the owner, he was the one who used a geolocateable IP address, and he was the one who published an email address that included his name. When an editor says that he owns a house, it's not WP:OUTING to add links to multiple reliable sources that mention the property owner's name and hometown; he's already said who he is. So...on top of all those things, he goes way past 3RR and makes legal threats, nobody blocks him, and he's defended for the whole situation. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubt Marek will heed that request (see other recent events), but anyways, I agree that it's a valid concern. However, the address is public information reported by reliable sources. There's no reason for us to remove it, other than someone complains about it. If we remove everything someone complains about, we won't be a free content good encyclopedia anymore. We should not censor information out because someone complains. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a good reason for us to remove it: there's no policy that says we have to act like assholes. In fact, quite the opposite, see WP:DICK (you guys might want to report that policy as a "personal attack" on some subsection of the Wikipedia "community"). I don't see any reason for the address to be in there except someone's trying to prove a point: "I get to do it, nyah nyah nyah".Volunteer Marek 01:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the fact that it is pertinent to the knowledge about the topic means nothing? It's not asshole if this person refuses to read/hear our policies and comments. Nobody is being pointy, we are saying that it is public information in reliable sources that is pertinent to the knowledge about the place. We very routinely (if not almost always) have location in articles about buildings/places, and the fact someone complained about this one isn't a reason to remove it. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking in at the Common discussion [7], I do wonder if this isn't simply a case of a person getting very creeped out of having photos (and address etc) of their property (house - whether they currently reside there or not is immaterial, and the fact that Nyttend somehow knows that they live "600 miles away" is creepy in itself) taken - by Nyttend! - and posted all over Wikipedia. Hell, I'd be creeped out too. And then on top of that any request to remove this private information are met with the usual "We Iz Not Cenzored!" cries and complete lack of empathy for the situation that this person finds themselves in. And guess what, most people out there don't share this twisted Wikipedia/troll-site mentality (what gwickwire refers to as "this person refuses to hear our policies") of "we do it because we can" so yeah, when they feel like you're messing with them they'll resort to these things called "personal attacks" or sometimes even "legal threats". If you didn't poke'em they wouldn't.Volunteer Marek 01:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you live in a nationally registered Historic Place? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I say "yes", are you going to publish my personal street address? (Actually I do, strangely enough).Volunteer Marek 02:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I won't but if you don't want others to do it, move out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should seeing as how the "Not Censored" crowd seems to think that it's ok for some random jerk on Wikipedia to show up to my house, take a picture of it, and then put it up on this webpage. Anyway, the more serious point is that it doesn't take much to get on the register of Historic Places (and honestly, often people do it for completely unrelated reasons like getting a leg up in some zoning dispute, "historic" in a US context means very little). But that doesn't mean it's an excuse for Wikipedia editors to fuck with people. The OP was right in bringing this issue up here.Volunteer Marek 02:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are people's private residences placed onto that list without their consent, and is that the case here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are we "fucking" with people. He owns the house. He rents it by the (two) night(s). He registered it. Even if he hadn't, the address would still be obviously publically available by now. It might not take much to get on the register, but this is a Frank Lloyd Wright house. It's clearly going to be of public interest with or without zoning dispute legups. --Onorem♠Dil 03:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this is being discussed in this venue as it certainly appears to be a content dispute but let me see if I understand this correctly: Someone owns a house designed by the greatest American architect of all time and rents it out as a hotel but insists on keeping the location private. Is that correct? If so, I have some sympathy for the property owner as it's a bit jarring to have its location and appearance be readily available on the Web but you should expect that when it's of intrinsic historical and cultural significance. ElKevbo (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The last stable version of the article, from December 2012, did not contain the address. If you ignore any privacy issues, it may have been fine for Nyttend to add it per WP:BOLD, but once the addition was reverted, he should have started a talk page discussion to gain consensus for the addition. 28bytes (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 edits...a week apart...for easily verifiable information...--Onorem♠Dil 03:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the chronology a bit; I've refactored my comment accordingly. 28bytes (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be satisfactory if we mentioned only the street it is on? Also, if we do remove the address, what should be done about the geo-coordinates? Chris857 (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  That should be worked out on the article's talk page. 28bytes (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My first thought was that Mason was right and including someone's address in the article about them is horrible. Then I discovered that it was an article about the house itself and has nothing to do with a person. Then I also discovered that the owner doesn't even live there. Thus, I concluded that he was just omitting information and presenting twisted facts to pursue his own agenda. The address should obviously be included in an article on a notable house that is on the historic registry, just like we do for other notable places and buildings. Silverseren^C 19:28, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user apparently wants the article on his property to be deleted not merely remove the address .Now he needs to contact WP:ORTS if he wants the article deleted for privacy reasons.He is apparently not here for editing merely to get it deleted and making threats including legal threats is clearly unacceptable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silver seren, multiple experienced, good faith editors, including JohnOfReading, SarekOfVulcan and myself disagree that it "obviously" must be included, especially when it is distressing to the homeowner to do so. This is not the White House we're talking about here. We do retain some editorial discretion over what details to include about a property, and we should use that discretion responsibly. If there's a consensus on the talk page to include the address, that's one thing, but edit-warring it in over the objections of both the property owner and multiple long-term Wikipedians is not the answer. 28bytes (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there are several experienced Wikipedians here who think it should be included, so please don't try and act like i'm the only one with that opinion. What reason exactly is there for us not to include the address in the article of a NRHP building that isn't even lived in by the owner, but rented out because of its status? This definitely isn't a privacy issue. Silverseren^C 20:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then make your case for inclusion on the article talk page. You speak in absolutes, but you are not the sole arbiter of whether this is a privacy issue, and I think you will find that quite a few people, such as Doncram below, will disagree with your "ruling" on that. Doncram makes a very compelling case, I think, that we should respect the homeowner's wishes, and it's shame you summarily dismissed it instead of giving it the consideration it deserves. 28bytes (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is not just any NRHP-listed place, most of which have addresses published in the National Register's database and announced in NRHP nomination documents. It is one of relatively few "Address restricted" places, where the agreement to list on the register was partly conditional on the address being kept confidential. And where NRHP documents would be provided to the public only in redacted form, with the address and other site-identifying info blacked out. Listing as "address restricted" has been done for many archeological sites, where publishing the address could lead to damage to the resource. There are NRHP editors, including me, who believe that Wikipedia should not publish the address or geo-location information for such places, unless and until the "Address restricted" restriction is lifted, and that we strive to avoid the possibility or appearance of causing harm. It is sometimes possible to find an obscure or other published reference to the location, that reveals a location, because the internet has grown so much, or because locals will speak to an interested visitor looking to find a location to take a photo, when the owner would have had reasonable expectation it is still private info. Which was not anticipated by the National register national staff, or by state staff, or by the owner who would have otherwise refused to allow for the archeological resource or other resource to become NRHP-listed. In this case, the fact that the address was ferreted out from obscure minutes of a committee, and that there is indication that the site was deliberately listed as "address restricted", suggests to me that removing the address and coordinates would be best. As far as I understand it, it is not a situation where there is now a lot of public knowledge of the location, i.e. where a public park to present an archeological resource behind a fence has been created, and where the location is very public (in which case the National Register information should be updated to give the address, too.). Rather this is a case, I gather, where the National Register federal staff and the corresponding state staff would more likely object to the disclosure of the address information in Wikipedia.

There is precedent for simply removing address or other identifying information, by Wikipedia editors, when an NRHP-listed property owner objected. For example, I and editor Pubdog cooperated with a concerned owner of a property in Maryland, and we deleted from Commons a photo of the property that had been taken by Pubdog, based on the owner's concern. Although technically the photo was legally taken (from a public street and so on) and we did not have to remove it legally, but we did, and I think that was ethically correct. First, do no harm.... (And, about this incident, no need to state the property name or its address and so on, here, okay?)

My own policy, about walking around a historic district and taking photos, is: if a person comes out and objects to their house being photographed, I don't. I would delete any photos I have, and definitely not post anything. There's no need to upset people, even if they are not completely clear about what is legal or not. --doncram 20:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Your personal policy is perhaps laudable, but the homeowner is in the wrong, legally. In the United States any building can be photographed from a public street. You cannot violate private property, but as long as you're shooting from the street, the homewoner (or building owner) cannot stop you from taking photographs. That's Federal law. Your personal policies have no bearing on this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that all you have to do is Google "John D. Haynes House" and all the information, including the address, is right there on the right side, huge font, immediately viewable, right? This was never private. The guy has a website for it, which is the first search result, that's all about the house and how to rent a night there. This isn't some person who just lives there now and wants to keep their life private. Silverseren^C 20:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an incredibly misleading statement. The homeowner's website does not list the address. The fact that Google displays the address on the right side of the search results is because Google is pulling it from Wikipedia. You're not seriously arguing that we should include it on Wikipedia because Wikipedia includes it, are you? 28bytes (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pulling the top part, yes, but there's no indication that it's pulling the lower part (especially since that information seems to be different than what we have). Silverseren^C 20:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those situations that Wikipedia can't fix. I really sympathize with someone who wants to keep their private home private, and Wikipedia should (generally) respect that.

... however, this isn't one of those cases. It's property he advertises publicly for rent, the address is already out on the web, and the actual geolocation coordinates are even out there. Plug either into Google Street view, bam, looking right at it. The cat's out of the bag. The fact that it's an historic house lends even more weight to making the address available.

I looked through our List of Frank Lloyd Wright works and there's either a postal address or geocoordinates on them (or both). The only exceptions are the stub articles. This house really wouldn't be an exception. A compromise might be to remove the postal address, but leave the geolocation in. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe an RFC is in order, but this doesn't seem like an ANI issue as it is more about content (granted, and how policy dictates it) rather than a behavioral issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good gracious! I did not expect to cause such a mess when I opened this thread. Basically, I have WP:DRN watchlisted because I volunteer there from time to time. An edit there was automatically tagged as having an email address, so I had a quick look at it. I saw that a person had posted it out of frustration for what appeared at first glance to be someone unnecessarily posting a full address. I did not have time to investigate the matter any further, but because I was concerned about the publishing of the two pieces of personal data I thought it would be wise to bring it to the attention of administrators. When I opened the thread, I specifically mentioned that I'd only glanced at the matter and that I may have misinterpreted what was going on, so calls for me to be trouted for my action seem rather unreasonable. I said it "doesn't look too good for Nyttend" because it very much appeared from the article's edit history as if Nyttend was forcing personal info into the article against the express wishes of the owner and without any discussion on the talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey, you were right to bring this here, and it still has not been satisfactorily explained why an editor or editors should be able to repeatedly insert a piece of information over the objections of multiple editors and without a talk page consensus to do so. The article was stable for over three months without this information; as I said above it's fine (setting aside privacy concerns for the moment) to be bold and add it, but when the addition is reverted, it's not fine to wait a couple of days and re-insert it. If WP:BRD had been followed, we wouldn't be here. Nevertheless, I believe I see a way forward, which I will lay out in detail here a little later today or tomorrow once I have a little free time. In the meantime I would ask interested editors to take a pause and not do anything to escalate the situation. 28bytes (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's good to know I did the right thing. I shall leave the matter in your capable hands. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I disagree. This is not an issue of making otherwise private information public, and to frame it that way is entirely misleading, since the information was deemed private by one source only, at the owner's request, but has since been released to the world at large, on the Internet, by the owner himself, as well as being generally available from very reputable and reliable sources. Further, Scjessey should not have brought the matter here without having done some investigation, and certainly not before talking to Nyttend directly on their talk page to see what was up, which is always a first step to take before coming to AN/I. In short, there is no privacy issue here, this discussion is unnecessary, and Scjessey should still be trouted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMK, I agree with you that talking to Nyttend beforehand would have been preferable, but I think you are badly mistaken regarding the homeowner's privacy concerns. Just because "the cat is out of the bag" and that information is available elsewhere on the Internet does not absolve us of the responsibility to consider the impact that making it available here has. There are many articles, "Star Wars Kid" among the most famous of them, in which Wikipedians have given sufficient respect to people's legitimate privacy concerns that the editorial decision was made to omit of piece of information that is not crucial to the understanding of the article's subject. This may be another such case where consensus is to err on the side of discretion. Or it may not. Either way we are ethically obliged to weigh the concerns of the homeowner against the laudable goal of making the encyclopedia as comprehensive as it can be. I have sent an email to the homeowner in hopes that we may be able to reach a compromise agreeable to everyone. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have absolutely no responsibility, legally, ethically or morally, or in Wikipedia policy, to follow the homeowner's every whim and add and remove information each time he changes his mind. IF the homeowner had never changed his mind about keeping the address restricted, your point would be valid, but that is not the case. Once the homewoner himself releases the addresses, agrees to a local historical designation (with address attached), and then advertises the property as being available for rental as a hotel, banking on its status as the creation of one of America's greatest architects, the homeowner no longer has the option of changing his mind, and there is zero requirement whatsoever for us to take his later misgivings, expressed dishonestly and with hostility, into account. Again, if the guy lived there, it might be a different story, but in this specific fact situation we are in the right to publish the address, and no further permission from him is required. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Oversighting email, and if (not part of the property's name, and not notable otherwise) real name(s) of the owners seems logical. But the place is notable, and the photo should obviously stay (it doesn't seem to contain any private info, as far as I can tell). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am concerned about User:Lgcsmasamiya's use of many Wikipedia tools (see contributions), not least of which are the reviewer rights they deploy most often under Page Curation. Their talk page shows that many of their actions have been reversed by other editors. They do not confine their lack of understanding to reviewer rights, regrettably, but appear to use many tools with an imperfect understanding of the policies and procedures on Wikipedia.

Their talk page shows no attempt to engage with any of the people having concerns about their actions, otherwise we could use a quiet word and education process to help them understand that their actions are out of kilter with how WIkipedia works.

I have fired a strong warning shot at the current foot of their talk page, but the lack of any prior engagement does not give me confidence that this will bear fruit. Thus I am opening this discussion in the hope that they may receive the education they need. They have many good edits, but are in danger of being a wholly negative benefit for the project if we do not help them. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa. Drmies (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • They arn't constructive and this is a side point to the real matter at hand, but Tim Trent, you really need to stop calling it vandalism. Please read WP:NOTVAND. That said, something does need to be done. Can we find a mentor?--v/r - TP 16:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait--Page Curation is a tool, not a right, correct? All that's required is being autoconfirmed, so there is no box we can uncheck. TParis, good points. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's correct, Drmies; the "reviewer" right refers to pending changes, not to the Page Curation tool, so removing it wouldn't be helpful in this case. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No probs, TP. I simply chose the best available warning shot. I reserve the right to make mistakes and to be corrected :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have no rights on Wikipedia, no mistakes, NOW BURN IN HELL!!!!--v/r - TP 17:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • At risk of having a religion vs atheism discussion, I accept what you say at face value. All my friends will be in the place you postulate anyway :) Now, after edit conflict, I imagine one can remove reviewer rights if a discussion has not borne fruit, but the odd deployment of other tools does require mentoring as well. The paradox is that there are also excellent decisions in the contributions list. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • After the list of un-Christ-like things I've done, I'll see you there.--v/r - TP 17:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Fiddle Faddle, there are no user rights that you can take away to prevent someone from using the page curation tool. The only method at our disposal to do that is to enact a topic ban. That would be the next logical step if the user refuses to educate themselves on how to patrol properly. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 18:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • For the record, they have never once edited their talk page. A block might actually be the next step to get their attention.--v/r - TP 18:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This has been going on for months, with no sign of Lgcsmasamiya getting any clue and never a response - I think we really need a block here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I mistakenly thought that reviewer rights could be revoked in the case of misuse, but apparently that only applies to pending changes reviewer rights. I don't think this editor should be reviewing new pages until they can articulate that they understand the criteria for marking pages as reviewed. Responses like "I'm new here and i'm trying to do my best reviewing new articles, i do'nt understand why i will be blocked by "Vanndalism"." lead me to believe that they are may not have the competency for the task. Perhaps asking them to stop reviewing articles would be sufficient. - MrX 21:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user has declared on their talk page that they are new. Newness is relative, and their contributions log shodul be checked. I feel we are at a WP:COMPETENCE stage here. This goes back to my original concern which is one of improving their wiki-education. I do not like the blocking of users who have the right spirit even when they use the tools imperfectly, even for a short acting block. If they will engage, and it appears that they mght, then I believe mentoring is the right way, and this includes allowing them to continue reviewing and using other tools. If they express or exhibit an inability or an unwillingness to learn I feel we should think again. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue may also be language. The editor's home wiki is es, though they have made no edits there. See Special:CentralAuth/Lgcsmasamiya which shows 1,280, presumably more now, edits on en, and no edits elsewhere, with their first edit in this diff. As first edits go it is the standard one expects from a user feeling their way, but I am concerned that they are still feeling their way today. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lgcsmasamiya is continuing on his course without responding to this complaint. For instance here he puts Lou Grant (season 1) into Category:1978 television specials, which is incorrect since specials are individual programs, not seasons of a show. He is now up to 1,291 edits and many of these may need to be reverted unless someone can persuade him to stop. My own effort on his talk page was not successful. A block per WP:COMPETENCE is appropriate unless people are willing to do all the reverts necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've issued a 24-hour block, which anyone is welcome to revert if we get an adequate response -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've reverted a couple more {{unreferenced}} tags - there were no inline citations, but there were "References" sections with sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing I find most depressing is that, hidden among the less than competent edits are good decisions. The problem is that there are 1295 edits that all need to be checked, some of which are excellent decisions. I suppose that what will happen is that they will be blocked here indefinitely eventually and, based upon track record, will not learn. That makes me wonder about their transferring their interest to their home wiki. Their edits to Commons all appear to have been reverted as well. Does 'our' responsibility extend to other wikis, or are 'we' insular? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's sad when someone with that kind of enthusiasm won't listen, slow down, and learn. But let's hope that 24 hours might make them think. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to say that the editor has returned after their block. One positive aspect is that, certainly for the moment, imperfect reviews have ceased. The edits appear to be the adding of potentially reasonable categories to multiple articles. I am not competent to judge whether a moth is an 'animal' for cataloguing purposes, hence my usage of 'potentially'. A negative aspect is that there has been no accepting of offers to engage in discussion, not any apparent openness to offers of help. I've restored this thread from archive in order to request people to keep a watching brief on this editor and to help them when they stray. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, xyr userpage appears to consist solely of a months-old misplaced comment from another user. Someone want to mop that up? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this a reply to this thread? if so I am lost. Please clarify. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fairly sure it was, although I don't see why "xyr" was used. The comment on there probably should be removed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer to leave folk to handle their own user pages. I see what you and PinkAmpersnad mean now, looking at the editor in question's user page, but I feel it woudl be an intrusion. I'm sure they feel ill at ease as it is, and I do not want to increase that feeling. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I considered removing it, but left it for either a sysop or this editor. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

xyr is one method editors use to remain gender neutral when they don't know the preferred pronoun of the person theynare referring to. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this editor is now pursuing a more reasonable, though idiosyncratic course. However there is no answer to multiple attempts to engage them in conversation, nor any response to offers of help. The short acting block seems to have worked, but I am unsure whether this will continue. Time will tell. May I suggest that eyes are kept, form time to time, on the contributions record and further warning shots and, indeed, friendly overtures, are fired and issued at the right times. I appreciate that some folk edit here without ever engaging in conversations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds positive - I'll have a look now and then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it is still going on. I have left a strong word of advice on their talk page. BsZ is aware. I suggest their activity is monitored closely and editing behaviour is compared with acceptable practices. I fear that this may involve micromanagement, or multiple blocks. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mystified as to why they would go back to reviewing articles without substantively addressing the competency issues that we raised. I think we need to consider indefing until we get the user to acknowledge the issues with a commitment to stay away from reviewing articles. - MrX 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to read the one word response on the user's talk page before reaching a conclusion, and my reply to it. I intend to continue to be very kind and very firm in my dealings with this editor. I suspect Asperger's spectrum disorder from the behaviour, and feel we need to continue to assuem good faith while working out the best way to contain the issue. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "bad cop" response too (well, not too bad ;-). There's good faith here, certainly - but I think we need to get them away from page curation and onto something else, or maybe into mentorship? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My vote would be for mentorship, but it may take another shot across the bows to make it appeal. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to keep you posted, I've placed a pretty solid warning on their talk page. I think we are getting through, but have my doubts. I'm wary of a couple of us being the sole players here and fear it may be a bad thing, looking as if only two folk care. At the same time I am not asking to raise a posse. Well measured and firm-but-kind responses are in order here. My rationale is that their good edits are excellent, their work ethic is excellent, but their havoc is true havoc. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this AfD speedy closed and deleted? FrigidNinja 01:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an April Fools afd to me.--Auric talk 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My calendar tells me we have to deal with this kind of stupid shit again today. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just cloak myself in the warm blanket that is denial. Tiderolls 02:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle those for one day, with my sense of humor. No action should be performed until tomorrow. TBrandley 02:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another bunch: User_talk:TenPoundHammer Didn't he get warned for this last year? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you suggest that all April Fools' pranksters be blocked for what's merely harmless shenanigans? God forbid anyone should have fun. Joke XFDs on Wikipedia have been around nearly as long as Wikipedia itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 24 hours blocks for all of them would be equally harmless, and would prevent disruption. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that a little harsh? I mean, people can have at least some fun. ZappaOMati 03:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer was blocked for creating joke deletion requests last year. If he creates any more, I will block him this year. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And yes, I was blocked, but you're forgetting the part about how a.) I was blocked by a trigger-happy admin a good three hours after I had stopped pranking, and b.) was swiftly unblocked by one admin who agreed that blocking for April Fools' pranks was over the line. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. what harm is there in letting editors have a little fun one day out of the year. i'm not saying allow vandalism, but just don't delete stuff that is humorous. spoilsports. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} HAPPY APRIL FOOLS! 04:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The harm exists when it starts to go from an attempt at humor to something that could be construed as an insult. [8] Mike V • Talk 04:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I apologize for that one. but still, you don't need to delete every single April fools XfD page, certainly not under G3. most of them are not insulting in the least, and are obviously humorous. I really don't see why they need to be deleted. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} HAPPY APRIL FOOLS! 04:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think there should be a minimal age limit on people editing Wikipedia. RNealK (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the limit should be set at 115 so no one in the world with a sense of humour can edit. You need to face the facts, Aprils Fools Day is an internationally recognised holiday that has its origins dating back hundreds of years, people of all ages, culture, religion participate in it; claiming _{(or even implying)} that pranks are only or even primarily conducted by kids is just naive. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry, are you implying that I am a kid? I will be 20 in June, and I don't see the harm in having a little bit of non-persistent fun one day out of the year. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} HAPPY APRIL FOOLS! 04:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then start acting like an adult. RNealK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so, you're saying that being a bit childish for one day out of the year is not allowed? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} HAPPY APRIL FOOLS! 04:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we all can't be childish once a year or as often as we choose. At the same time, I don't see why it has to be here. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why not have some reasonable fun that doesn't cause any lasting damage? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} HAPPY APRIL FOOLS! 05:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should PROD AMD Accelerated Processing Unit for its terrible writing, even with 75 edits from Aunva6. Just kidding. It's been fun enough, now go play somewhere else--this is silly and disruptive. Playing with whoopy cushions is more fun than those nominations. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

haha, yeah, your right. it's fun the first 5 or 6 times, but it gets old quickly. also, you could try to prod it, but I probably wouldn't be the first to get to it, but I see your point. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps an admin posting a warning at Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2013 about afd and ani jokes being unwelcome wouldn't be remiss if it is considered disruptive? -Cameron11598 (Converse) 05:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to do funny things on April Fool's Day, write an article and get it in the April Fool's DYKs or do TFA!. Doing anything more is simply ridiculous and is disruptive to the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So writing a TFA is ridiculous and disruptive? Oh my... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends on the subject. But that's a fair cop. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose XfD and RfA are off limits to jokes then - are they? hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 11:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be annoying, yes. - a boat that can float! (raising awareness of dihydrogen monoxide) 18:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • And there's still not a proposal or concensus to have joke XfDs and RfAs banned and have them as grounds for blocking. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

an ip editor, User_talk:220.244.41.132, has for the last few hours been adding WP:SOAP style speculation on the mechanism of carcinogenicity of the drug in question, and perhaps more troublingly, editing other users' talk page comments. This despite a number of other editors urging them to read the relevant policies that WP operates under. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 07:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We now have additional ip editors removing signatures and altering comments on the talk page. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 08:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As IP Administrator it is a legal requirement that I ensure all users identified as using this open access IP to identify their comments or not to include non-academic commentary that do not reflect the policy of the organisation. Any other users ("User") who so chooses to reverse that administrative decision is deemed to have supported the removed content, and in so doing takes ownership of that said content. The User will also absolves this organisation of litigation by other parties. As users of this IP are generally professionals with content experts on various medical and legal issues these intellectual property materials are not moderated by the IP Administrator. -IP Administrator of 220.244.41.132 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.41.132 (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotta love it when someone with a limited grasp of English is writing legalese. Nothing in here means anything at all, and the legal threats, if that is what they are, are hollow. I see that Rexx is active on that talk page, as are SmartSE and some other trusted editors; I have faith that they can keep things in hand. UseTheCommandLine, I'm sure you know this and this isn't really for your ears, but you are welcome to remove/revert WP:FORUM-style comments from the talk page, after careful consideration of course. Drmies (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an administrator matter, but thought you'd like to know that today's XKCD contains a nice "hover-over" donation beg for the WMF. Give him some love.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That dog is getting huge. m.o.p 11:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only we had a .edu domain name. It would be fun to see "Hey, Wikipedia students! Have you applied to [company] yet?" --Guerillero | My Talk 13:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, we could protect the page Shotcrete which is vandalized a lot because of this. Let's play the game... Have a nice day. Letartean (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page being targeted seems to be moving almost every few minutes now, to the point where xkcd is only giving hints at the article instead of linking directly. —Soap— 19:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those administrators trying to figure out which page is being targeted, this edit filter is fairly useful, although the vast majority of hits are false positives it does still pick up the pages (and it pretty obvious by just looking at the article title or checking the edits if they are vandalism or not) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• xkcd is one hell of a fan site, with no fewer than 80 primary sources/external links. Who owns this article? A K-pop fan who quit listening to music? Drmies (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do with an editor that simply wont reply to any concerns raised by anyone. Many of us have tried to engage this editor to no avail. The editor has many minor problems with there addition that adds up to a huge amount of cleanup by many editors (User talk:24.57.110.189). We cant seem to get this editors attention even with a block - what to do next - ban? block till they communicate? pls help.Moxy (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Wow. Zero edits to talkspace (apart from one misplaced WP: AFC). I think it's obvious that this user is WP: NOTHERE, due to the massive cleanup required on pages he has disrupted, such as List of Serbs, as well as a large, poorly formatted and badly sourced AFC. I would suggest a block, as bans are not applicable to IP editors. This looks like WP: ARBMAC territory, though. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for two weeks per WP: ARBMAC, but somehow I've got my doubts that this is going to work. De728631 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never filed an ANI complaint previous to this in over five years and 50k edits, and I am sorry to have to do so now, regarding established editor conduct towards editors new to an article and on the broader topic of infoboxes and classical music composers and compositions.

On March 30 I stopped by Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach after noticing some changes on my watchlist there. I have never edited content at the Bach article to my knowledge aside from possibly some vandal reversion, and have absolutely no history with any of the editors at the Bach article. While there, I contributed a !vote on an issue being discussed, the proposed addition of an infobox to the article. I voted for inclusion, but is important to note at this point that the content of the article is not why I am here.

The reasoning behind my !vote was frank and straightforward, but hardly uncivil, in my own view. To my astonishment, User:Ceoil replied to my first-time Talk page comment with a "Fuck You" response either directed at me, or interpreting my comment that way, which either way is highly inappropriate. Ceoil has a long record of previous incivility etc. that has resulted in 11 blocks, from which he has seemingly learned nothing.

• I suggest a substantial block for Ceoil on the basis of this f-word diff, which, especially directed to a first-time editor at an article, is extremely uncivil and unwelcoming, and obviously designed to have a chilling effect. The infobox proposal was also the subject of a directed canvassing notice - by Ceoil. This results in a slanted group of commentators.

Looking at the current Bach Talk page, I notice a polite suggestion from User:Gerda Arendt on March 21 to be the cause of concern from about a dozen editors. As I say, I am not disputing content in this report, but the way the simple request for an infobox was dealt with... what can only be termed needless hostility, including a comment by User:Kleinzach, in which he inappropriately he questions the good faith of the proposal itself and by extension, the proposer.

• I suggest a strong administrator warning for Kleinzach on the basis of this diff - which again, in my view, is clearly designed to have a chilling effect.

Further reading the Bach talk page reveals at least one editor, User:GFHandel recently resigned in protest over the infobox issue and specific and arguably tendentious claims that the infoboxes are "difficult for women to edit", presumably after years of fruitless discussion with the aforementioned relatively small clique, and the resignation by GF Handel I can only take as another red flag. A few days ago I made a strong warning statement at the bottom of the Bach talk page regarding Ceoil calling editors that want userboxes "special interests" that has gone unanswered; it seems no one on the anti-infobox faction were untroubled by Ceoil and my reaction.

Another page that has serious current infobox issues is Sparrow Mass where I notice a violation a few days ago of WP:3RR by an administrator, User:Nikkimaria, who actually removed the offending infobox via a misleading edit summary called "cleanup." This plus three additional reverts resulted in a 24 hour block, the notice of which was scrubbed twice by the admin Nikkimaria to eliminate any trace of unpleasantry. I'd call this type of edit warring by an administrator highly unacceptable, and the edit summary and removal of notices lacking in transparency, which are crucial traits in an admin; Nikkimaria was also following Gerda Arendt and deleting infoboxes.

• I suggest that administrator Nikkimaria needs at the very least a serious warning, with possibly additional sanctions to make Wikipedia's basic policy clear and prevent further intimidation and process abuse, with any further examples cause for a desysop discussion. (As for the Sparrow Mass article, it had to be fully protected to stop the edit war, but has since been unprotected and has been quiet for the last 24 hours as of this posting.)

Historically, infobox opponents have tried to stifle opponents. The template for the infobox itself at Template:Infobox classical composer has been the subject of multiple attempts at deletion, with the last being closed as a bad faith nomination. Clearly User:Antandrus, the recipient of the bad faith closure and awarning to stop keep trying to delete the template doesn't want an open discussion as he advises the need to keep the infobox topic off discussion boards. This is sneaky battleground mentality, as I see it, and another example of a systemic problem on the infobox topic. Strike through with apologies to Antandrus, I got this backwards, as he was not the recipient of the bad faith closure.

To conclude, clearly there are editors and at least one admin that don't want infoboxes in classical composer articles, and said opponents are using methods that are, at best, irregular and questionable. In my view, these methods call for the admin community to investigate further. And really, all this over infoboxes! The topic of music composers, some of the finest examples of humanity, should be a pleasant place to edit, not a battleground that drives away those with opinions different from an established clique. Jusdafax 04:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, you still need to inform Nikkimaria and Kleinzach of this thread. That being said...
  1. I think Ceoil needs a NPA/AGF warning;
  2. I think Kleinzach needs to AGF a bit more (but as that edit was more than a week ago, not necessarily actionable by itself now);
  3. There is nothing currently that prevents an editor from removing any notices unless it's an active block notice - and the block had expired by the time that Nikkimaria removed it, so that edit is okay on that front. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have informed the parties you mention. Remedial efforts aside, you fail to address the larger pattern of the systemic abuse I have documented. Jusdafax 05:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, you have accused people of bullying. I read your entire post, but I saw nothing about that there; the issue regarding User:Ceoil is one of WP:CIV. Accusing people of bullying is a bold accusation, and even though I already challenged you to defend it here, you have not done so, and now are repeating that claim. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our posts crossed, and I have moved the discussion here from the Bach page, by notification. Perhaps your definition of the word "bullying" is different from mine. I look forward to other voices than anti-infobox clique found on the Bach Talk page to give their views on the tone found there, including yours. Jusdafax 05:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My tone"? My tone was one of opposing the infobox, in posts devoid of uncivil or vulgar language. Once again: diffs, please? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, the diffs I have supplied (which I notice you do not discuss) are indicative of problems. In regards to your tone, calling an infobox "useless" is worthy of comment for starters. And one can be "devoid of uncivil or vulgar language" and still be uncivil in intent, as your repeated use of bolding in your "requests" which come off as demands. I again point out that the point of bringing this matter to ANI was to get input from the wider community, not to have the conversation dominated by intractable infobox opponents, which is how I would define your demonstrated inflexible opposition. Jusdafax 07:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never thought of the word "useless" as uncivil (unless it is used to describe another editor), and I'm unaware of an euphemism for it, except for perhaps "it would serve no purpose". As for bolding, you have made bold accusations; ones which I do not take lightly. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, please note that contrary to your assertion, Antandrus did not nominate that infobox for deletion. It was nominated by Pigsonthewing [13], and it was the second time he had attempted to get it deleted. Pigsonthewing received the "warning" about repeated attempts at deletion, and the bad faith nomination (rightly or wrongly). Antandrus !voted to keep it. I suggest you strike your accusation above. Voceditenore (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, I managed to get it reversed, which shows if nothing else that I am unfamiliar with this entrenched infobox battleground. My apologies to Antandrus; I'll do some strikethroughs. However, I now see that it is even more complicated than I previously thought... this template was another battleground and was never seriously used, as far as I now can tell. Antandrus' comment about keeping the matter off talk boards is still telling, in my view. I have notified Pigsonthewing about this discussion. Jusdafax 06:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Telling" to you because you chose to interpret his comment as a conspiracy to keep the discussion off the notice boards. He was absolutely right in his assessment, things do turn nasty very fast. Incidentally, the issue referred to there was then discussed at the Village Pump [14]. Voceditenore (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy" is your word, not mine. I am here to ask for wider editor comment and admin scrutiny, which you will hopefully welcome. Jusdafax 07:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also notified Antandrus of this discussion [15], which you failed to do. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have been editing non-stop for a couple hours, and had not yet notified Antandrus. Jusdafax 06:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, Jusdafax: you claim that there issues of WP:OWN going on at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, but all I see there is a discussion among editors. Where's the breach of WP:OWN? Toccata quarta (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make it plain to the community, Toccata quarta, that you are a staunch opponent of the infoboxes, as the Bach Talk page clearly shows. What would you call the way I was greeted with an F-word... friendly? Now, the reason I brought this to ANI is to get some other views to this discussion. Let's let others be the judge of what's going on at that Talk page, shall we? Jusdafax 06:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OWN comes into play with comments like "not usually associated with composer articles"; "has never edited the article... like X", as though there was some requirement to edit a page (now much? how often?) before expressing an opinion on its talk page; and "contra WP:COMPOSERS policy" (my emphasis) as though that opinion page had any authority, which WP:Advice pages makes clear it does not. Likewise in the hHTML comemnt at the head of the Bach article, whidh read "Please do not add an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes" (again, my emphasis). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Gerda Arendt, involved, surprised

I suggested an infobox for Bach, knowing that Project Classical music asks to have no infoboxes for composers. It was discussed, supported by some users, not supported by several others, I moved on, suggesting a much shorter infobox for Handel.

I installed an infobox for Sparrow Mass, knowing that there is no such restriction (or how should I call it?) for compostions. It was reverted, see history, in a pattern that can be seen also at Peter Planyavsky and Membra Jesu Nostri. In the latter case, I received a discussion about the content of the box on the talk which I found helpful, and I made changes. A good way forward: I believe that discussion is better than reverting and edit war, and I respect the involved editors, see? Happy Easter. (In Leipzig at Bach's time, they celebrated Easter for three days.)

ps: this is the first time that I am an involved party on this page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps II: I miss GFHandel and said so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda, but again, what I am attempting to do is get some outside views of the way a new editor to a page and community, like myself, is being dealt with when they contradict orthodox editing. This is not about infoboxes, it is about the way opponents of infoboxes are acting. It has the effect of driving editors away, in my view, and in some cases investigation and correctional measures may well be needed. I am a totally uninvolved editor, so I saw bringing this to ANI as a moral duty. Your proposal was termed "bad faith" by Kleinzach, which I find unacceptable, and I seek comment and action on that here. Only one editor on the Bach Talk page, a supporter of your proposal, saw fit to speak up against this serious abuse before I did, which got my attention. It may not bother you, but what of someone new to Wikipedia? Really, what kind of editing environment exists at classical music articles? I submit there is room for improvement, based on my statement above. Jusdafax 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax:

1. Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach doesn't show that I'm "a staunch opponent of the infoboxes". For a start, I'm one of the main editors of the article Magnus Carlsen, but I have never complained about the infobox there (or removed it). Like many other editors at the Bach talk page, I'm opposed to some infoboxes because of the reasons listed at WP:COMPOSERS. That's why I have no problem with geographical infoboxes, for instance.
2. I have already commented on the F-word issue by saying that it has to do with WP:CIV.
3. None of what you wrote has to do with WP:OWN. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (I saw the discussion but didn't post). I note that Douay–Rheims Bible, Rennet, Structural engineering and Captain Midnight are lacking infoboxes also. The reason I mention this is that Jusdafax, your comment "This one will have one too, sooner or later" was the kind of comment that - while not deserving the uncouth terms of the "F" response you got, was still not exactly going to win classical music editors to your cause. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • • As an eventualist, the comment I made stands, but it did not deserve the F-word, and when the person hurling it has been blocked 11 times, I'd say there is a problem. Jusdafax 08:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point. "In other words, I discount your argument, becuase I cant, and dont want to, understand it. And f.. you anyway. is how your comment sounded to Ceoil hence his next sentence "sooner or later" is the under current most of the supporters are hinting at, nice that you are so explicit." - he's saying you were in effect saying F. you to others. Yes he deserves a WP:CIVILITY warning. But to be honest even your comment here above "As an eventualist, the comment I made stands" might be worthy of a small baby trout. Do you not see that "This one will have one too, sooner or later" is not a conciliatory or communicative reason? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Uninvolved user here. I'm generally pro-infobox, but don't understand why people get so heated over one. The comment by Ceoil is absolutely unacceptable, and should result in a heavy sanction, given their history in this area (yes, their last block was January 2012, but for such an out of proportion attack, with the user having 4 blocks for personal attacks since whatever discussion overturned the earliest ones in 2008, a block is needed, and a NPA warning is utterly pointless). The second user needs a AGF/NPA warning, but probably little more, based on the evidence here. Nikkimaria has already been dealt with for edit warring, so there's nothing for anyone to do there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is so heated because it became a personal thing which went on for years, 2005 has been mentioned. I am new to the topic, so not yet tired. How do we get to content? For example discuss the content for an infobox Bach, rather than yes or no? Bach is a vital article and deserves one, if you ask me ;) - I generally assume good faith and am speechless when I am not trusted, - thanks to those speaking for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment These discussions on infoboxes are rarely useful and can generate extraordinary responses. [16] The discussions also divert attention from the difficulty in actually producing reasonable content on classical music, which can be a slow process. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks like a forum shopping expedition to me."What I am attempting to do is get some outside views of the way a new editor to a page and community, like myself, is being dealt with when they contradict orthodox editing." This doesn't sound like the same person who wrote: "Infoboxes are standard components to most Wikipedia articles. This one will have one too, sooner or later." Infoboxes "contradict orthodox editing" yet they are standard and every article must have one. Hmm. --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I didn't see "bullying" per the thread title; I did see one intemperate comment from Ceoil from a few days ago. I've asked him to cool his jets. It'd be great if folk could refrain from getting so heated over fairly minor issues like this one and use the normal channels of DR rather than coming here. --John (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bach page is just one example. There's a lot of bullying and it consistently happens (Talk:Robert Stoepel is another recent case). And most of those opposed to infoboxes will consistently bring up that there's no rule for or against them, and that the guideline against them for classical music articles is just a guideline and should be taken on an individual basis....yet if someone puts in a box in good faith it'll be reverted -- here is a good example. "format per WP:Classical music" as an edit summary? Seriously? Not to mention as far as arguments in the talk pages we have this little gem. I'd give a lot more but at this point I've really stopped wanting to waste so much energy on it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • One wonders where bringing WikiProject Biography to bear on these controversies would force a different outcome. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [ec]One? Perhaps you missed this: this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think this ANI is well-taken, I see bullying occurring here quite clearly. I have not been involved at all in either of these two articles, but I have noticed that the anti-infobox "consensus" of these particular wikiprojects is rather odd and in conflict with most of the uses of infobocx person and its variants across wikipedia. As there is a good-faith discussion of whether that consensus SHOULD change, personal attacks on people who weigh in with good faith opinions is not appropriate. Having looked at the diffs and associated talk, there is a clear attempt to run off people who disagree with the "old guard" or even those who attempt to tread a middle ground. The individuals who perpetuated this incivility need some appropriate cautions and warnings. I don't see it as an "off with their heads" sanction, but telling anyone to "f-off" is not the way to handle any dispute. Montanabw^(talk) 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that there POV is more important then there willingness to solve the problem. Many suggestions have been proposed over the years to no avail, resulting in the loss of there own project members and group isolation. Some progress has been made in the wording of there advice page, but despite the communities concerns this is still a problem. Its embarrassing and a waste of time to say the least for all of us who have to explain to people why this small corner of Wikipedia is uninviting and full of conflict.Moxy (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've commented a little previously on this infobox issue. I see it as an unfortunate attempt by a group of truly excellent editors who have otherwise my great respect and admiration, to try to maintain a standard of formatting in their special area that is different from elsewhere it WP. I agree that articles look cleaner without infoboxes. I agree that our current formatting of infoboxes overly highlights them. I hope very much the Wikidata project devises some better way of handling it. But I think there is a general consensus at WP, rightly or wrongly, that all biographical articles should have infoboxes, and I do not think any one project ought to decide otherwise unless they can get a consensus of the entire community. We are a single encyclopedia. The project's primary job should be maintaining the generally excellent quality of the articles in their field, not fighting over formatting. If they try to maintain a special format they will inevitably come into conflict with outsiders, and give the impression of a closed community. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"But I think there is a general consensus at WP,rightly or wrongly, that all biographical articles should have infoboxes." There isn't. In fact, editors have been sanctioned for trying to impose infoboxes on articles by force and bullying [17]. I hope very much the Wikipedia Data project and its associated tag team give up their efforts to own every article on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin, the way your remarks are worded, it sound like you are lumping everyone who is in favour of info boxes into a "tag team". There's similar remarks from other users on the Bach talk page that imply that roving gangs of bullies are going around trying to impose their info-box-will on others. There's lots of individual people who favour info boxes that are not doing so in an attempt to own the place or doing so on behalf of the Wikipedia Data project. Divisive lumping together of people of similar opinions into hypothetical factions is never a good idea, and it's one reason the issue is being discussed on this board. -- Dianna (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Folantin, the way your remarks are worded, it sound like you are lumping everyone who is in favour of info boxes into a 'tag team'." No, I'm not and it doesn't sound that way, not if you read it properly. I'm referring to a small(ish) but highly committed group of editors who try to impose infoboxes on every article. Their reason for doing so, whether they state it or not, boils down to metadata concerns rather than any concern for things like accurate content. They appear on a wide variety of articles on subjects for which they have displayed no prior interest or knowledge. --Folantin (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not part of a group "imposing infoboxes on every article". I explained (on the Bach talk) that I think Bach deserves an infobox because it's a vital article, like Franz Kafka, for example. When I noticed that the thought was not welcome enough I moved on and recommended to archive the discussion. Please stay factual. - Everybody is welcome to add infoboxes to "my" articles, I like structured information for easy access and I don't believe that they are "trivialising" the subject. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one said you were a part of this group. But Andy Mabbett and his Metadata crew is not a figment of my imagination, although some of its members are now either banned [18] or otherwise sanctioned. Mabbett himself has been banned twice for a year by ArbCom for aggrssive behaviour. Most of these infobox debates would benefit massively by his absence. --Folantin (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should be about the incidents mentionened, Bach and Sparrow Mass. I suggested one and inserted the other. Why mention "group" in this context? - See my talk for an 1 April operatic semiseria DYK suggestion (not by me), for a smile, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mabbett features in both those examples as well as in most of the others mentioned in this discussion. --Folantin (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, making reasonable comments, so? - I am on friendly terms with him, with the three editors mentioned in headings below (1, 2, 3), with several others in this thread, - and would like to talk about the facts of a future rather than unpleasant personal experiences of a past that I don't share. I am sorry to disagree with Truthkeeper (in this case), recommending to NOT look at old discussions, but to take a fresh unbiased look at the question if Bach or others should have an infobox, and what it should contain if wanted, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was permanently community-banned from contributing to Featured Article of the Day after a particular nasty infobox imposition incident only last August [19]. He's exhibited the same behaviour for years and shows no sign of stopping....But he's your friend, so OK then. --Folantin (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"shows no sign of stopping" - I don't see that, - also "on friendly terms" and "friend" don't mean the same for me. You show no sign of stopping to talk about people instead of facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that Mabbett has been community-banned and ArbCom-banned over these issues.--Folantin (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've been away for over a week, not logged in once, because I'm sick of these discussions [20] and am more than disgusted at finding this here. That Gerda misses a user and adds that person to a special page [21] and ignores another who has left for the same reason shows the closed community DGG mentions above. I commented at Bach, and yes made edits when my suggestion to tidy the page were ignored,[22], [23], otherwise I've not edited there. These discussions have been raging all over the project and we *are* losing productive content editors because of it. One particularly nasty discussion occurred here, there's another here, one here, another here. Bullying? Yep, there's been bullying for sure. In my view bringing this is AN/I over a single word said by a single editor is beyond shortsighted. But carry on. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As someone who loves classical music, loves working together with other people and abhors incivility: this whole thread saddens me.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have stood back here after initiating this ANI thread and responding to initial comments, but I feel I must respond to Truthkeeper's post, as well as try to begin to wrap this up. I have attempted to make it abundantly clear that this is not about one profane word at one Talk page, but about the nature of the debate on infoboxes in composer and composition articles and the methods used by opposers. That f-word triggered thorough examination of that entire Bach Talk page and the topic as a whole, but I resent being called shortsighted by Truthkeeper (who does agree, along with a number of others, that bullying at classical music articles exists) for bringing the matter to this noticeboard. As I have commented on the Bach talk page, I gave the matter considerable thought. Above all, the fact that I was and am completely uninvolved in this debate and those debating it made me, I continue to feel, an ideal editor to initiate this ANI complaint to bring in fresh eyes to the overall topic of bullying and ownership at classical music articles. I also feel that the fact that I have never initiated a single ANI complaint of any kind previously added weight to my concerns. It may be important at this point to acknowledge that at least one advocate of infoboxes in classical music articles has issues of the his own regarding questionable editing practices. So be it. That a number of other editors have stepped forward to agree that a problem exists has been established. Let's move on from there to the next phase of this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusdafax (talk • contribs) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realise, don't you, that Truthkeeper was referring to what she perceived as bullying by pro-infobox editors? And that she pointed to what she considers to be further examples of it, not in classical musical articles, but in those on literary and historic architecture subjects? Voceditenore (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've arrived here late, and to be frank I'm relieved to have missed most of it. I’ve been accused (inaccurately) of saying that the infobox proposal at Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach was made in ‘bad faith’, though in fact I said was that it was an open question. What I had in mind was SNOW "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted . . . ." Here’s the relevant diff [24]. (The context of my remark was the attempt to close a damaging and unproductive discussion.) I stand by what I wrote there and elsewhere in response to the proposal. Anybody who reads this ANI and still thinks that these discussions are ruled by AGF must be living in cloud cuckoo land. Given the substantial blocks suffered by the leading player in these debates, going back to 2007, good faith is clearly in short supply. Kleinzach 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanctions for Nikkimaria, Ceoli, and Kleinzach

It is established that there is a problem with the methods being used by some opponents to infoboxes in general and these three in particular. I have discussed each editor in the bullet points in my original complaint that started this thread. I call for editor comment on proposed sanctions for the three as a start to make it clear to opponents, and yes, supporters of infoboxes as well. One thing I notice is that none of the three has seen fit to contribute to this discussion to date, much less express contrition. This, in my view, should be a matter of of community concern and response. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jusdafax, I suggest you do your homework before asking for these sanctions. You've dropped into a single conversation, taken offense to a single word, and are apparently fully unaware of more than a year of seriously unacceptable behavior by Pigsonthewing et. al., that's had repercussions in terms of editor retention. The Bach conversation came directly on the heels of another infobox discussion and in the least the timing was bad. It was you who posted beneath my own post on Bach saying there will be an infobox regardless, basically telling me to fuck off. I'm very very tired of this and hope that other uninvolved admins do their homework, look at the many conversations - I can provide more diffs if someone posts a request on my page - and takes a good long hard look at what's really happening. Furthermore in terms of looking for contrition and responses, might be a good idea to look at editors' editing patterns to see how often and when they edit before asking for sanctions less than 24 hours after a single comment was dropped on a page. In my view you're fueling a fire that's best let alone and I strongly suggest you withdraw these proposals and let this thread be archived. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed block of Ceoil

For his profane f-word greeting to my initial greeting to my initial post at the J.S. Bach talk page, as well as other highly questionable editing behavior found on the Bach talk page, I propose a block. This block is preventative, not punitive. To date, Ceoil has received a lukewarm warning on his talkpage, with no contrition expressed or indeed response of any kind. Again, this editor has amassed 11 blocks for unacceptable editing in the past, which must be factored into my concerns. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed strong warning or additional block for Administrator Nikkimaria

A 24 hour block for the edit warring and tendentious editing outlined above is not enough. Administrators must exhibit the highest standards of community trust; when they edit in demonstrated bad faith, a serious problem exists. Here again, no contrition has been demonstrated, to my knowledge. This suggests an intractable admin with a pov issue that needs to be dealt with by the community, and not just by a 24 hour block that the admin can then scrub from their Talk page and go on their way. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the user in question warned before they made their fourth revert? Also this happened 5 days ago thus a little old. And the users who were attempting to add the content into the article managed to do so per [25] and without consensus on the talk page [26]. Typically it is the person attempting to add new content who should get consensus before it is added not the other way around. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The admin in question was blocked (24 hours) for that episode. The "warning" was a diff to this conversation. Unless I'm mistaken, the OP here is asking for an (additional) longer block for the offense she'd already been blocked for. Voceditenore (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence of any "admin abuse". Nikkimaria did not use her admin tools in the dispute(s). --Folantin (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC is thataway. --Rschen7754 17:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed warning for Kleinzach

To submit that a proposal for an infobox, made in civil language and with proper formatting and knowledge of the subject is in "bad faith," is unacceptable, and cannot be allowed to stand. At least one other editor has provided an additional complaint diff above; I suggest a strong warning on Kleinzach's Talk page to discourage this sort of attack-editing in the future. Jusdafax 08:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No sanctions. Some other admin may feel free to warn editors more sternly. Personally, I think that Ceoil's "Fuck you" came way too out of the blue, and if you agree you might feel inclined to leave some diplomatic words of your own on their talk page. But here's the thing. Some of you are some of the best editors around. There's at least a half a dozen names in the conversation above and the discussion on the article talk page--wait, maybe a dozen--of some of the finest editors I know producing some of the finest content we have. In y'all's capacity as editors, I look up to you. In y'all's capacity as human beings, you may not be as bad as I am, but you're not perfect either, that's clear as well. There's bad blood here, judging from some of the article talk page comments (there's mention of teams, of ownership, etc), but blocks are only going to make that worse. As an admin (admittedly not of the same detached and calm temperament as some others), I do not think that the (admittedly poor) behavior (of some) is blockworthy. Will you please work this out some other way? You're setting a terrible example for the kids. Sorry, I'd speechify more, but a student came in and we're talking Paradise Lost. Good luck to you all, and may you write your content cooperatively and in peace. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Torture rollie to death should be blocked. It has a "blocked" notice on its user page, but it doesn't look as though the block has actually been made. 60.234.54.146 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's showing as Globally Locked, so it's more than a block at this point. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, we don't all know these things. 60.234.54.146 (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about how this works.

• User groups shows "blocked".[27]
• Blocked users shows no blocks.[28]
• User Contributions shows no edits.[29]
• SUL Info shows 2 edits and says "blocked", but clicking on the blocked link shows no blocks.[30]
• Global user contributions shows 0 contributions found in 0 projects (856 projects scanned).[31]

So, is the user blocked? If so, where is that logged? Did the user make 0 edits or 2? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are blocked. The discrepancies are likely due to block being revdel'ed and their two edits also being revdel'ed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special:BlockList shows the account as blocked - spaces in usernames are represented by plus signs, not underscores. Peter James (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<redacted> was referenced in today's XKCD (although he just gave a hint) and IP editors are starting to vandalize the page. Could we semiprotect it for a day or two? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That XKCD strip has been there since yesterday (April Fool's Day) and will be replaced before too long, and there's only been one bad edit to the article so far - I don't think we need protection against such low-level activity. Also, I've redacted the name of the article and will rev delete it - announcing it here on one of our most widely-read boards is only likely to increase its exposure (admins can see the rev deleted version in case they disagree with me and think it needs protection) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, checking further, the edit in question was from February 2011, so it's not related to the XKCD strip anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research and found this: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1193 key point: "...on a varying Wikipedia page (so far: Technology, Research, Sith, Jean Luc Picard, Aer Lingus, Human sexual activity, Auction, Sinking of the Titanic, Guards with the most complicated knives, Bizarro, Map, 24-hour analog dial, Berlin Hauptbahnhof, Centrifugal Force, McDuck, Maryland Route 147, Interplanetary Transfer Network..." So the page I saw could have been another page if I had tried a few minutes later. I think I will wait a couple of days and then check what links to all 100 NASDAQ-100 companies and repair any obvious recent vandalism. Weird that the page that happened to be referenced when I checked had a bogus NASDAQ-100 name for a satellite network with a citation to a slinky article, but as you say that bit of vandalism has been there a while. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good. In that linked Slinky story, there was actually a mention of satellite-tracking by the delivery company (though there was indeed no reference to the named NASDAQ-100 company) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The companies' websites mention the use of the system by the delivery company, but not for satellite tracking (although that is an application available for the system). The 2011 edit looks like original research, or omission of a citation, rather than vandalism. The recent self-reverted IP edit is probably related to XKCD. Peter James (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block this repeat offender please? They've been adding gobs of self-serving unreferenced material to House of Frankopan and made a legal threat against me previously; as soon as someone unblocked them when they apparently withdrew it, their tirade at the article continued unabated. They've never, to my knowledge, engaged in anything resembling the normal editorial process, and my patience is thoroughly exhausted. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't notified the user of this discussion. Also I don't see any evidence of any attempt to engage the user in conversation, there's nothing on the article talk page or on the user's talk page. Canterbury Tail talk 12:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, notified now.

They've been the topic of conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#User:Official Lists (of which they were notified) and their problematic behavior is extensively documented at Talk:House of Frankopan - another user actually mentioned them by name over there back in September 2012. I'm not sure how we can engage someone in conversation when they're edit warring for months and making legal threats. Per WP:BRD, the onus is on them to engage in conversation - it's their bold edits that have been reverted. Over and over again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that I omitted one thing - they've never really responded to the queries of anyone who complained; there's just a flurry of assorted assumptions of bad faith, "libellous information and reports by gossip", "personal problems", "a slur", "lies and insults, based on some personal grudge". They've utterly failed at WP:AGF ages ago, we'd be silly to keep assuming the same of them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did Canterbury Tail even read your original post? It clearly states that the troublesome user had made a legal threat against you in the past. That tells me this has been an ongoing problem that has been discussed in the past, which kind of makes the "attempts to engage the user in conversation" statement invalid, particularly if they've been threatening you. I would be a very happy person if people here would stop obsessing over silly trifles and take the time to read and think about posts before brusquely replying with "you didn't notify" or "it doesn't look like you tried to talk to them", or some other perceived procedural oversight. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy so let's all quit treating it like one? Please? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read it. The user was blocked indefinitely before, and then unblocked when they agreed to retract the threat which they did. Since the block was lifted the user has made no threats, and in fact has made no edits other than their edits to the articles. Since the unblock happened there has been no discussions on the pages in question that the edit wars are about (it is an editing dispute at this point) and no attempt to engage the editor since that time on why their edits may be considered unacceptable. The article edits since the unblock have absolutely nothing to do with the threats made before the original block and also nothing to do with the block (blocked for legal threats) and shouldn't be considered as such if you check the user in question's edit history. The only interaction from anyone to this user since their unblock has been teh reverting of their edits with zero explanation, not even a comment in an edit summary as to why the edits are unacceptable (sorry there was a single comments in a revert consisting of "rv Official Lists whitewashing and puffery yet again". So yes attempts need to be made to engage this user now and don't appear to be being made. If the user is to be considered for a block again then some kind of interaction is necessary for good faith, and to prove they are being uncooperative. Just saying they made threats in the past and are now editing again after their block was isn't sufficient to issue a block. Canterbury Tail talk 19:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, how can you possibly say that their edits have "absolutely nothing to do with the threats" when they're a repetition of the exact same pattern of editing and the exact same content dispute? And by "content dispute" I really just mean their egregious POV pushing that they have consistently engaged in for months or years now, never actually discussing their problematic changes on the article Talk page. What possible additional proof that they are being uncooperative do we need other than their consistent lack of cooperation? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the latest round, they wrote:

This entry has (again!) been corrected as there are some factual errors. For example, a certain Ivan Mirnik is supposed to have 'confronted' Ingrid Frankopan although I hear from her she has never met Mirnik. Lpuis Frankopan was not 'ejected' from any org

So Ingrid Frankopan is someone they "hear from" - apparently the issue is WP:COI. How many more policies does this person have to violate before they're blocked? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the latest batch of edits I've rolled back - they should be self-explanatory, but just in case I'll explain: the removal of references to the dispute about the status of this modern-day family as descendents of the Frankopans is egregiously biased. The cited article is a secondary source of much greater weight than the self-published geneaology web sites; it was published by the Croatian daily Jutarnji list, which is a reliable source when reporting about mainstream Croatian affairs. If Jutarnji list says there's an issue with X in Croatia, there's no doubt whatsoever that there's an issue with X in Croatia. We can haggle about the details, but removing the entire notion is blatant censorship/whitewashing. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that there is an editing issue with their edits, the point I'm trying to make is this hasn't gone through the paces to require administrative action at this point. You say their edits are COI, yet I see nothing on their talk page trying to explain that to them. There is no engagement on the users edits on their talk page whatsoever. No COI explanations, no reliable source clarifications just the odd boilerplate warning. So try and engage the user, explain to them on their talk why their edits don't work. If they continue a pattern of I'm Not Listening at a later point then maybe administrator action will be required then, but not now.

I also note that no other administrators are willing to get involved in this conversation, and while I can't speak for their motivations there must be a reason. I just don't see anything for an administrator to get involved with at this point and with the lack of engagement no one wants to spend their time going through all the user in question's edits to figure out what is happening.

So my advice is to engage them on their talk page and not to continue what is an edit war. If the user is uncooperative and you've tried the traditional means of interacting with them, then come back with diffs indicating the problematic behaviour and someone will undoubtedly take steps. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the entire "contribution" of this user already screams "I'm Not Listening". Please do read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive779#User:Official_Lists that I've linked above, where no less than three other admins expressed grave concerns about them. They haven't really interacted with anyone, those few messages left at User:FactStraight's talk page weren't communication so much as violation of WP:AGF - I've already linked to them and quoted them. Those links are to diffs that demonstrate their problematic behaviour. The link to Talk:House of Frankopan demonstrates their problematic behaviour - they're not talking about their edits despite the fact other users complained extensively about it. The history of the House of Frankopan article shows you their edit summaries:

The accurate version can be substantiated by documents, Please leave this now. - WP:V, WP:OWN violations

For example, a certain Ivan Mirnik is supposed to have 'confronted' Ingrid Frankopan although I hear from her she has never met Mirnik. - misreading of referenced material, WP:COI

Lpuis Frankopan was not 'ejected' from any org - WP:V violation

Legal action is being taken against the person who edited this section on 16 Dec 2012 as the changes are untrue or defamatory. - WP:LEGAL violation for which they've been blocked

The only other edit summary they left (most of the time they left none) was

Undid revision 511733043 by AnomieBOT (talk)

So while edit-warring with everyone else, they've also edit-warred with a bot. *facepalm*

Trying to engage this user in discussion is like trying to tilt windmills here - they've reverted FactStraight in September 2012 [32][33][34] and they're now reverting me, but nothing's really changed - they're still adding the same set of fringe theories to an article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this user (Glemmens1940) from interaction at the Dutch WP and now we are clashing here too. Today, after a bit of edit warring about the article that he wrote about his father, I decided to AfD it. His reply was this. At first, I just read is as a personal attack. At a second read (when replying) I noticed What he does not realize is that Cyber Bullying is an offence in the U.K.! I think Scotland yard should be informed as Wikipedia English speaking page is in danger at present ? Is that a legal threat or is it that I am overly itchy for mr. Lemmens. The Banner talk 10:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(non admin) It's hyperbole. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(admin) Agreed. And I will add, if you "know each other" from the Dutch Wikipedia and are coming here to battle, it's probably not going to end well for either of you. AfDing an article about the guy's father is getting pretty personal. If you've had previous conflict with this guy, it would be wise to avoid it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrianus Johannes Lemmens. There are serious issues with that article. And I don't shy away when somebody gets aggressive, but I try to restrict my own hothead and stay polite and to the point. The Banner talk 12:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't question that. But you should probably not have been the one to AfD it. And looking at your interventions on his talk page, I can see where he's coming from. Stay away from each other, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree Wehwalt. This kind of logic leads to gaming. "Well he can't nom my articles, I don't like him." It is what it is. Let the AFD run and indef Glemmens1940 if there are any other significant issues. Personally, I'd block for that, but the developing consensus is that it's hyperbole.--v/r - TP 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indef him? So casually as that? Really.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clemmens1940 accused TheBanner of a crime and threatened to call the police. Cut and dry legal threat. How many "Well this is libel and I'm calling my lawyer"s have we blocked? This line comes to play on WP:NLT: "It severely inhibits free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral." Your own comments "But you should probably not have been the one to AfD it" shows that free editing is inhibited. It's not a casual indef, it's a very serious indef.--v/r - TP 13:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand my point. The Banner admitted to edit warring. He then came here, after leaving ill-advised warning notices on the talk page of another editor he was in conflict with across two wikipedias, to try to get action taken against that editor. The AfD (which seems to be failing) was ill-advised simply because him doing it was unlikely to lower tension levels. Had he asked for the advice of an uninvolved, neutral admin before doing it (preferably letting the admin file the AfD), I'd have no quarrel. You are seizing on one aspect of the conflict and ignoring all else.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your read is completely different then mine. I see 3 reverts on Adrianus_Johannes_Lemmens to restore maintenance tags which is short of the bright line. Editors shouldn't be removing COI tags (although he used the wrong template) when they have a COI. The warnings were not ill-advised, they were appropriate. The AFD has two keep !votes from two significant contributors and one uninvolved editor while 4 other uninvolved editors comments suggest to delete (plus the nom makes 5). Emeraude's comment seems to have influenced others and that influence suggests the AFD leans delete despite a !vote count (which is still 4-3 in favor of delete). You seem to think that conflict requires editors to avoid each other. I don't.--v/r - TP 13:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did three reverts to restore the maintenance templates, that is true. Robotje did the same twice. Removal of the templates was done by an IP (once), Glemmens1940 (twice) and Menke66 (twice). Five times up and five times down. That is in my opinion an editwar, although nobody went over the limit. The Banner talk 13:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite the same as "Well this is libel and I'm calling my lawyer" since he didn't explicit say he would. I would suggest someone warn him about making what could be inferred to be a legal threat. He is apparently not aware himself: "I have pointed out that Cyber Bullying is an offence in the U.K. which you do not seem to be aware off? Your actions on this web site could be detrimental to Wikipedia Eng., i think or am I not allowed by you to point this out ??? I have not threatened you directly in my opinion." People filling his page with automatic text doesn't really help. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think "I think Scotland yard should be informed" is a threat.--v/r - TP 14:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those unfamiliar with the UK, Scotland Yard is the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police in London. In simple terms, the threat was implied to be "I'm going to call the police unless this page changes." And yup, that's a pretty clear threat. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By now it is seriously escalating, as I got the same threat by private e-mail (not the mail-address connected to my account). It isn't that hard to find my name and website, but it is not funny. But as far as I know, that is out of the reach of Wikipedia. The Banner talk 18:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Editors have been indeffed for less obvious legal threats than this one. And this one was very obvious, in fact it was spelled out straight. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it is a legal threat. It should be retracted or there should be a block. Whether theBanner was also acting badly is a separate quesion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There was a legal threat, and I will also add that the threat was intentional. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

I don't think it is a legal threat. Threatening to phone the cops is not the same thing as threatening to phone your lawyer. -- Dianna (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it is. Both imply legal action.--v/r - TP 18:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think threatening to call the cops is worse than threatening to call your lawyer and should be dealt with more swiftly and harshly. Ryan Vesey 18:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is no way that collegial editing is possible while that threat remains. Sperril (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(non admin) I don't believe this is a legal threat just a hot headed reacting to something like wiki-hounding which we do not allow. I also think that Glemmens1940 is telling us all that the harassment is not acceptable by Wikipedia's standards and that this is not juast a wikipedia only rule, it is a real world legal rule, similar to say copyright. Another point to consider that if Wikihounding is illegal, it must be stop and letting TheBanner continue this will leave him exposed to legal action without a legal threat. While we do not condone legal threats we also cannot accept illegal behavior especially when it is forbidden by WP:Harassment.

That said, I went through a similar experience last month during the AfD the The Banner started on the article I foolishly wrote about my mother for soe Glam Projects so I have some insight to this matter. Nominating articles on family members is a sure way to provoke another user especially when you also insult and mutilate these articles in the process instead of letting the AfD go its course.

Anyhow, in the spirit of good faith and to clear any bad blood between me and The Banner, I offer my services to broker a peaceful and neutral resolution to your conflict with Glemmens1940. If you promise to abide by my recommendations, avoid harassing Glemmens1940 and abide by the Wikipedia's code of civility I will broker a solution that will allow you to both enjoy editing here. BO | Talk 22:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to try it, but to be true, I don't believe in it. On NLWP, not even de ArbCom could persuade him to behave friendly and polite. But we can always try! The Banner talk 22:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, does it mean that Glemmens1940 would have to avoid harassing me on and off wikipedia, has to abide your recommendations and has to abide by the Wikipedia's code of civility? The Banner talk 22:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not interested in mediation by a sockpuppeteer, with a sock created to attack my work on Wikipedia. Especially, when you will try to use the mediation to keep me at bay and save an article. The Banner talk 23:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Glemmens1940 won't be annoyed to hear you broke our gentlemen's agreement after less then an hour ? It looks like you no longer consider this as a credible threat. I hope you are not trying to provoke him further ?

Think back about Talk:Aan_de_Poel we worked the issues out then just you me and Tony1. I was taugh but I was also fair ? I promise that it will be no worse than that discussion!

Again my good faith offer stands I will make the legal threats go away, end harassment and get you both to agree to abide by the code of civility. With just the three of us no ArbCom required and no drama, no lawyers and no police, just wiki-love all around? And as a bonus I will give you a tip on how to avoid a SPI yourself as part of my service. But this time I will have to ask you to commit to mediation at least until the AdD is over before all the admins here at ANI. BO | Talk 01:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your good faith stands? Really???] The Banner talk 10:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't harassment just because Glemmens1940 calls it so. As far as I can see, no Wikihouding or harassment has taken place by The Banner. Glemmens1940 is alleging harassment to avoid scrutiny. It's part of the pathetic attempt to have a chilling effect on The Banner. No amount of brokerage is going to save that article and Glemmens seems to care more about his memorial than building an encyclopedia.--v/r - TP 22:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you say. But if they have been to ArbCom then there was a pretty big feud and it is time to end it. BO | Talk 01:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When two editors are in conflict, I wholeheartedly reject the idea that both share equal or even any responsibility. This is a case of an editor (Glemmens) who wants a memorial for his father and has lied about awards he has received to meet notability guidelines. When confronted, he's restored to name calling and claims of harassment. That's a cut and dry disruptive user and The Banner bears no obligation to take any responsibility for that.--v/r - TP 13:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not involved in the Dutch Arbcom-case at all.(Template:Nl [35]). The Banner talk 13:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Oren Bochman (BO) is just out from a block for creating a sockpuppet whose intent was to start retaliatory AfDs and act against The Banner, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OrenBochman/Archive. He was not able to solve his problems with The Banner in a civil way and he is now offering a not required service of mediator between The Banner and another editor? Seriously?? His offer cannot be taken seriously and it would be wise that he stay away from The Banner. Cavarrone (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-block rants/outing

Glemmens1940 has just come off a block relating to the above and seems to have decided to scorched-earth his talk page. He's now listing "Wikipedia bullies" (including me, though we have previously worked together on other articles - basically just everyone who has !voted delete at his father's article's AFD). It looks like he has outed at least one person there and at said AFD. Needs to be sorted urgently. Stalwart111 14:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of removing any lists that he's made of Wikipedia "cyber bullies" — which are, frankly, little more than large-scale personal attacks. It's worth keeping an eye on User:Glemmens1940/sandbox, where he is repeating the same content. Worth speedy deleting, in my opinion. – Richard BB 14:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's also posted this on various editors' talk pages. Undoing it now and requesting an immediate indef for him and revdel of any outing. – Richard BB 14:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TParis beat me to the block; I'll look at the revdels. Writ Keeper (t + c) 14:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Writ. I'd have rather you did it since I already commented in the AFD and I didn't want to run afoul of involved, but I felt this was a no brainer and I didn't see any other sysops on it yet.--v/r - TP 14:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I'd say that you're right: it is a no-brainer. Good block. – Richard BB 14:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly matters, TParis: outing is outing, a clear exception to WP:INVOLVED. If you feel the need, though, say three Hail Jimbos as your penance; I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Jimbo, the Arbcom, and the Holy Cabal. (Also, I think I've revdeled everything and forwarded the mess to oversight; if anyone would like to double-check to make sure I got everything, I wouldn't take it amiss.) Writ Keeper (t + c) 14:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of you can look into the possibility of range-blocking socky IPs of Paramsinghantaal (talk · contribs)--you'll find a couple of them in the history of Talk:Banda Singh Bahadur. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting a CU I've blocked 117.214.212.0/22 for a while. See if that makes any difference. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I am doing this right or if this is the right place but on March 30 MNdude11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started adding links to indianbackpacker.com to articles. I removed them as some were slipped in as references where they weren't actually references[36][37] and others seemed like advertisements [38]. The next day Jimmyhow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started adding links to the same website in the same fashion. When I removed those Akshayindian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reversed all my edits and added them back. These are the only edits Akshayindian has ever made. Should these links be removed or am I in the wrong here? Helpsome (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You have done well. Akshayindian (talk · contribs) is now indef-blocked as a spam-only account; I'm looking into the other. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• MNDude and Jimmyhow are doing similar things, but while Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TRICENTIS Technology & Consultingame (MNdude) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Backlinks Fans (Jimmyhow) are on roughly similar topics, they are sufficiently different (prose style, referencing) that I don't think they're the same editor. It is possible, of course, that Akshay is a sock of one of those--that's hard to judge given their limited edits. You could file an SPI, but I don't know if the evidence is strong enough for this not to be considered a fishing expedition (with or without backpack) involving CU. I've warned Jimmyhow about their spam links and will do the same for the MNdude. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

50.53.149.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) has issued a legal threat against WMF on my talk page. Can a sysop look into this as soon as possible? —DragonLord^{(talk/contribs)} 16:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Communications is shown as the NetName in the WHOIS. Dunno if this'll help but it's just there in case it does. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 17:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the ISP. Frontier's customer is the individual or company making the threat. GabrielF (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-Mailing WMF Legal as we speak. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 17:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bad feeling we're going to need an Office action on Breyer State University... —DragonLord^{(talk/contribs)} 17:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has contact with this user, just ask them to email legal-at-wikimedia.org. That's the correct way to handle things like these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i already E-Mailed Legal with regards to the threat pointing them to Dragon's user page and this ANI thread. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 17:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they need to be notified, but I think it's an idle threat. First, the message claims to come for a representive of the accrediting agency, but seems from the other wording to be representing the interests of the university. What's more, it admits the university is "in process of acquiring accreditation", which means that it is still unaccredited, just as the article says. It further claims the original article was written by ceo's of competing organization--i.e., other for-profit distance education colleges. However, almost all the content here has been contributed by well-kownn wp editors editing a variety of topics, ; the original one-line article saying nothing about its accreditation status was contrib by an i.p. in the days when that was possible; all possibly negative information has seen repeated attempts at removal first by an editor named "Bsuinfosys" until they were blocked, and then by a variety of ip addresses. Pending any further office action, I'm full-protecting for 3 days. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the seriousness of the threat, and thus the point of having them contact Legal directly. That's what separates the wheat from the chaff. If they're not going to send formal notice, then there's nothing to worry about here beyond the routine "omg lawsuit" screed that can be dealt with in the usual manner. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can an administrator extend the block on 50.53.149.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in light of the legal threat and use the {{subst:Uw-lblock}} template? —DragonLord^{(talk/contribs)} 19:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the article is littered with sockpupptery and attempts at astroturfing/whitewashing [39]. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 14:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI filed [40]. Also, I noticed that one of the SAP socks was blocked in 2008 also for legal threats. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also made it to reddit. 50.198.13.161 (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block of User:WoodSnake

We need to strongly protect our editors from those who are disruptive and make threatening legal remarks against them as done here [42]. Stating that it is 1) cyber-stalking and 2) borderline (or not) illegal to review his students edits is bizarre and shows a lack of competence. I propose and indefinite ban until the WMF, the community and he come to an appropriate agreement on if and how he is allowed to continue editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a solution - The user's editing hasn't been problematic, generally. His real-world guidance has been causing issues, and a block doesn't help in any way about that. Preventing him from editing serves absolutely no purpose, and runs the risk of alienating him and/or complicating discussions. We're trying to engage in dialogue but propose to block him from editing? I'm pretty sure there has been some preliminary agreement earlier in the discussion that the specific post referenced here wasn't exactly a violation of WP:NLT, and even if it was eventually considered as such, a warning and suggestion to reword would be a highly preferable course of action. I am not endorsing anything specific he has said or done, but a block doesn't solve anything and is potential for more trouble. Of course, that's open to change if further things are said that cleanly cross a line. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what a block would accomplish here. He's not using the WoodSnake account for much of anything and he already knows that the community is displeased. I think its more important at this point that the lines of communication are open so that the issue can be resolved civilly. GabrielF (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Present/WikiPsych (Steve Joordens) lists four Campus Ambassadors. Any chance one of them might be able to help? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are from a year ago. Not sure if they are still active. Contacted them previously. Few edits either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose:I'm sure there is a problem with the editor's understanding and use of Wikipedia. However blocking is not the solution. I've worked with outreach programmes, I'm sure with a little tact and patience, this professor would be an asset to Wikipedia. The local chapter ought to take a lead in the matter. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was he made aware of wp:NLT? His suggestion of control group seems pretty scientific. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Wikipedia is a website. We do not use our policies, which are not graven in stone, to affect how people act in the real world. This should be left to the office. As should the pedophile matter elsewhere on this page, IMO. In his statement, what he said, at least on the surface, seems reasonable btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Blocking could jeopardize working this out via lines of communication and since he has not proceeded with any legal action, nor threatened to pursue it (just that he thinks possibly someone might have (or might not have) broken a law which we obviously know did not happen), he himself hasn't vandalized or plagiarized anything, and he hasn't indicated that he will in the future. Blocks are to be preventative, not punitive, so I fail to see how one would help in this case. Go Phightins! 10:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This will create more problems than it solves. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure so simply letting him continue editing will give the impression that the community does not have an serious issue with his class editing in the style they are and "under the radar". A partial analysis of his classes edits has been done and the amount of plagiarism is significant. This further analysis he proposes is not need as we already have two years of data.

He in fact agreed to stop editing which is why we did not pursue things a year ago. With respect to comparing his students to another group of new editors I have dealt with lots of new edits and not seen rates of plagiarism this great. He students sort of stand out as they frequently add refs to behind the U of T's firewall. It is hard not to notice a pattern. Unsure what "problems" people see blocking him as making? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Time out Our objective should be to make sure that this doesn't happen again, and to do so with the minimum of drama. There are currently actions being taken by the WMF and the Education board. Can't we give them a chance to solve the problem? I propose that we give this a couple of weeks and then reactivate the matter if it hasn't been solved. We could name a group of editors who are responsible for doing that -- I'm willing to be one of them. (I'm the one who first brought up the new problems on the Education Noticeboard.) Looie496 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointless A user who almost never edits Wikipedia causes some problems for Wikipedia in real life, and we suggest to block him? It's not that I'm opposed to a block, I just don't see what difference it would make. If someone created WP:DONQUIXOTE, it would apply here.Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a thread on Jimbo Wales' talk page today, Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) accused a living person of "trafficking in child pornography". Another user removed the accusations as a BLP violation, and then DC reverted him multiple times to keep the allegations on the page. No evidence to support his claims about this individual is present on Jimbo's page. (DC maintains that evidence to support his claim is available on another website.) I believe that his claims about this person constitute a BLP violation and should be removed. Also, our page on Wikipedia:Child Protection notes that "Reports of editors engaging in [inappropriate] conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussion", so making allegations against this individual on a highly trafficked page is inappropriate for that reason as well. So rather than continue to edit war at Jimbo's page, I've brought the issue here for some more perspective. Feel free to tell me if I'm overreacting. Thanks in advance, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Diff? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I've been watching the palaver. DC seems to have been using Jimbo's page as a soapbox for articles on Wikipediocracy for a while. I'm surprised that Jimbo hasn't told them to go away yet but, yes, this instance certainly crosses the line of what is acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another watcher and generally agree with Sitush. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd just like to point out that in the (redacted) blog post in question, I am quoting what the subject himself has said about these incidents. If we were discussing a Wikipedia article, this would not be a BLP issue. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Every time you post a link to Wikipediocracy, I see a shovel throwing more dirt out of a hole. I never look at the links but the hole seems to be getting deeper. If your concerns are so vital then email ArbCom or Jimbo directly. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC, BLP requires high quality RS, do you have those citations? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sitush, I have emailed ArbCom and Jimbo about my concerns. I notified ArbCom about my latest blog post some days ago. I didn't even get an acknowledgement that they were discussing it. ArbCom has been actively ducking this responsibility for some time now. I had hoped the new Arbs would turn things around, but I see no evidence that this will happen. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The relevant policy is quite clear, there's nothing there that says it's Ok to publicly air concerns about child protection issues if you don't have faith in Arbcom. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd strongly support removing the thread immediately from Jimbo's talk page. I already tried and various users have reverted me. DC has already agreed to not post a link to the off-wiki article on the subject (see User talk:Worm That Turned#Wikipediocracy), so I don't think any consequences are necessary (as they would be purely punitive rather than preventive). But, the thread on Jimbo's talk page should go away, and any evidence to support the allegations should be sent privately through the proper channels for investigation and enforcement. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 23:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least three admins have participated in that discussion, not to mention a WMF representative. Just saying. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Simple Let Jimbo handle it. Anything lower than Arbcom is just going to be warred over and controversial. Jimbo has all of the powers to deal with it.--v/r - TP 23:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, except there is not evidence there that Jimbo is available. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to note that as soon as I saw the thread I tried to remove it and reported it to the oversight team, who earlier today informed me that they were discussing it. Since the thread keeps getting restored, I have removed the editor's name where it appeared as the editor self-identifies on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We (ArbCom) are aware of this, though our collective response has been somewhat delayed (it has been a holiday weekend for many of us). Delicious carbuncle, you were (it seems) aware of this back in 2010. Why you are demanding an instant response now in 2013 is not clear. Please stop posting on-wiki about this and contact us again by e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Carcharoth, what am I supposed to email you about? I already sent you a link to the blog post some days ago. If you need more details, feel free to contact me. You have my email. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm going to try one more time. We are volunteers, like everyone else here. We don't jump at your beck and call. Yes, we got your e-mail. No, we don't always immediately acknowledge the e-mails, but we have been discussing this (among other things), including some relevant material from earlier discussions, and things are (slowly) moving to a conclusion. You don't need to be so impatient that you jump all over Wikipedia about this. An second e-mail saying that you wanted an acknowledgement would almost certainly have got a response (if a somewhat terse one). We can't just take action because you demand it, we have to deliberate and make sure we aren't being rushed into anything. What is certain is that you don't need to be able to edit Wikipedia to alert us or anyone else about these things. Carcharoth (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess the burning question here is why is this this being discussed on a website instead of the appropriate authorities being notified? I mean, if there is evidence, which judging from the very specific accusations I assume is the case? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that both DC and TDA have reached 3 reverts. Both have been warned that if they continue further they are liable to be blocked. (DC said he's not edit warring, but that's his misunderstanding of the EW) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As I noted on my talk page, removing claims of this kind about an editor is not subject to the normal rules on reverting.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not your call to make, so kindly learn your place in the future. Many people watch Jimbo's talk page and if someone truly though the discussion needed to be obliterated, then it would have been oversighted long before now. Tarc (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, and as I noted on you talk page and above, there is no BLP issue since I am merely quoting the editor's own words about the incident in question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless of who's right here, I'd strongly advise against continuing to edit war. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can some one explain why links to Wikipediocracy are been rev-deleted? It isn't on the blacklist despite the valiant efforts of Scottywong, and the current blog post is completely innocuous. What's the policy-based rationale for removing the link? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Very good. Try scrolling down a little on the main page. I still see the BLP issue in question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help if you speak more plainly about what the problem is. Scrolling down a little more shows the intro to the previous blog entry in question, not the entire thing. I guess BLP-violating material is 1 click away from that, is that the criteria being applied now? How deep does such material have to be in order for one to link to the main URL of the website now? Tarc (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm somewhat active on the BLP noticeboard and quite familiar with that policy. What is "the BLP issue"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The doxing and association with child pornography is visible from the two-paragraph blurb. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Cause, being technical idiots, Wikipedians can't figure out how to suffix "Wikipediocracy" with the most widely used tld; therefore must have stupid revert wars over it. NE Ent 00:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarifying a few points. Delicious carbuncle is free to e-mail ArbCom as much as he wants (what he shouldn't have been doing is posting about this on-wiki). We will do our best to deal with such concerns, but due to the very nature of a committee with a large workload and a certain degree of inertia, we are almost always unable to respond rapidly. In this case, as I've said above, it seems that Delicious carbuncle had concerns as early as 2010. Why it took another three years to get to this point, I don't know. Though ArbCom have not been much better at handling such things. I've been looking through some old discussions, and a former arbitrator (who was an arbitrator at the time) raised similar concerns to those of Delicious carbuncle back in 2009 (citing a diff that dates from 2007). For some reason, things were not discussed properly back then. Once I'd pointed out this diff from 2007 (cited in the 2009 discussion), more attention has been paid to the issue. This reinforces the point several arbitrators have made in the past that ArbCom really shouldn't be dealing with this sort of thing. It needs to be reported to those with the resources to deal with it properly (i.e. the WMF or law enforcement). Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There didn't seem to be much of a time issue in dealing with me recently. I know you're all busy now though, so I'll go deal with the unnamed user myself. Kevin (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not surprised that members of ArbCom are reluctant to have this thrust upon them as they will be unequipped to deal with the issue properly. If someone reports a problem on flickr it takes between 3-5 working days to get a response, sometimes longer. If the issue is something like child protection then the response is less than 24hrs never longer, and often less than 12hrs. That's not to say that action is always taken within that timeframe as it may need law enforcement to become involved, and evidence collected. But that isn't the case here. The WMF should come up to the plate and stop claiming that everything is not their problem. John lilburne (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been pointed out before that Arbcom is poor choice for dealing with such issues and WMF should be doing it. But it is also obvious that status quo won't change unless Arbcom actually forces issue. If privately WMF remains uncooperative then matter should be raised publicly with community. Considering WMF's personel and budget, they have no real excuse for leaving such issues on community's shoulders.--Staberinde (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Block and ban User:Delicious carbuncle

proposal has been withdrawn by original requestor as it was based on incorrect information. --B (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The editor in question has disrupted Wikipedia for far too long and (it feels like s/he has) caused probably half the drama at ANI over the past few months. Jimbo's written that (redacted, per discussion elsewhere), DC has been edit warring in two places today alone. Coupled with the blatant off-Wiki personal attacks which DC proudly authors, it is high time we realise s/he is NOTHERE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC) (edits on 11:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC))[reply] Support as initiator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] As my most grievous cause for this proposal was groundless, I am redacting that issue completely and withdrawing my own support. I still strongly suggest that DC avoid multiple reverts except in clear cut cases of vandalism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Support Site Ban (edit conflict) Per the obvious reasons. Someone who uses WP: SOAPBOXING to promote an Anti-Wikipedian blog used to harbor personal attacks is someone who is not WP: HERE to build an encyclopedia. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Jimbo is perfectly capable of deciding what constitutes SOAPBOXING and what constitutes raising serious and legitimate issues on his talk. If you really wanted to ban people for SOPABOXING on Jimbo's talk page, half the Wikipedia and certainly most of the ANI drama mongers would be banned by now. Cut the hypocrisy please. This is just a continuation of the anti-Wikipediocracy witch hunt by a small group of off-the-wall zealots, which has already failed in several other venues (i.e. another form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Wikipediocracy.com.Volunteer Marek 00:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose per "it's an idiotic and petty proposal".Volunteer Marek 00:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Neutral - I'm concerned that DC decided to post a direct link (now revdeleted) to his blog post which contains a lot of personal information about an editor; information that was not previously divulged on-wiki (including accusations of distributing child pornography). Note that this is the exact same behavior that lead to Cla68 being indef blocked recently (and he remains blocked today). I'm not sure whether DC was trying to increase the viewership of WPO, or just promote the blog post he wrote, but whatever the reason for it, posting that link was unambiguously inappropriate. So, on one hand, in the interest of being consistent, DC should be blocked. On the other hand, DC has agreed to no longer post links to his blog post on-wiki (or any other similar articles), so at this point a block could be considered punitive. So, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, and at this point I could accept either result. I'm unfamiliar with most of DC's editing history (recent or not), so if this is part of a larger pattern, that might be a reason to lean towards supporting a block. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 00:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] That's obviously off-wiki WP: OUTING. Yet another reason to support a block. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 00:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] It's pretty absurd to post a link to a revdel in which the edit summary, viewable by mere peons like myself, contains sufficient identifying information to figure out exactly what DC was pointing. I'm not sure where this model of Wikipedians as mindless drones who can only find things by clicking on a <a href="http://url.com/blahblah> url.com/blahblah <a> came from, but it really needs to go. Common sense, anyone? NE Ent 00:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Jimbo has never written that I threatened his family. I have not done so and never would do so. You may be confusing me with someone else. I suggest that you also rethink your claim that I have "caused probably half the drama at ANI over the past few months". That is absolute nonsense, as ANI regulars will know. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I think DC should stop engaging in this sort of public rabble-rousing and perhaps a restriction to that effect should be considered, but banning him from the site is not something I can support.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. I think DC erred in publicising these allegations, but I think it was done with good intentions. As long as the links to the allegations are not repeated, I see no preventative need for any sanctions. Also, I think the claim that DC threatened Jimbo's family should be substantiated or withdrawn. The "half the drama at ANI" claim is, of course, nonsense. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose The only person who ought to be getting the boot here is <redacted>. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Darkness Shines, although I agree with you in opposing these proposed sanctions, I really don't think you should be repeating the id of the accused editor -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Topic ban for all things Wikipediocracy, broadly construed, including the posting of URLs or mentioning of blogs or discussion. Outside of Wikipediocracy promotion, DC is not disruptive. Binksternet (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Question - what are people !voting on here? The topic is "block and ban" - are we !voting to block me or ban me? I'm not sure that everyone has the same understanding of what is being voted on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment Clearly, there's a problem here; almost nobody disputes this. For those !voting against block and/or banning this editor, can you please suggest another alternative that would solve the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] To thank him for a job well done? --B (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Absolutely not - this is one of the reasons that Wikipedia gets a bad wrap. If you cannot say unequivocally that child pornography, pedophilia, and child abuse are wrong, or, worse, if you are an advocate of any of the same, you have no business editing an encyclopedia. I've read some of the quotes from the not-to-be-posted article on the not-to-be-posted website and that the reaction of Wikipedia is to ban the whistleblower speaks volumes. This is not something where there are multiple legitimate points of view. --B (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thank you and I agree with your statement wholeheartedly. The entire issue should be sent to ArbCom as editors have stated below, hopefully an editor will be blocked and it won't be Delicious Carbuncle. Ryan Vesey 01:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] We don't make value judgements on wikipedia. It is not up to us to declare starvation, depression, Hitler, etc, to be "bad". We just describe what things are in a neutral tone.OakRunner (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] I have zero desire to have any editors who feel that they cannot declare pedophilia and/or child pornography to be "bad". Ryan Vesey 04:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] We do make value judgments on Wikipedia. It is up to us to declare things to be "bad". We do not have to describe things in a neutral tone. Now, we do have to describe things neutrally and not declare them as "bad" in articles about them, but this is about a user, not about an article. WP:CHILDPROTECT pretty much establishes that deciding that pedophilia is bad is something Wikipedia needs to do. Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hell no  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  01:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Send to arbcom from WP:childprotect: Reports of editors engaging in such conduct should be made to the Arbitration Committee for further action, and should not be the subject of community discussion, requests for comment or consensus. . I feel that this and his accusations should be sent to arbcom, as this appears to be an issue that is not subject to consensus. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] No The OP includes "Jimbo's written that Carbuncle threatened his family" with no link and no explanation—it is absurd that such a statement can be "supported" with no evidence. The OP mentions "blatant off-Wiki personal attacks"—is there anything other than attempts to reveal CHILD violations? I suspect not, in which case, DC should be thanked and possibly given an alternative procedure to follow in the future. Arbcom is overwhelmed with work, and presumably gets lots of mail with a high noise-to-signal ratio, so it is understandable that emails about non-urgent issues (like non-urgent WP:CHILDPROTECT violations) do not get fast responses. DC should not edit war to get attention, but there should be some middle path between drama and inaction. Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] No. You can argue that his methods could be improved, be DC is absolutely right to raise such concerns. Kevin (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose, per Johnuniq and Kevin. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Support. An editor's off-wiki crimes, actual or alleged, are completely off-topic on this site. Delicious carbuncle doesn't seem to understand that. I don't care if an editor truly is a seditious, perfidious, serial-killing, baby-raping, animal-torturing, tax-evading, genocide-perpetrating jaywalker; if he's complying with our policies he should be allowed to edit here free of hounding and harassment. DC is the one who is being disruptive by pursuing these allegations here instead of taking them to the relevant off-wiki authorities. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose ridiculous proposal. These are problems that need to be dealt with, no wikilawyered under carpet with banning of editors who raise them. Frankly this proposal is so bad that I would question Crisco 1492 competence for admin position.--Staberinde (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose. DC obviously did this because of foot-dragging by Arbcom. If he violated a policy in order to force Arbcom to take action against a pedophile, that should come under WP:IAR. Furthermore, the accusation that DC threatened Jimbo's family is unsubstantiated (and itself being about a living person, really ought to be deleted). Ken Arromdee (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] Oppose block and/or ban: Per mareek. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] To Arbcom if anywhere per Aunva6. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate proposal

My interactions with DC have been mixed. Since he got me blocked for a few hours four months ago, we've come to a state of peaceful coexistence – I doubt either of us forgets some of the things we've said against each other, but I've come to somewhat respect him as an editor, and I'd like to think that the feeling is mutual (though I'm not particularly offended if it isn't). However, the one issue on which I've found his conduct reprehensible has been his repeated accusations against other editors of pedophilia and related offenses. Every time he finds some way to weasel out of them, but that doesn't change the fact that WP:CHILDPROTECT is very much a bright-line policy when it comes to on-wiki accusations, and while he's always open about the fact that he's making these accusations (even acknowledging on his blog at one point that he expected to be blocked for it), he's never been able to concede that there's an issue with his doing this. Instead, as noted, he obfuscates any attempt to minimize the visibility of his actions, showing not just refusal to comply with policy but refusal to listen when being told he's violating policy.

So, I propose the following:

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits invoking or referencing WP:CHILDPROTECT in respect to any editor, broadly construed, or from making any edits that could reasonably be seen as accusations of pedophilia, child molestation, or similar conditions or offenses. If he makes any off-wiki claims that would violate these terms, he may not acknowledge the claims on-wiki, link to them, or direct users to any off-wiki locale where they would have a reasonable chace of finding the claims.

— PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC) ^{minor clarification at 01:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

• Dude. WP:NOTCENSORED - this time in the way it's supposed to be used.Volunteer Marek 01:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This formulation would seem to offer tacit protection in respect of off-wiki harassment. Is that the intention? Formerip (talk) 00:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, the community has been historically unwilling to restrict editors from specific off-wiki actions. It'd be unenforceable anyways... we can't monitor every site on the Internet, and he'd be able to make accusations from alternate accounts on other websites. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might be right about unenforceable, but policy is that "off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning". A remedy which seems - tacitly, like I say - to provide the editor with an exemption from that doesn't seem quite right. Either that or the policy is wrong. Formerip (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course, as Mark rightly notes below, his behavior isn't necessarily harrassment. If I recall correctly, the last editor he pulled this with was ultimately indefblocked with the type of formulaic summary that is traditional for CHILDPROTECT blocks. (No, I will not be linking to anything involving that, and anyone who does should be trouted and possibly blocked.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the first such case I wrote about ended up blocked after my second blog post about them. Although more than one editor contacted ArbCom, the block was issued by someone else. The second editor that I profiled in early February is still editing here. Again, ArbCom is aware of that case. The case at hand is the third such case. So, three editors profiled, one blocked, but no ArbCom action (and, to be fair, no WMF action either). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see where anyone has denied that it is harassment. The only question is whether there is such a thing as good harassment. Formerip (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, "off-wiki" means a few things. An e-mail to ArbCom is technically off-wiki, according to the general definition... and seeing as that's what policy requires, it'd be hard to say that that is harassment. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, you're correct about that. I don't imagine anyone would think that's against policy. What I'm suggesting is that its problematic to have a remedy that arguably grants an exemption from policy. Formerip (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • DC, considering one of the earlier editors you profiled in your crusade against pornography quit soon after because he felt your doxing was too much (private communications, no links), after writing several articles on notable early pornographic films, I feel your approach may cause too much collatoral damage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Restricting DC from making this type of allegation on-wiki, though he should be free to e-mail Arbcom/Jimbo/Oversight etc. when he comes upon issues. To clarify, I support any efforts to protect children who edit Wikipedia and to block users who may reasonably be a threat. My concern here is not that DC is making allegations (if he has success finding legitimate child protection issues, more power to him), and I'm not necessarily saying that the substance of the allegations are wrong (haven't done the research myself), but I'm worried about how he is going about things (making announcements in high-traffic public forums). This is clearly against existing policy, for a good reason. The last thing we want is for sensational accusations against editors to be made publicly, since there's a chance that innocent users may be wrongfully accused. Not saying DC has made false accusations (again, I don't know), but we shouldn't foster a culture here where people run to high-traffic pages when they have sensitive concerns against other editors. I understand that Arbocm is slow and frustrating to deal with at times, but bringing things like this into the open (at least on-wiki) could lead to serious issues if we make it a common practice. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was struggling to think how to express my thoughts - then Mark Arsten said it better than I could -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I should add that I think it is right for DC to air these concerns, but it should be done directly to WMF - and if the allegations prove true, it should be for WMF to take whatever action is necessary. But allegations of this nature should not be conducted by public witch hunt. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The sensationalism is the problem here, disruption for disruption's sake. DC is still free to send emails to Arbs, 'crats, and Jimbo if he sees the need. Note that I am still looking for a way to have DC stop pushing his blog on wiki. Binksternet (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For fuck's sake this is the ol' "Good Cop/Bad Cop" ploy. First one user (the Bad Cop) makes a completely ridiculous proposal to ban someone for nothing (in fact, for actually trying to improve the project) which has no chance of getting traction, and everyone including the proposer knows it, then another user, the "Good Cop" plays the "well, gee shucks, I don't agree with, that, but..." card and goes on to propose a somewhat less ridiculous but still silly sanction... for nothing. Then, relative to the original proposal, the second less-ridiculous-but-still-silly proposal looks semi-legitimate and may actually have a chance of getting some supports. It's an old old old trick on Wikipedia. It used to work sometimes but I really thought people here have wizened up. NO to any sanction. Give DC a barnstar for bringing these issues to community's attention and ban the offending user instead. Get your priorities straight.Volunteer Marek 01:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is pretty much the sort of restriction I was looking for someone to suggest. It basically holds him to adhering to the policy, but words it so that it is clear there is no wiggle room.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The only correct response to a proposal this absurd is Nuts!. Voicing concerns regarding child safety is never in the wrong. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, because the internet is calm and rational, willing to take an "innocent until proven guilty stance." Bringing this to ArbCom and/or WMF attention is to be commended. Tossing it out in public and repeatedly warring to keep it public is not in the right. This is not something that should be decided in the court of public opinion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 02:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Point of information - WP:Child Protection explicitly includes this, which does ban some on-wiki activity in this regard: "Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them.". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • George, a problematic editor was identified to Arbcom; no action was taken. Speaking out in public against the presence of such people when the powers-that-be fail to act overrides website rule pages crowd-sourced by pseudonymous editors, as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes public shaming is the only tool that one has left. Tarc (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• send to arbcom as per my above statement. this appears to be something that should not be dealt with by editors in an ANI setting, but by A report to arbcom, as policy, and office actions, dictate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aunva6 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 April 2013‎
• Support - per Mark A. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No. The whole point of that policy is to make sure issues such as these are dealt with. Kevin (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No What may need consideration is why DC has to resort to drama to get obvious stuff handled. Arbcom has too many POV pushers demanding attention, and presumably Arbcom gets hundreds of very hard-to-decipher emails, so it is understandable that DC's emails to Arbcom have not got a prompt response. I infer from Carcharoth's above comments that DC may not have allowed much time before pushing the panic button, but that is no reason to prohibit DC from pointing out obvious problems in the future. Perhaps some limitation on edit warring over the issue would be appropriate, although more evidence would be needed for that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The editor in question himself posted a link on his user page to an offwiki page in which he makes certain admissions. Delicious Carbuncle presumably raised it onwiki because s/he received no acknowledgement from ArbCom. Perhaps we should add to Wikipedia:Child protection that editors contacting ArbCom with these concerns should add something to the subject line (e.g. CHILDPROTECT) to alert the committee, and also to request an acknowledgment. That way, they'll know the issue has been seen. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not a dedicated childprotect@ email address? It could be copied to Arbcom, Jimbo and possibly WMF/legal & an OTRS queue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No reason to believe such would improve the project. Which is what we are supposed to be doing. Collect (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose such issues need to be dealt with. Clearly current process is inadequate for such problems and DC deserves community's gratitute for bringing it into attention.--Staberinde (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, because nobody should be prevented from raising concerns about the safety of children, even if occasional cries of wolf are hurtful. Should the editor in question be counselled about making vexatious or outright unsubstantiated claims and accusations? Sure, maybe. But if 100 such claims include even 1 legitimate one and it prevents harm from coming to a child, I can live with the other 99. Sorry. Stalwart111 09:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear - I'm not suggesting any of the accusations were vexatious or unsubstantiated (I don't know enough about them to make that judgement). I'm saying even if they were, I still couldn't support this proposal. Stalwart111 10:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Johnuniq, Collect, Staberinde. This is not a case of weak circumstantial allegations that could seriously damage someone; it's entirely based on public admissions by the individual concerned, and as such needed to be acted upon hard and fast. If DC has forced Arbcom's hand in the matter, that's only to be commended. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose He ought to get a medal, is this how we treat whisleblowers around here? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The wording is too complicated. A strict instruction to follow WP:Child Protection, coupled with the agreement already made not to link to off-site blog posts that the User starts such discussions about is enough. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DC got a productive editor blocked for nothing but thoughtcrime. Wikipedia should not exclude users based on their opinions or writings alone. Witchhunts like this are embarrassing and detrimental to the project and, in my personal view, unethical and unjust. ThemFromSpace 15:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thoughtcrime, is a valid consideration but WP:Child Protection seems to support such editor exclusions in this area of expression. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I think pointing out the good cop/bad cop scenario is an excellent observation. Just because this is more reasonable than the withdrawn proposal doesn't make it reasonable. And contrary to the OP's statement about bright line policies, all policies are subject to WP:IAR--if we could predict in advance that some policy is never subject to IAR, we wouldn't need IAR. The user in question had pretty much indicated he was a pedophile elsewhere, and there wasn't any reasonable doubt that he was, so in this case that WP:CHILDPROTECTION clause doesn't do any good. And ignoring that rule was the only way to force Arbcom into action. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If SlimVirgin's summary is correct, then WP:Child Protection, in fact deals with the scenario. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Child Protection, like anything else, falls under WP:IAR. The intent of that part of the rule is to avoid unjustly accusing an innocent person. Since that intent wasn't violated by breaking the rule, and since following the rule as written didn't work, and breaking the rule did work, and breaking the rule got Arbcom to ban a pedophile and therefore served the overall goal of the policy, it should be considered acceptable under IAR. That's what IAR is for. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Ridiculous. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third proposal

Topic ban Delicious carbuncle from edits related to Wikipediocracy, broadly construed, assuming s/he has some constructive edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Before there are any more proposals, I would like to see a diff for "Jimbo's written that Carbuncle threatened his family" listed as a reason for the first proposal. 28bytes (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I take User_talk:Crisco_1492#I_waited.2C_but_you_didn.27t_show_up where he declined to substantiate the claim as an admission that it was made up. --B (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or perhaps you could actually look at the post above, which has since been edited? Wow, I've never seen such a show of bad faith. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You edited it 3 minutes before I posted that - after I had already loaded the page - and what I said is 100% correct - it is not true that Jimbo accused him of threatening his family. In any event, does Delicious carbuncle run the forum? I don't keep up with the drama there, but I thought this was in reference to someone else. --B (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I am not aware of any discussions (excluding the blog post) preceding Jimbo's talk page drama. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Per further, off-Wiki, clarification, it has become abundantly clear to myself that the issue in question had nothing to do with DC and that my accusation was baseless. It has since been redacted, and my support for the above proposal withdrawn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• How about we topic ban Crisco 1492 from making childish proposals in ANI?--Staberinde (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we ban drama and drama stirring remarks from ANI? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• How about we stop running around looking for people to ban? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth proposal

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is thanked for a job well done.

• Proposed. Sounds simple enough. If you cannot agree that pedophilia, child pornography, or other forms of child abuse are unequivocally wrong, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Even if you aren't actually using your account for advocacy of the same, that doesn't make it okay. --B (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lovely false dichotomy there. Anyone who doesn't endorse your proposal must be an advocate for child abuse? —Psychonaut (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Darkness Shines (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral DB is to be commended for his constant vigilence; the user's methods and inexcusable resortation to off-wiki doxing (then linking it on-Wiki) leaves much to be desired. Private emails to Arbcom or other parties at the correct pay grade would be preferable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:Child Protection and WP:BLP the job is not well done. Also, not an administrative action, if someone wants the thank the User, one should go to his/her talk page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• lol. You either stand with us or with the pedophiles, eh? How sad that you have to rely on an ad hominem fallacy (not to mention false dichotomy) to defend doxing, multiple BLP violations and general attention whoreishness. DC and their latest target can both be in the wrong at the same time. Resolute 13:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Chewbacca defense. NE Ent 13:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Though this really has no effect as anyone can thank him for it if they want. However, it should be noted that it is not supposed to be a community process for good reason. Many of you apparently don't care what happens to this editor DC has identified, and may not even care if something befalls this individual. Some of you would probably not care about something befalling him even if he never actually acted on his feelings. That is why it isn't supposed to be up to the community. Public airing of these sorts of allegations is a recipe for creating very real consequences for those accused.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor in question said on Wikipedia "I operated an FTP site containing boy child pornography in the 1990s". (The diff is posted on the message board of the site not to be named.) This discussion has nothing to do with anybody's personal feelings - it has to do with Wikipedia saying "if you believe in child pornography, pedophilia, etc, this isn't the place for you". We don't have to wish him an eternity in Hell and we don't have to show up to his house with pitchforks, but normal human beings ought to be able to say, "we'd appreciate it if you pursued other endeavors." --B (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember the 1990s. It was two decades ago. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes it okay? Unless there was some sort of dramatic conversion, in which he has completely repented of past behaviors, admits they were wrong, and can say with Ebenezer Scrooge, "I'm not the man I was", that's still not a direction we need to go. I'm all for forgiveness. I believe in forgiveness. But for us to accept the editor in question, there needs to be a complete acceptance that child pornography, pedophilia, and other forms of child abuse are wrong. --B (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's in principle a matter for law enforcement. The user in question doesn't seem to be editing from prison, so you have to ask yourself why he is a free man. If society can trust him to live as a free man, to visit the local Kindergarten, then why can't we let him edit Wikipedia? A valid reason for blocking would be if he were to disruptively advocate pro-pedo opinions on the relevant wiki-pages, if he were to groom children here etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Umm, that's absurd. Should people who operate(d) child pornography FTP servers be allowed to be Boy Scout leaders, too? Just because someone isn't in jail doesn't mean they belong on Wikipedia. --B (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • This site isn't a high value target for pedophiles. We are not e.g. a social medium for children. People here contribute to the encyclopedia, everything else is a side show. Then there are certain features here that can in theory be abused by pedophiles, e.g. you can use the email facility to contact editors here. But then such contacts are monitored (not the content of the email but the fact that you sent an email). And if he indeed poses a big risk to children, then he would be much more dangerous when not editing Wikipedia and doing other things instead. Count Iblis (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not what Wikipedia does or should say because that goes against its purpose. You can't have any debate about minors and sexuality turn into a witch hunt where anyone who holds a disagreeable opinion has to be subjected to opposition research and public flogging. Earlier you said it doesn't matter if a person is only right 1% of the time, but it does matter. Sometimes you may also have someone who is somewhat right, but doesn't present it accurately as in this case. The reality is that the editor did not identify as a pedophile but expressed having a sexual attraction towards pubescent minors, which studies indicate is actually much more common and rarely acted upon. Indeed, in some parts of Europe the age of consent is low enough to cover most pubescent minors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I must say I'm quite alarmed at the hysteria being expressed by certain people in this thread. It seems a lot of arguments here amount to nothing more than "WP:IAR because OMG PEDOPHILIA!!!!111!!" —Psychonaut (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Doing the right thing in the face of bureaucratic malaise is always a good thing. DOn't be the US government to DC's Bradley Manning. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that there's anything remotely resembling moral equivalence between the two ... stealing classified documents != exposing a self-admitted child pornography host. --B (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth proposal

Let's give ArbCom some time to handle this fiasco, broadly construed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 15:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bam Support with addendum " or Jimbo or WMF."--v/r - TP 15:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Per policies cited in opposition to the 4th proposal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock the blocked user

He is now blocked and he now has to prove his innocence on matters unrelated to editing Wikipedia. ArbCom has a track record of not unblocking unless the person is 100% clean (I know this from another case which had to do with a legal issue completely unrelated to child abuse). Whatever he may be doing wrong is a matter for law enforcement, not Wikipedia. It would be different if our policies were violated, if people were contacted on Wiki in inapproprate ways etc. etc. None of that is relevant in this case. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis, I admire your bravery in suggesting this, but I doubt any admin here is willing to risk losing their admin rights over this. Can I suggest that we have this discussion on the ArbCom talk page and get the Arbs to weigh in on the issues? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is a more appropriate venue. What should be discussed there is the general issue of an editor being blocked for reasons other than bad behavior here and then that becoming an ArbCom issue where there is no scrutiny from the community anymore. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For various days, THE SLY (talk · contribs) (and possibly his/her IP 201.144.5.38 (talk · contribs), they have similar editing) has been adding unsourced and biased information to articles, including, but not limited to, Tigres de la UANL and San Luis F.C. 1, 2, 3. SLY has been warned in the past for violating the NPOV policy e.g., and multiple times warned at es.wiki 3. Since the account creation's, SLY has not proved any kind of communication with others, demostrated by his/her edit count. Last days, I gave him/her a final warning considering I warned the IP for including unsourced content and deliberately ignoring the warns, and considering I was reverted in less that a minute (a and b,) and the similar pages they edit, like Lucas Lobos, José José, et. al. They are likely the same person. Both accounts have denoted no intentions to discuss, source or balance they edits. I reported him/her at AIV, but it was declined (I haven't check why), but they need to stop. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SergeantHippyZombie (talk · contribs) is very happy for reverting vandalism with Twinkle - a little too happy judging from the many unanswered requests to explain reversions of non-vandalism edits on his talkpage. When asked he doesn't seem interested in communicating that he understands our policies or in acting collegially. In fact when he does communicate it is often biting or riducling such as here[43]. I don't think s/he needs access to automated tools untill s/he shows he understand policies and collegiality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we please get an approval process for Twinkle or, at the very least, a blacklist? Ryan Vesey 03:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Or just tie it to the rollback userright.--v/r - TP 03:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would we do that? You shouldn't have to have the rollback right to automatically CSD tag an article. I wouldn't oppose an approval process, though. TCN7JM 03:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Any admin can simply remove it from their common.js/vector.js. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 09:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm on it. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I've perused a bunch of their edits and left them a warning. I don't care one way or the either how we do it, but Twinkle is waaaay too easy for such editors and invites snark and damage. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Twinkle generally has less destructive potential than, say, AWB, however it has always confused me that it basically hands out freely access to an option Wikipedia has an approval process for. I'm generally against adding bureaucracy and I definitely don't think it needs to be tied to the Rollback right as it performs much, much more, but I believe it should replace the Rollback right and use the same approval process as AWB. I was a rollbacker, and once I discovered Twinkle, I didn't use the Rollback right once. Only Twinkle. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps this is overcomplicating matters but what about joining the twinkle revert functions up with the rollback right while leaving things like CSD tagging, PRODing, etc as general use? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SHZ needs a heads up about their sig too. Blackmane (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The easiest solution would be to create a blacklist, where users who have misused Twinkle can be listed. Then, Twinkle can check that blacklist to see if the current user is on it, and if so, disable itself. This would basically mean that all users are given access to Twinkle by default (i.e. the same situation as today), except we'd add a measure of control for problematic users. No additional bureaucracy required. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, this is by far the best solution. Wikipedia needs less red tape, not more of it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be looked into. It it is not reasonable to expect a seven-day wait for action against a duck sock. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you phone up the SPI Clerk Office and tell them to drop real-life right away and hurry up clicking buttons to prevent some person from committing impardonable acts of stupidity, because clearly Wikipedia is deserted and nobody is on hand to revert them. </sartalics> :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeteers are my pet peeve. I wish that there were more admins looking into the SPI backlog. Condolences... Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're very backlogged right now, which is why things are taking so long. But if any admins are interested in becoming SPI clerks, we could always use a few more. --Rschen7754 03:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you meshoggene? I saw the Malleus report: that shit is complicated, and I'm sure nobody wants people like me to have even more power over matters they barely understand. Can't we just put Elockid on payroll? I read somewhere (well, on Wikipedia...) that the WMF pulled in $42 million; surely we can pay a couple of geeks who can't get a date anyway to do nothing but this--it beats tech support or stocking shelves at Publix. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I don't need all of that $42M, just maybe an 80th of it, and I'll go careening through SPI until there are no socks left to darn. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this isn't the sort of case that should take more than primary school reading ability and a block button to deal with. It doesn't need a CU or an extended investigation of any kind. All an admin needs to do is read through the page, skim through the archives, and it'll be done with a single click. If that's too much to ask, just sysop me for twenty seconds and I'll do it. Heh. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respond something witty again but you've helped me realize my lack of primary school writing ability, and thus eigwanlfd G prtgsghw. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you lacked primary school reading ability; I'm sure that's something that most of our admins possess. Whether it's a lack of free time, motivation, or a simple desire to let someone else deal with it that results in it taking this long, I don't know. But I strongly feel that after a week, someone should take the initiative. Or make me an admin so I can. :) Someguy1221 was kind enough to self-endorse a CU request, so I hope to see the back of this shortly. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know its a perennial proposal that never gains any traction, but if it were possible -- even temporarily -- to be granted only the minimum admin powers needed to clear a non-checkuser SPI (possibly with an edit restriction to forbid any non-SPI use?) there are users like me who would be willing to pitch in and clear the backlog. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's included in the "unbundling" option over at the reality-warpingly huge RfA RfC. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - fire up IRC. Almost always an admin willing to do you a solid on there. @dmries, it's "mashugana"  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the adjective is "meshugge" (spelling according to Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish). "Meshuggener" (male) or "meshuggeneh" (female) are the nouns. So either "Are you meshugge?" or "What, are you a meshuggener?" would work. Alternately, "mishegoss" is good too. "I saw the Malleus report: it was mishegoss!" Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "meshugge", as in the scene from Blazing Saddles featuring a Yiddish-speaking Native American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was trying to cite from memory, Bugs. I hear now that I got it wrong. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

98.252.50.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has gone ballistic leaving 3RR warnings and threats on multiple userpages, including mine, and ranting on Maduro's talkpage. Samples:

What is going on here is a criminal strangle hold on his page, forcing him smiling...

and

Look at this crazy bastard...

and accusing other editors of being bullies etc. He got a week-long block before. Perhaps it is time for another. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. That's why me, as well as other Venezuelans editing this website, avoid such articles. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand you. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 05:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I too claim on national TV that Hugo Chavez came to me reincarnated as a parakeet http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BFbPo_5pyrI

Or when Maduro offered 20 million to a candidate openly, yesterday. Or when he shut down the airport to prevent a candidate from landing to campaign. (Stop me when I'm not right, wait I read UT / La Patilla and watch VZ TV half my day.) You have done nothing but reverts over 4 days. You have not participated in talk. If you think that talking to birds on national television doesn't define what crazy is, deal with it. Now stop wasting admin time, but while an admin is here, address the non-participation of this user in the Maduro talk.98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've no involvement with this matter whatsoever, but I did notice (and revert) a rather trollish message on Bbb23's talk page by the aforementioned ip. If I weren't going to bed, I'd file an SPI. The master shouldn't be too hard to find. If no one else does it by the time I wake (or the ip is likely blocked) ill handle it then.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing editors I am the ;offending' IP - the guy who wrote me up Dr.K is not participating in talk, only reverting others and he did hit 3rr - thus it was done. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahc21, you know as well as I that the homophobia and rampant crime are being redacted and censored here. Capriles was attacked viciously using homophobic slurs as part of the general campaign!

I am getting legitimate edits like the devaluation and the crime rate peak this February, using La Patilla and UT links, and they called them 'blogs'

This guy needs to A. stop undoing edits, and instead participate in talk. and b. stop deleting legitimate warnings on his talk page. Ballistic is saying 'crazy bastard' when referencing a guy talking to bird-men on national TV on the talk page. You don't like it, go quote me a byline against profanity in talk.

Here I have a link for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Offensive_material

And to the admin Green Rosette, you are actually claiming - "I would ask you to the talk page. The users are very unhappy about you and your colleague's repeated redactions to the controversy section."

Is "Trolling"? Noticing they have made 5 undo's over 72 hours and given them an edit warning? That's far reaching to say the least. 98.252.50.93 (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not commenting on this, but I fixed the indenting as LGR and the IP's posts were mixed together. Blackmane (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@98.252.50.93: The issue, 98.252.50.93, is that we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to make political campaigns in favour or against a political line of view. Whatever my thoughts are on Venezuelan politics are irrelevant to my work on Wikipedia, and thus I refrain myself from talking about it, or even expressing such views on my edits, because that would be a breach of the neutral point of view policy. All content on this site must be neutral, and that includes pages about Venezuelan politicians such as Maduro or Capriles. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've attempted a few more tweaks here to condense these seemingly random lines. I removed a few postings from the article talk page, since they are nothing more than a poorly written cocktail of personal attacks and conspiracy theories, besides some rambling on the wrong side of the BLP line. The IP editor will be blocked if they continue disrupting--at this point, the word that best describes it is "trolling". Yes, IP, trolling, and you must stop. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lpjfytnlkq (talk · contribs) making a mass reversion and addition of unofficial language into the article page. Example, addition of Chinese language into the infobox of 1998 Commonwealth Games, which is not an official title of the event and yet is not an official local language. Other additions were added without the admission of local authority. All this only subject to the translation of newspaper. --Aleenf1 11:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried discussing the issue with the user? From looking at Special:Contributions/Lpjfytnlkq, it looks like this is going on in a lot of different places. Talking with the user on their talk page may yield a useful result. --B (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think discussion will yield any useful result, as edit summary already state it. Plus, 3RR not limited to just one article, it is a mass reversion there without any reason. --Aleenf1 12:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of these articles should probably not have the Chinese translation of their title added to the infobox, but 3RR is technically only violated when a user reverts the same material on the same page more than 3 times in a single day. I don't see any evidence that that has happened. I also think you should discuss the issue with the user, point out any relevant policies, and then revert his additions again. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 14:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "I don't think discussion will yield any useful result" simply means you haven't tried it yet, and you haven't. Edit summaries are good, but they cannot substitute for talk page discussion if this is to be settled, and such discussion should precede opening an ANI thread, which I propose should be closed. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to report an incident. It started at the article Ages of consent in Asia. The age of consent in India has recently changed to 18. In order to update the article I added this new information, with a source (see the talk page of Ages of consent in Asia, there are plenty of sources listed there). I was reverted THREE times, without any explanation AND received hostile messages on my talk page. User:SpyMagician called my edits "combative & dismissive ". Now I may have not been perfect in this dispute, but is it normal and acceptable to be repeatedly reverted when you add sourced information and be attacked on talk page for trying to improve an article? Do people simply go around reverting new edits without even reading them? (I agree that I may have acted angrily, but is it justifiable to revert without properly reading and to attack an editor on their talk page for doing nothing else than trying to update an article with sourced information?)188.25.27.35 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a notification on the user's talk page. Mediran (t • c) 13:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your edit was reverted three times, by User:SpyMagician, User:Solarra and User:Josve05a. -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reverted it the second time as I thought it was an attempt at possible factual inaccuracies. After further research I found ample sources to support the proposed revision, but as it was obviously contested proposed it be discussed on the article's talk page and posted a link for the IP user to be able to source his contribution there as well as seek guidance as to how to properly include it into the article. Hope this helps :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀}