HiLo48 has recently made several remarks against me on List of Prime Ministers of Australia in which he called me "f*cking stupid", "Lib-loving", "Abbott Fanboy" and "F*cking Moron". As you will see I did nothing to antagonize HiLo48 (I have mostly found him to be quite nice tbh). I edited something which he clearly told me he did not like so I asked him to discuss it with me at the talk page to resolve the issue where most of the attacks occurred. Nobody has seemed to have dealt with HiLo48 over this and I don't see why I don't deserve the same treatment as any other editor on here. Can someone please have a chat with HiLo48, thankyou.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged re the naughty words. (And the apology for them.) For the sake of Wikipedia I reserve my right to treat with contempt repeated POV, incompetent and illogical edits from someone who can't even discuss a matter rationally. We must not let editing by incompetent, POV pushing trolls ruin this encyclopaedia. Had there not been such appalling contributions from this whinger, my response would not have happened. If anyone thinks sanctioning me is more important than doing something about an incompetent, irrational, POV pushing troublemaker, then smack my bum and send me home, and let the nominator go on his merry, destructive way. This MUST be a boomerang for this editor. Now, given my long-standing contempt for the processes allowed on this page (see my User page), I will say no more in this section. HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo, I understand what you are saying. God knows you say it often enough whenever anybody lodges a complaint. You feel that the best way to deal with those of differing opinions is to abuse and belittle them. Shock them into agreement, in other words. I disagree with you, simple as that. I'd like to see you acknowledge the hurt and disruption you cause, and to learn a different method of handling disagreement. One that complies with wikipolicy and good manners, for example. You're not stupid, and you do good work, but in this area, you have a way to go, I feel. --Pete (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo acts like this because he pretty much always gets away with it. No acknowledgement that he's aiming to hurt and harass other editors, no remorse. Differences of opinion can be handled politely, respectfully and effectively. But not by HiLo, who feels empowered to treat his fellow human beings with contempt. --Pete (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awww :( I had written out a long paragraph and then when I went to save it came up as edit conflict ad I was unable to paste and lost my paragraph. Anyway gist of it is, I am upset that you think my edits are appalling. I never try to POV push and if it seems that way then you have my humble apologies. And to be completely honest with you HiLo48, no I don't vote Liberal. But there is really no need to criticize not only me (calling me "f*cking stupid and f*cking moron") but there is no need to call my edits "appalling" either as I generally make sure my edits are of high quality.--Collingwood26 (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At worst HiLo48 can be accused of calling a spade a bloody shovel. However, Collingwood26's posts and edit summaries have been contradictory and illogical. Has HiLo48 come on a bit strong? Possibly. However, I share his frustration with editors that make nonsensical statements and then get all bent out of shape when called on it. There is no further point to this discussion, this is not something that needs admin attention. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with differences is how Wikipedia became what it is today. I draw your attention to the fourth pillar in Wikipedia:Five pillars. Is it a pillar of our community or just a dog turd? --Pete (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The edit summary I saw was extraordinary. WP:BITEY in spades (and shovels). I wish the two would kiss and make up so that a mentor/mentee relationship could develop. – S. Rich (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My posts were contradictory? Please explain that one as I don't understand where your coming from there. So that's it, he is going to get off scot-free? I was banned for a month once because in frustration I told another editor to "f*ck off". I apologized to that editor, and was still banned for a month. Now this guy unprovoked calls me a "f*cking moron" and "f*cking stupid" and he gets no punishment whatsoever?? Am I the only one who sees a problem with this??--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe what I'm hearing here, he has refused to apologise to me and instead continued to harass me by saying things such as "appalling contributions" and yet you are all taking HiLo48's side??--Collingwood26 (talk) 05:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking HiLo's side. To the contrary, the edit summary I saw was extraordinary given HiLo's edit history and many Barnstars. But I will not get into the middle of this spat. Your contributions, particularly as to Aussie military history, are noted and worthwhile. So I'll urge you to step back from the ANI and continue to focus on building the encyclopedia. (Please note that many editors call these notice boards "drama pages". Getting into the thick of the drama usually isn't worthwhile.) Get back to your endeavor and you will be a happier editor. – S. Rich (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Everyone here has a right to edit without getting attacked like that - and we need a system to report these sort of attacks. So we need to make sure we don't blame Collingwood26 for reporting this. I don't think you are, but you're not exactly encouraging him to come back here. StAnselm (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked HiLo48 for one month. I found HiLo's comment here to be a clear personal attack, and I also took into consideration that they continued making personal attacks on their talk page after being informed of this ANI thread. HiLo has been blocked for incivility before, so I do not think we can treat this as an isolated incident. The previous time HiLo was blocked for incivility there was a consensus at ANI that the block should be for one week, which is why I chose the relatively long block length this time around. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want HiLo48 to be blocked, people on here hate me enough as it is, I don't want to give them another reason to hate me.--Collingwood26 (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't want him blocked ... but you came here to a location where the typical ending is a block for either the reporter or reportee? ES&L 09:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's unfair. I think we can assume that Collingwood26's desired outcome is that HiLo refrains from personal attacks. And the discussion alone won't do it, because (it would seem), there is somewhat of a tolerance for personal attacks, and the victim gets blamed. StAnselm (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some wise people decised that WP:WQA was not required. If they wanted discussion then that would have been the place. Anyway, don't get me wrong: I always say that "someone else's incivility may explain yours, but it never excuses it" ES&L 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know but there's no point blocking him for it, I only came here because I was angry at what he was saying about me and no other editor was helping me so I thought if I posted it here someone could help. I don't see a point in blocking him because as far as I'm concerned HiLo48 is a terrific editor, I would be happy if he says to me he won't do it again.--Collingwood26 (talk) 09:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would likewise be happy with such an outcome, so long as it is founded upon acceptance and a genuine desire to work productively with other editors, especially those with differing opinions, skills or experience. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Collingwood - please learn to indent properly. Pete: I'm currently trying to find evidence that HiLo ever formally requested to you that you stay off his talkpage as he claims. If he did, I'll be requesting further investigation/action under WP:HARASS - as a minimum, your posts on HiLo's talkpage recently merely inflamed a situation that was already bad enough. ES&L 10:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Pete was very clearly advised to stay off of HiLo's talkpage here following the close of another ANI event. That type of poking and harassment is unwelcome, disallowed and was clear escalation of things ES&L 11:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but I did not take that to mean in perpetuity. And reviewing my two contributions there, I find it hard to see how a reasonable person could view them as other than positive. --Pete (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it meant "in perpetuity"...what else does "go away for good" usually mean? When you're referred to by HiLo as a "stalker", and boom you show up...that's classic wikistalking and harassment. Unwatch his page. Don't ever go back there ... again, you have needlessly ratcheted up this situation ... the two of you shouldn't even be working in the same sections of the 'pedia from what I see ES&L 18:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reasonable person would realize that ANY contribution by YOU to HiLo's talkpage would not be positive. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Hasn't this been resolved? What is the point of these continuing remarks about talk page bans, indents, edit histories (or should I say "histrionics")? – S. Rich (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect S. Rich, I don't think this is quite resolved yet. I fully agree with the block for HiLo48, not least because of his self-imposed non-swearing vow and my own promise to block him if ever he broke it. But that is only half the story and I think it's reasonable to consider whether Skyring was disruptive in posting on HiLo48's talk page following my own unequivocal request not to do so (with no indication that the request had any sort of time limit.) A second question (raised by HiLo48 on his talk page) is the one of whether civilly expressed incompetence is more disruptive than competent incivility - HiLo avers that it is. I presume he's referring to discussions here where Collingwood26 gets Iraq and Afghanistan mixed up and fails to win any support for his/her chosen wording.

My own view is that Skyring's posting on HiLo's talk page merits a final warning, which I'll be happy to give. I don't think in the absence of a warning that it merits a block this time round. On Collingwood26, I can understand why HiLo was getting frustrated with the discussion at List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Australia but on its own that's nowhere near enough to label Collingwood26 as disruptive. However there are discussions from September 2012 and March this year that suggest this may be a more substantial and widespread problem. It's odd that an editor with a couple of years experience and claiming several article starts still has trouble remembering to sign talk page posts and is seemingly incapable of mastering indents. I'm not myself arguing for a competence block but is there any other way of improving the situation and helping Collingwood26 shape up? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Pete in no uncertain terms never to post on HiLo's talk page again. I have laid it on a bit thick but my earlier, more polite version obviously got overlooked. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is there any other way of improving the situation and helping Collingwood26 shape up? Not by swearing at and abusing him, for sure. I'll accept your warning, Kim, and voluntarily withdraw from Wikipedia editing for the duration of HiLo's block. Clearly HiLo - and others - are blaming me for stirring him up, and fair enough, my role was not disinterested - I'd like him to face up to the fact that it is not OK to abuse other editors when there is a difference of opinion, and I could see yet another complaint from a target being shrugged aside. This behaviour has gone on for years with no sign of remorse or admission of any error beyond swearing.

Looking at HiLo's post here, it seemed to me that a response was invited. Not to stir him up but to correct two errors. I don't hate anybody, nor do I want to see a heated or hasty response. I would very much have preferred to have a civil and reasoned reply. If that had been forthcoming, we wouldn't be discussing this now.

Nothing in this world lasts forever, and a year, ten years can make a world of difference. Living in the past is a particularly arid and pointless existence IMHO. We cannot change what has gone before, but we can always change our present selves as we learn and mature. Thank you for your contributions, and I'll take myself off for some reflection. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think Pete has a point here. Whether or not a response was invited or there were errors, I've long believed if you ban someone from your talk page, you should avoid talking about them on your talk page unless absolutely necessary since despite the wide latitude we give to people to manage their talk page, it's not fair someone can't respond (for the same reason we have to take care when talking about blocked or banned editors). However perhaps a better way to handle it would be to make an explicit request, e.g. 'I believe your comments are unfair/in error but will not be responding because of your request not to post on your talk page but as long as your request stands, can you refrain from talking about me on your talk page?' rather than simply responding.

In any case, a warning is a warning so it doesn't seem that concerning justified or not. The fact that Pete was under the mistaken impression that the request was time limited suggests it's useful reminder in any case and maybe they will now know not to post ever except perhaps for essential notifications; or if they really think things have improved, to query whether the ban can be removed. (Clearly Hilo's comment suggest this is unlikely to be the case.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, we recently had an ANI discussion about a user who was "banned" from an admins talkpage, but kept screwing around with a discussion about them on that admins talkpage - and yet another one who believed he had a right to be advised that there was a discussion about them on someones talkpage, and was pretty pissed about finding the conversation. Although maybe not 100% ethical to have that conversation about another editor without inviting them or allowing their input, I would bet it happens hundreds of times a day. ES&L 17:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is how you indent? Sorry I only know the basics of Wikipedia editing, and yes I created all those pages. I'll leave it up to you Kim if you think a temporary block on HiLo48 is reasonable. I would have been contempt with him telling me it won't happen again. As for those other incidents involving me, one was entirely my fault of which I took the blame. The other latest incident was a misunderstanding between myself and Nick-D which went into an argument.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think a block of HiLo48 is merited here, and as Kim knows I have urged sanctions in the past. I've had a fairly long history of interaction with this dude and over the years have come to see him as an unusual case with a short fuse, but a net positive by far. In this case he got salty and he has offered an apology above, though it is pretty minimal. The secondary issue of the post on his talk page has been dealt with. HiLo, I do offer this friendly advice regarding that fourth pillar... before swearing in print, try walking away from the computer for a bit. I should know, I have been doing it for years. Best Wishes, and Trick or Treat, all. Jusdafax 07:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I can only mirror the sentiments of Jusdafax here. This is like going after a police officer for using excessive force while ignoring the bank robbery he was trying to stop. Want to refer him to Internal Affairs? Fine. But don't ignore the original crime. The other editor here has a history of problematic editing and only just avoided a block during his most recent trip to ANI (in March) by promising to "behave", which he clearly hasn't. HiLo is clearly being punished for using coarse language (which for an Australian is actually not that coarse) while Collingwood26 skates on behaviour that really should be prevented (the actual purpose of blocks around here). Stalwart111 09:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. But just so its crystal clear, I made the most recent report regarding Collingwood26's editing, here to ANI, three weeks ago.[1]Nickm57 (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies - I'd missed that one. So, yeah, the one I was referencing was not his most recent. Stalwart111 10:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried to offer a way out, toward an unblock, but I don't get much more than "they're totally incompetent and wrong" (without any diffs or useful pointers for me to start looking into it) and "you admins and your boards just enable the POV pushers and stalkers". That's not how to go about a. getting unblocked yourself and b. getting the other party or parties properly investigated. Instead of a "fucking moron" a list of diffs and a paragraph's worth of assessment would have been helpful, and then all of this could have been prevented. Now that I read the last ANI thread concerning Collingwood, yeah, I can see that there might be a problem, but I'm not a PI who can tease out every problem from a long list of edits over many pages. I offered HiLo two options, and he chose the self-fulfilling prophecy: not helping the admin means the admin can't really help you very well, and your opinion about admins will remain what it is. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to make this clear: I offered to consider an unblock request, but even that garnered no more than a "meh". I will still consider such a request, and I gather I'm not the only one. On the other side, the conversation on Collingwood's talk page started by Stradivarius is plenty problematic, oddly in the same way as his opponent's: I'm being singled out, persecuted, nobody likes me. It's that passive-aggressiveness that I find so difficult to work with; at least HiLo doesn't exhibit doesn't really have the passive part, to his credit. In addition, Collingwood can't see where they were wrong in terms of content, and that's not a good thing either. So yeah, this could all have gone down very differently. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And should all have gone down very differently. A month-long block was handed out 5 hours after this thread was opened by an obviously problematic editor with a talk page full of edit warring warnings. Even the most basic overview (nobody expects PI-like investigation) would seem to suggest that while a block for HiLo might be warranted, a block for Collingwood26 would actually have prevented more disruption (his unrepentant POV editing being what prompted the coarse language anyway). The blocking admin clearly looked at previous ANI threads that pertained to HiLo's behaviour (he said so here) so why not the several more relating to Collingwood26's behaviour? HiLo's response to the block is exactly what I would expect from anyone under the circumstances. Why fight to be unblocked if the circumstances in which the block was handed out provide little confidence that a decision will be made in a reasonable manner? (And I suspect HiLo appreciates that a short "excessive force" block would be warranted either way, so why fight for a reduction when you can just take a holiday, let problematic editors edit and be proven right in the long run?) Stalwart111 22:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some who say that if someone wants to block an established editor for something like a breach of decorum, they should get a consensus before blocking. Jus' saying. As for the rest of your comments, sure, but much of that is addressed on HiLo's talk page already and the ball is in his court, and has been for quite some time. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely, and (to be clear) I'm not advocating the HiLo be unblocked so that Collingwood can be blocked in his place. Only that HiLo's month-long civility block be reconsidered (in its context) and serious consideration be given to blocking Collingwood to prevent obvious disruption by way of POV-pushing OR. Stalwart111 01:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stalwart111: my block of HiLo48 wasn't intended to preclude investigation or possible sanctions of the other parties, and the block length isn't set in stone. If we find a consensus here to change the block length, then I'll be happy to do it myself. Also, if you want to have a go at gathering some evidence to support your proposed block of Collingwood26, that would be most welcome. So far, what we have to go on are the ANI threads here and here, as well as the things brought up in the current thread. Diffs and links, especially those compiled by a neutral third party such as yourself, would be most helpful for making the participants here make sense of things. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I didn't think it was and I'm not trying to be critical of your block (especially given you seem willing to discuss length), more that the net result is that a productive editor with unproductive language is blocked while an unproductive editor remains free to disrupt the project. The two ANI threads you highlight are relevant but there was a third (which I can't seem to find in the archives, but it is mentioned above) only two weeks ago. In the intervening two weeks he hardly edited then a few days ago he popped up at List of Prime Ministers of Australia and quickly got to 4RR trying to include bizarre, political, POV, original research while at the same time arguing with a group of editors on the talk page, most of whom told him he was completely wrong. His MO (I've seen it three times so far) is to edit war OR into article all the while suggesting, "if you don't agree with it then take it to the talk page" which is a total distortion of WP:BRD. In March it was unambiguous copyright infringement which he responded to by suggesting other editors were "racist" because they dared call him on it (after which I left my own note on his talk page to which he didn't respond). Then there's his "current events" edits in August where he reverted the removal of his patently false original research not supported by references. How many times does someone get to edit-war original research into articles before we work out that someone isn't here to improve Wikipedia? Stalwart111 08:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some history-diving and found the ANI archive here. I saw the interaction at List of Prime Ministers of Australia, and I thought that a block might have been warranted had Collingwood26 gone over 3RR. However, I only count three reverts (one insertion here and then reverts here, here and here), so I didn't think that alone was block-worthy. Thanks to your links I do see a pattern of POV editing emerging, though, and I think a topic ban from Australia-related topics may be in order. Give me a little while and I will propose one below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have to take that last part back, as something has come up in real life and I'm not going to have the time to put a proposal together today. (I will also admit to being put in two minds about this by St. Anselm's comment here, which I think is an important point.) If someone else wants to suggest something in the meantime, though, then please go ahead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm back. Before I start a topic ban discussion, though, it occurs to me that I should get some input on what exactly the ban should be on. From the links above I have seen problematic edits in the areas of Australian politics, Australian military history, and race. I'm thinking of a topic ban from "all Australia topics, broadly construed". I'm also considering adding language about "race topics, broadly construed", but I worry that it may be too broad. What do others think? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he basically only contributes to articles relating to Australia so a ban like that would basically be a block. But he has inserted himself into a range of Australian topics in a disruptive manner so it will be hard to separate his constructive edits from his non-constructive ones for the purposes of defining a topic area for a ban. But the continual promises to "behave" only to quickly return to problematic editing reeks of WP:NOTHERE and WP:IDHT. Stalwart111 07:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Limited editing time precludes diffs, but I appreciate the willingness to look for consensus. Suggest an Unblock with time served being sufficient. Remember, I have in the past urged harsh sanctions, and Kim accused me of "grave dancing" on the occasion of HiLo's first block. At this point in November 2013 the situation is exactly reversed. Glad to see others agree with me. Let the punishment fit the "crime." Jusdafax 08:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything on HiLo's talk page that suggests acceptance or remorse for the personal attacks on other editors. Including myself. A pattern of abuse, continued for years in the past and presumably into the future. When asked to provide diffs for the behaviour he finds so offensive, nothing emerges. This sort of behaviour is reasonably common here. A personality that cannot admit error and consequently all fault lies vaguely elsewhere. We have ways of dealing with incompetent and tendentious editors and I know of know wikipolicy that condones coarse personal attacks on such problem editors, though I see a number of attempts to excuse this in HiLo's case, usually focussing on the bad language and ignoring the personal attacks. We none of us are perfect, but we generally manage to get along and produce our encyclopaedia without biting each other's heads off. If we condone personal attacks, it makes a mockery of our fourth pillar and it dissuades editors from joining or remaining in our project when it gets too poisonous. As per my comments above, I don't think a block is the answer, but neither is turning a blind eye. I'd say unblock him and let him respond here, but he seems to have ruled that out with his one and only post in this discussion. --Pete (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen Mr Stradivarius at work and have immense immense immense respect for them. I have this whimsical vision of this not-so-whimsical situation. And that is that you take someone who is probably one of the most civilized, kindest people that I've ever seen in Wikipedia (Mr Stradivarius) and have them walk into a bar where the norm is that if somebody calls you two swear words instead of three it is considered a compliment, how would it look to them?  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, an interesting question. My first thought, of course, is that Wikipedia isn't a bar, and that we probably shouldn't use behaviour in bars as a metric for how to judge civility. But on the more abstract level, I do see what you mean. I'm well aware that what one person can see as incivility another person can see as harmless, and living in Japan, as an ex-pat, I see this all the time. My situation brings me into regular contact with people from different cultures (which, yes, has included a fair few Australians), and I have seen this kind of culture gap first-hand.

I don't want this discussion to get too philosophical - that can be saved for policy RfCs, etc. - but my view is that this culture gap means we should actually make an extra effort to ensure that discussions are at an acceptable level of civility for all the participants, not just some of them. If some participants think that the discussion is less than civil, then they will be put off from contributing, which we want to avoid. An important caveat to this is that we should also overlook things that might have seemed uncivil to some participants, but where incivility was not intended. We are a diverse enough community that it is inevitable that some people will step on other people's toes without meaning to.

I don't think this caveat applies in the current case, however, as I could not see how HiLo48's comments could have been accidentally uncivil. This was a value judgement, of course, and as with all value judgements others may disagree. I'll be quite happy to remove the block or change its length if it turns out that the consensus is for something different than what I chose. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the main points are that the criticisms of HiLo48 are accurate (and to that I would add mis-reading folks and situations and inability to absorb input/information) but that they are not as bad as them seem due to:

• If you understand HiLo48 they are a rough person and not a vicious person, and are not really meaning or doing harm to anybody. Plus the cultural translation that I described.
• An observation of flaws in the wiki system is that the most vicious people, the ones that are doing harm to other people or seeking to do harm to other people do it with immunity because they know how to use the system and hide their intentions. And the rules dictate that the ones that are much more benign, who are just rough and abrasive get smacked and the really vicious harmful people don't.

North8000 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you North. I'd been trying to word a contribution to this discussion that said exactly that. Your well chosen words are an exact summation of what I wanted to say. I don't believe HiLo means any harm at all. In fact I believe the exact opposite. Your point is eloquent, apposite, and well-made - the tendentious and disruptive, and those who seek to harm our neutrality or our community, or use it for their own agenda, tend to learn the rules very well indeed in order to skirt around them, and often the well-meaning become so frustrated with this that their own behaviour can suffer in an attempt to defend what is proper. Been there, done that, and I suspect most of us have, or at least have almost... No, we shouldn't descend to their level - but gee, it's hard sometimes. Thanks again... Begoon ^talk 15:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest that the block should at least be reduced in length (perhaps to a week, if Jusdafax's time served proposal does not have sufficient support). Hilo and I are both regulars at In The News, so I've seen plenty of him since he returned from his topic ban early this year. There haven't been any significant issues - he's still blunt and disagrees strongly with others sometimes, but there haven't been the personal attacks that used to be a problem. I got the impression that he'd been making a real effort. Given the history I understand Mr. Stradivarius's reasons for such a long block, but it seems a pity that an explosion in response to what appears to be a classic case of civil POV-pushing should undermine the good progress he was making. Neljack (talk) 05:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neljack's point is well-taken. As another ITN regular, I have seen HiLo make significant progress on his interactions at the feature this year and has also been a contributor that assists other editors. Yes, I hasten to add, he can be blunt, quite blunt indeed, but I count my friendly relations with HiLo among the best I have on the 'pedia... quite spectacular, really, given the mutual hostility a few years back. I think Mr. Strad's block is well-meaning but he lacks the long-term perspective that Neljack and I have. Is our heartfelt testimony here not sufficient? A month is too darn long. And this has turned punitive, not preventative, in my view. Jusdafax 08:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations against Collingwood26

• I thought the action against HiLo48 re Collingwood26 was over and done but I see HiLo is now calling Collingwood a white supremacist (both in content and edit summary.) I've asked HiLo to provide a diff or withdraw this, after counting to ten and avoiding my first instinct to withdraw HiLo's talk page access. I didn't do so because I feel personally involved and can't trust my judgement - a while ago I stuck my neck out for HiLo in an RfC and I now feel, frankly, betrayed by him. But if someone with a more dispassionate perspective would care to consider this I'd be grateful. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo has now provided evidence, and I have to say his comment seems well-justified. Have a look at these diffs.[2][3] Neljack (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's stuff like this, strange conspiracy theory stuff like this. Then there's bizarre historical revisionism like Manning River Skull (taking speculation from a single source and claiming it as fact) and claims like this and this which were immediately reverted as unsourced OR. We could likely go on. Stalwart111 03:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs and linked previous discussions above certainly seem to indicate that what Neljack and Stalwart point out is a serious concern. Yes, accusations of this nature are dangerous without evidence, but it seems in this case the evidence does exist, and maybe has not been acted upon previously. Begoon ^talk 15:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to those above who have taken the time to flesh out HiLo's 'white supremacist' assertion. Your research is very convincing and I agree that at the very least a topic ban for Collingwood26 from Australian and race-related articles is appropriate. It would have been good had HiLo produced this evidence along with the assertion but I know that's not his style. Nevertheless I'm glad I resisted my first impulse. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban for Collingwood26; diffs provided above show racist attacks on entire groups of peoples [4] black, [5] Jewish, [6] Asian australian. NE Ent 00:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per the Ent ... this is why WP:BOOMERANGS are so dangerous ... ironic, considering we're discussing problems on Aussie topics. Combine this remedy with the condition-based unblock below - and the IB below that - some degree of normalcy may appear ES&L 01:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban for Collingwood26 - in case that wasn't clear from my comment above. Begoon ^talk 03:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support site ban - I really don't think we have a choice. We're not talking about a legitimate, scientific difference of opinion on race, culture and history - it's good old fashion racism. Stalwart111 05:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking at those diffs, they are nonsense and indicate an attitude few of us would support, but is racism or any other unsavoury or fringe opinion really something we ban editors for? In my experience these edits don't last because they are opposed by editors holding more realistic views. WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS make fringe views unsustainable. Just how far do we push Wikipedia as an enclave of political correctness, where everyone may edit so long as they share the same views? --Pete (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we block editors for racism. We ban editors for recidivism. Stalwart111 07:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see two blocks for personal attacks. What about warnings for (say) pushing a POV beyond consensus? Any information there? --Pete (talk) 07:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the many talk page warnings and multiple ANI threads (based on POV pushing, regardless of what the blocks ended up being for) aren't enough for you to support a ban, feel free not to support a ban. Stalwart111 08:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any diffs? I don't edit the same pages as Collingwood26. --Pete (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a white supremacist, and I have already been blocked for those edits.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about another block, we're talking about a site ban. Stalwart111 07:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban There is just no planet on which it is acceptable to ask: "Why do the Jews want to exterminate the White Race?"[7] If it is "political correctness" to want to show the door to people who spout such racism, then I plead guilty. We are not obliged to allow racists to spew their prejudiced bile on Wikipedia. Neljack (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for that, plus that happened years ago. I was told to stay off those types of pages and I have. Not really seeing what all the fuss is.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? The edit is less than a year ago and your block log shows no blocks since you made it. Euryalus (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collingwood26, Wikipedia is working on a new discussion system, but until then we are stuck with what we have, which means indenting if you are responding to another editor directly. And leaving previous responses in place, as I have done here with Euryalus, who raises a point you should address. I have indented your comment, which I presume (judging by the timestamps) to be a response to Neljack. In discussions like this, it is immensely helpful if we can follow the various threads. There is a useful guide to indentation here. --Pete (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neljack, when you say "We are not obliged to allow racists to spew their prejudiced bile on Wikipedia," while supporting a banning of someone you label a racist, just what subset of humanity are you referring to with your "we"? While I agree that some of Collingwood26's statements are indeed prejudiced racist twaddle, I would be interested to see the wikipolicy on banning editors solely for their opinions. This looks like a very slippery slope to me. --Pete (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "we" I mean the Wikipedia community. As for your question about policy, WP:Incivility refers to "personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities" as contributing to an uncivil environment. As that suggest, I think slurs against groups (such as ethnic ones) can be just as problematic as personal attacks. How do you think a new Jewish editor would feel on coming across that comment? Would they feel like staying here and contributing more to the encyclopaedia? Wikipedia must be an environment where everyone can contribute without having to put up with racism against their ethnic group. Neljack (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It's the spewing racist bile that is objectionable, as opposed to being a racist per se. As a broad church, we welcome all editors to contribute, but require they not attack others on the site. This then brings us to wikiprocedure, and I wonder about how we have dealt with past instances of racist bile. I see a pattern of behaviour, but has Collingwood26 been appropriately warned for this specific behaviour? The usual pattern is a series of escalating blocks, with banning as a last resort when it is obvious that the warnings and blocks have had no effect. --Pete (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support site ban and following my concerns expressed here[8]. However as with the example Neljack provides and the response to it, I think its a competence issue. Nickm57 (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Euryalus I was blocked, also I am not racist don't have anything against anyones skin colour or eye shape I just don't believe non-Europeans can be Australian. I don't see how that is racist. Would you consider a white person born in China to be Chinese? No of course not, so why is it okay for vice versa??--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Best. Response. Ever. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose an aboriginal Australian would not be an Australian since they are non-European. Doc talk 12:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Aboriginals aren't Australians, Aboriginal is a made-up European word for them so even that is incorrect. Most identify with their nation group such as the Noongar or Dharug, etc.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"People born in Australia (including Norfolk Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island) on or after 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or a permanent resident at the time of the person's birth". From our article on Australians. Makes perfect sense to me. Doc talk 12:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So then Doc if a European or African was born in China would you consider them to be Chinese? Same logic but I bet you will give a different answer.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the laws in China. And I'm not discussing this any further with you. Doc talk 12:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WP:CIR siteban per above diff. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim have you found any proof yet?--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is sufficient proof for me. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:26, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that you are now deliberately delivering the statements knowing you risk a site ban for them. You cannot be this involved in race discussions and so ignorant of the impact of what you say. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 12:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Noting that he was already blocked in the past for the specific edits cited, it appears, and the purpose of any actions must be to prevent further disruption and not to simply punish folks for past misdeeds again. Draconian solutions are exceedingly rarely justified. The use of site bans for "having wrong opinions" is a slippery slope for sure -- who knows what legally held opinions will be next to be banned? - Collect (talk) 12:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• He was blocked in [9] September 2012 for edits in December 2012 and 2013? NE Ent 17:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are ALL accusing me of racism and yet not ONE of you has put forward ANY evidence of where I have been racist. If this is the PC freedom of speech restrictions that Wikipedia imposes then good luck without me. --Collingwood26 (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not offer Freedom of Speech as guaranteed by the US Government via it's Constitution. Would you please address my concern above? Are you honestly unaware of the implications and impact of what you say having been so involved in race-related discussions? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This says it all in a nutshell. Just, wow. ES&L 12:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But where in that comment was I being racist towards any group of people? You still have no evidence.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This diff and the others brought forward are, in my opinion, racist and offensive. You may personally not believe this to be the case, if we took a vote, you would find yourself in a tiny minority. My position is that when a person, regardless of their ethnicity, is born a citizen or goes through the naturalisation process, then they are Australian. Personally, I find the sight of someone, whether they were born in Pakistan, the Congo or Tonga, leaving an Australia Day ceremony with their certificate and a sprig of wattle and a glorious smile on their face to be one of the happiest in the world, and we smile at each other and go on our ways, both very proud to be Australian. Saying that "non-Europeans" cannot be Australian is wrong. And offensive. If you wish to continue here, you will keep any such thoughts to yourself. --Pete (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Collect. I don't see enough to warrant a site ban at this time. He's simply dead wrong about non-whites not being Australian, and it's laughable and offensive to most of us that this is his belief. He's best advised to keep that belief to himself and out of WP space. Blocks can be escalated to indefinite, and so a site ban seems like overkill with this editor. He's not even blocked currently and participating here. Someone that needs to be banned right now? Not so sure. Doc talk 12:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop over to his talkpage, Doc - and have a quick look around. I think it's moved on from "White Australia Policy" where it clearly states "Australia for the Australians" - not sure where it's up to now - but it's far more offensive than a simple misunderstanding or one tiny point he's "dead wrong" about, in my opinion. Begoon ^talk 12:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a block log even approaching the level of someone who should be site banned. Topic banned or blocked for disruption is one thing. The longest block, from over a year ago, was for a month; and now we're going to a site ban for a currently unblocked editor? I just can't agree with it no matter how foolish I think his opinions are. Unless I saw some major disruption. Doc talk 13:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Collect and Doc, at least some sensible people here. And yes I can see where people may think I'm racist but in reality Im not. Am I a nationalist? Yes I am but I don't go sticking it out there. I was toldto stay off race-related articles and I have for more than a year now.--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose site ban, support topic ban. We shouldn't be in the business of banning people for their beliefs, even if we personally consider those beliefs to be reprehensible. I agree with Collect's point about the slippery slope. However, I have seen enough WP:CIR issues with Collingwood26 that I think some kind of sanction is warranted here. The sourcing/NPOV issues at List of Prime Ministers of Australia, the original research at War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and Collingwood's failure to recognise or address the issues that people have brought up in this thread - all of these point to the need for a WP:CIR sanction, in my opinion. I would prefer a topic ban to a site ban, however. A ban from all Australia-related topics and all race-related topics ought to curb the problematic edits, and would also give Collingwood26 a chance to prove themselves in areas where it will presumably be easier for them to remain neutral. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps tiered responses to that? A short term topic ban after which we can observe any changes in his behavior, followed by an extended topic ban if he fails to exhibit any improvement? The issue lies far more in his delivery than his beliefs. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The logical next step would be to bar him from making edits specifically on "Australia and race" (that is - specifically dealing with racial issues connected with Australia) unless they have been discussed on the article talk page. The "broadly construed" sort of topic ban would result in him being barred from adding even a date of birth to anyone whose race is mentioned in a BLP <g>. Collect (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: You're probably right - "all Australia-related topics and all race-related topics" is very broad, and would prevent edits such as the ones Collingwood26 has made to Gold Coast Marathon, which look unproblematic. On the other hand, the present discussion started because of a dispute at List of Prime Ministers of Australia, and there was another dispute a couple of weeks ago at War in Afghanistan (2001–present), and these wouldn't be covered by an "Australia and race" topic ban. Also, from the above discussion it looks like there are problems with race across the board, not just in connection with Australia. I am thinking of proposing a topic ban from "all Australian military history topics, all Australian political topics, and all race-related topics" - however, that will still run into your BLP problem. Can you think of a way to word this better? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A narrowly worded topic restriction is better than any which use a sledgehammer on a flea. The "list" discussion did not appear to be any worse than many I have seen in many areas, and using a sledgehammer on it seems overkill. Why not stick to "on any controversial claims about Australian history or race, especially related to Australia, any edit should be discussed on the article talk page"? Collect (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not being banned for their beliefs. Racists are free to edit here provided they comply with policy. What they are not free to do, however, is make racist comments because that is disruptive and contributes to an uncivil and hostile environment for people from the groups being targeted. Similarly, rapists and murderers are free to edit here, but if they started bragging about their crimes they wouldn't last long. We are not obliged to tolerate disruptive comments just because people sincerely believe what they say. Otherwise nobody would be sanctioned for personal attacks or incivility. Neljack (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion is running perilously close to proving HiLo48's point that naughty words count for more here than poor behaviour. Collingwood26 has shown just by his posts within this discussion that he does not understand the acceptable limits of free speech and has precious little regards for the norms of editing here. (eg: It would seem that he is completely unwilling to abide by the indentation rules in this discussion, although one of his previous edits in the HiLo48 thread demonstrates that he does actually know how to indent text. My only conclusion is that he is deliberately not indenting his posts and, at AN/I, I feel that shows a contempt for the other participants.) This behaviour is congruent with his ongoing statements about Australians of non-European extraction a position from which I note he does not resile. Collingwood26 has been given far too much leeway by admins who seem prepared to act as apologists for his appalling behaviour, but whose delicate sensibilities are offended by the use of the word fuck by an actually constructive editor. HiLo48 has not been inserting unsourced POV rubbish into articles, Collingwood26 has been. HoLo48's infractions against ridiculous and superficial rules of conduct have been confined to talk pages, whereas Collingwood26's malfeasance includes edits actually damaging articles. Am I the only one to see the misalignment of priorities here? I am not an admin, so I don't suppose I can add my !vote to the proposition, but if I were in such a position I would support an immediate and indefinite site ban for Collingwood26. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be an admin to ivote on a community ban, as it's a community ban. Doc talk 23:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not. NE Ent 00:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An admin? Damn right I ain't. Never claim to be one, either. Doc talk 01:10, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ent may have meant that Nick is not "the only one to see the misalignment of priorities here", in answer to that question. He is not. Begoon ^talk 05:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then Ent needs to add an "@Nick" before the comment, or something to that effect. A little outdenting or indenting would help as well. There's less confusion that way. Doc talk 05:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My indentation is per wp:indent. NE Ent 11:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. "You are not", addressed to no one in particular, is confusing anyway. Doc talk 11:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin of this thread should understand that those who usually procedurally oppose site bans such as this every time are conspicuously absent. I think it's because of the PC nature of this, and it closes the ranks. I's sad. No one can reasonably claim that this person will be site banned because of their actual disruption rather than their beliefs. Doc talk 09:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there's this, which to me basically says: I don't care who finds my postings offensive. That's disruptive, by definition. Collingwood has repeatedly said he doesn't see why the obviously racist things he has said are racist. He would also, it appears, prefer those who do see them that way to "eat concrete", than be willing or able to understand that such opinions are unwelcome. Until that approach changes, I honestly don't think you're right to say that action is being taken because of "beliefs". It's being taken, if it is, because of an ongoing inability or unwillingness to conform to the norms of polite and acceptable discourse. Or, we allow him to continue not understanding why what he does is offensive, and refuse to prevent the offense it causes. You may not find me reasonable, but I contend it is not about "beliefs" at all. He may believe what he wishes, that's fine - but if he continues to offend, when consensus is that he is offending - and refuses to accept there is anything wrong with that - hmm, not so fine. Begoon ^talk 10:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban. We are talking about a site ban here. Not a block for disruption. Not that they are currently blocked for disruption. If this site ban passes it will be because of bullshit reasoning. Doc talk 11:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, I was countering your argument that it was about "beliefs" - because I truly don't think it is. If I saw any sign that a block might prevent recidivism, I'd change my !vote in a heartbeat. If I believed the point was made, and the editor "got it", and was able to refrain in future - I might not even support a block. I'm not getting that from Collingwood, though. At all. And the collateral damage from allowing this stuff with no sanction or credible promise to stop is too much. Begoon ^talk 11:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First you all wanted me banned because you believed I was a "racist", then when you couldn't provide any evidence of that you have decided to ban me for "disruptive behavior"???

What disruptive behavior? I follow the rules here on Wikipedia--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collingwood, you really need to read what people say. The racist comments, and your unwillingness or inability to recognise them are the disruption. It's all explained above, in this very long thread. (I fixed your indent...) Begoon ^talk 11:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But those are comments which are a year old, it's not that I'm unwilling it's just that you keep calling my comments racist when you haven't shown a single comment where I have vilified another race, WHY? Because I'm NOT RACIST!!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 12:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to reply - because, frankly, if, even after multiple requests that you show some respect for the people you are conversing with and the community, and make the minimal effort to indent properly, you still refuse to do that small thing, then a reply is undeserved, and you pretty much said nothing new anyway. However, I will say this: your continual "but it's a year old" etc... holds no water when the racist comments you have made in this very thread (Aboriginals are not Australians, Asians can't be Australian etc...) are, well, in this very thread. The ones on your talkpage were made in the last 24 hours - I diffed one particularly obnoxious one above. Excuse me now - I have concrete to munch.Begoon ^talk 12:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? By excluding a race from your definition of nationality you are being racist. Racism does not require vilification - it simply requires exclusion due to racial characteristics, or situation of birth. The Wikipedia community has significant jurisprudence in community-bans against those who spew their racist filth (aka disruption) on the project - whether KKK, Neo-Nazi's...or garden variety exclusionists like yourself ES&L 12:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Won't some admin mercifully block the editor already? Even indefinitely, if that's satisfying. For... continued disruption, shall we say? Then at least we can close this kangaroo ban court. I have never seen a ban discussion with flimsier evidence put forth to warrant a site ban. Doc talk 13:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not at a site ban stage, and if we are talking disruption, then AN/I and an editor's own talk page are kind of exempt from the normal pattern of discussion anyway. Perhaps a warning not to persist in such behaviour now that a selection of editors have made their feelings known, and a five day block to reflect on the matters raised here? --Pete (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • There are some strongly divergent opinions here about what to do, but virtual unanimity that something should be done. I'd support any bold admin who took a decisive step to end this uncertainty and make a ruling on what the sanction should be. Please will someone step up and close this decisively? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose I would be comfortable with it being wound back to a topic ban but it would need to be broad and I disagree with attempts narrow it down. With respect to Collect, the most recent suggestion of "on any controversial claims about Australian history or race, especially related to Australia, any edit should be discussed on the article talk page" is way too narrow. He needs to be prevented from disrupting those topic areas where he has edit-warred and POV-pushed, being Australia and race, broadly construed. His attempts to edit-war the word mulatto into a non-race-related news item (thus turning it into a controversial claim about race) should be proof enough that this needs to be broad. There are millions of articles not related to either race or Australia and if he really is here to build an encyclopaedia (as opposed to pushing his fringe, racist rubbish) then he shouldn't have any trouble at all finding something else to edit for 6 months or so. He should go and write about vintage motorcycles or American science fiction or communicable diseases and demonstrate to the community that he is capable of functioning as a useful contributor. If he can't or won't then his intention to remain disruptive is clear and a site ban is appropriate. Stalwart111 00:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's only "disruptive" if there's a possibility any of the 120,065 Wikipedia editors are of Asian, Jewish, or mixed European African heritage. Such espoused viewpoints are incompatible with 'Editors such treat each other with respect and civility. NE Ent 00:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's only disruptive if there is actual disruption? When the work of the community is impeded, rather than some unquantifiable and unrealised potential outrage. It's not as if every Wikipedian of X ancestry is going to line up to read and be offended by Collingwood's racial notions on his talk page or here in this police court or on the X article page. In any obviously race-related article there well may be racial viewpoints expressed, such as the normally alarming frequency of the N-word here. There has got to be some understanding of circumstances, and there has to be some actual disruption, otherwise we are placed in the position of attempting to measure the outrage of things as yet unsaid and as yet unread by people who are not ourselves. We are not the secret thought police.

There has got to be a formal warning not to make offensive racist statements, underscored by examples, and backed up by a reference to policy. Possibly a short block to allow reflection. And a clear understanding that if this behaviour goes on, it will not be tolerated. So far I haven't seen any reference to previous warnings along these lines. If there have been, perhaps diffs could be supplied? --Pete (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A short block to "allow reflection" would be punitive in its nature rather than preventative. Trust me, if this editor screws up they will be "corrected". Doc talk 02:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're not just talking about an impact on editors, Pete - he tried to edit-war the word mulatto into Portal:Current events which is perma-linked directly from the Main Page. I'd suggest that is definitely a page readers and editors alike might "stumble upon". And surely you're not equating behaviour like that to using the word "nigger" at Talk:Nigger?!?. The "circumstances" are that Collingwood26 has continually and unrepentantly pushed his racist POV while claiming not to be racist (with which overwhelming consensus and common sense disagree). This is not a matter of editors being "secret thought police" because Collingwood can't seem to keep his thoughts a secret at all. Wikipedia doesn't exist to accommodate fringe racists who seek to promote that view rather than contribute worthwhile content. Stalwart111 03:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then freaking block him. The fact that no admin has done that yet speaks volumes. A site ban leap is unwarranted. Doc talk 03:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Stalwart! I'm unfamiliar with the volume of his work. Was there any discussion over that edit, any warnings? The note at the top of this page requests diffs, and when the evidence is directly laid out for everyone to see, finding consensus may be a lot easier, than when it is filtered through various perceptions and summaries. --Pete (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal: Topic ban for Collingwood 26

I propose the following topic ban, as an alternative to the site ban proposed above:

User:Collingwood26 is topic-banned indefinitely from the following three topic areas: 1) Australian politics, broadly construed; 2) Australian history, broadly construed; and 3) race-related topics. The ban is subject to the usual exceptions, and can be appealed to the Wikipedia community after six months by a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard. Violations of this ban will be enforced by blocks of increasing length.

This proposal aims at finding the middle ground between topic ban proposals by Collect and by Stalwart111. I have deliberately left "broadly construed" out of the definition of the third topic area to try and satisfy Collect's concern that a topic ban on all race-related topics would be too broad. I realise that this proposal might not satisfy everyone, but I hope that it will gain enough support to avoid the need for a site ban. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:35, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it would need to be specified that "racist" applies to discussion of Jews or Jewish people, as the outrageous comment "Why do the Jews want to exterminate the White Race?"[10] shows, I can't believe that comment has been allowed to sit there for nearly a year, it should be removed. Collingwood26 says above "I was blocked for that, plus that happened years ago" but that is incorrect, that comment was made on 13 December 2012 and his last block was on 4 July 2012 [11].Smeat75 (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean "race-related topics", not "racist", should be specifically stated to cover Jews / Jewish people for that topic ban to be an acceptable sanction.Smeat75 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe I'm the last one who should open their big trap here, but I do think it's time for bold admin action (it won't be from me). Another topic ban suggestion is fine--but how long does that take to attract enough interest for a consensus to be established? (This thread has been here so long that most visitors probably don't even look at it.) I think rather that the above thread should be closed, in the appropriate manner: there is a consensus, and the participants gave their opinion in good faith with the expectation that something be done with their opinions. If Collingwood wishes to do something about it (ie., a ban) they can apply for a modification on AN--along the lines you suggest above, for instance. What else do we gain by that, except for a decision? The need for complete realization of the problem on the part of the editor, which I still think is lacking. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should not be closed. There is no rush to ban this editor. Or is there? Where's the disruption to warrant the ban? ivotes? Where's the disruptive socking? And where are the folks that deride community bans without good process? Absurd is what this is. Doc talk 03:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand how anyone could look at everything from here back to the top of this page and suggest that there is no disruption. Mentioning socking is also a very strange thing to do, because nobody has accused Collingwood of that. So why the red herring? As for whether there a need to rush, I guess he's only been messing things up for around two years now, so another year or two shouldn't matter. (Do we have a sarcasm emoticon?) HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned socking because that is typically the type of thing that should be considered when advocating a site ban. We don't site ban people just because we don't like the cut of their jib. We do it to prevent disruption in the most extreme cases. At least that's how we should handle site banning. Doc talk 07:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Way forward for HiLo

• Way forward At this point, I would be willing to offer HiLo a simple unblock condition, mostly centred on what would normally be considered in the old days as "civility parole". I recommend this:

"Although swearing is permitted on Wikipedia, that which is used as a direct or indirect personal attack is not. Any edit that breaches WP:NPA, whether including swearing or not, will result in escalating blocks, beginning with 1 month. Any admin implementing the block has wide lattitude in determining whether the edit appears to be a personal attack or not. Although civility is not optional, this specific restriction is in effect for 6 months. This restriction will be listed at WP:RESTRICT"

Feel free to modify, and once it's acceptable to the community, propose it to HiLo and unblock immediately once accepted. ES&L 15:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me, and presents a way forward that benefits the community and the editor, in that it sets clear conditions which they may easily adhere to, and which may be straightforwardly "enforced". I'd support that without alteration. Begoon ^talk 15:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an uninvolved admin offering to unblock HiLo with those conditions attached. Stalwart111 06:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I support this in principle, but given HiLo's comment here, I doubt it will be effective in practice. Specifically, I mean the parts where HiLo says "what you insist is unacceptable (the swearing) is actually, again, making this a better place", and "yet again, my view on what works here has been vindicated". If HiLo is of the attitude that incivility is an acceptable way to solve problems on Wikipedia, then this proposal will just be delaying the inevitable and we may as well keep the current block in place. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROPE? It's not about the swearing, it's the NPA's ES&L 10:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps my wording above wasn't the clearest. I do support this proposal - it makes sense, it will allow HiLo to edit while also stopping the personal attacks, and I am also a believer in WP:ROPE. It's just that HiLo's comment doesn't give me high hopes for its effectiveness. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo has said on his talk page that I am misquoting him here. This wasn't my intention - it was a long post, and I like to keep things to-the-point - so let me give a fuller quote, and offer my apologies if I misled anyone. This is the second half of the post:

So, as I've now posted in both the threads above and below, I'm no Superman. I was confronted by misdeeds clearly now identified as unacceptable, not being handled effectively by the community. My frustration was at both. And the situation is STILL not resolved! (So my frustration still exists!) Similar events will obviously happen again, at least partly because I try to stop the bad postings here. I cannot guarantee that I will not again over-react when put in that or a similar situation. I'm just human. (And from a culture where swearing simply IS part of many people's behaviour in such situations.) Had my swearing been towards a well-behaved editor, all criticism of me would have been valid. It wasn't, and it wasn't. My swearing was directed towards a very poorly behaved editor the community was doing nothing about. Just delivering warning after warning after warning after warning after warning after warning.... Obviously pointless. Where was the escalation in Collingwood26's case? Then I swore at him. Now something might be done about him. So again, what you insist is unacceptable (the swearing) is actually, again, making this a better place. You haven't convinced me of much at all. All I know is that the trigger fingers are for naughty words, no matter what the circumstances, and the far worse, incompetent, irrational racism can insidiously go on forever. But those naughty words can actually achieve good things. I know you don't want that to be true, but it is, isn't it? (I didn't do it deliberately this time, but yet again, my view on what works here has been vindicated.)

To get the best picture, I encourage people to read the whole thing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, although I doubt that HiLo48 will want to humble himself (as he would probably see it) to make such a request. Moreover the diff posted by Mr. Stradivarius just above here leaves me feeling that it is only a matter of time before we have another episode. HiLo is happy to agree not to make personal attacks against people he perceives as behaving reasonably, but reserves the right to do so against people who do not meet his standard of reasonable behaviour. He has previously agreed not to swear again on Wikipedia, a voluntary agreement which I thought was a noble gesture and which, when adhered to, kept him out of trouble for a good while. But he can't resist adding aggressive language to his attacks and his defence is that "it's OK in my cultural setting" which is odd for someone who complains about the culture-bound biases imposed from other parts of the world on Wikipedia... Well, that's a pretty poor way of me making a case for support to an unblock request, but I'm afraid my supply of AGF is all but used up in respect of both HiLo and his interlocutors! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What would be an "indirect personal attack" with swearing? Saying an idea was bloody daft? Or would it have to be something more like "I'm going to be blunt: if you haven't got a fricking clue as to what is civil and what is uncivil, stop accusing others of it"? NebY (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW I think this edit might be an example (see edit summary) - not actually very sweary but unnecessarily hostile. I certainly wouldn't block anyone making that kind of edit for the first time, but after all the warnings HiLo has had I personally would see such an edit as blockworthy now that we are where we are. YMMV. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's clear and direct, and I quite understand the desire to ban indirect attacks too. We've seen enough right here, such as this (see the edit summary only for what it doesn't say). But I worry about including "indirect personal attack" in the unblock condition. Those who phrase their criticism carefully can equally see any criticism as an indirect personal attack. Worse, I fear that some would seize on any swearing as a clear indication of an "indirect personal attack", declaring it literally offensive. NebY (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree indirect attacks are harder to pin down and I share your unease about them. We have to go hypothetical here: my take would be that "You are a fucking moron" is both direct and swearing. "That edit was fucking moronic" would be indirect and swearing. "You are a spectacularly stupid editor" would be a direct attack but with no swearing and "That was a spectacularly stupid edit" would be indirect and not swearing. IMO the first two would merit a block under the proposed scheme of things, and the third might do so, whereas the fourth would not. The threshold is a subjective one but my own feeling is that the first three exhibit a degree of direct aggression that the fourth does not, which strikes me as disruptive. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The proposed block lengths seem a bit inflexible. Should an indirect personal attack (e.g. Kim's examples of: "That edit was fucking moronic") really get a month-long block? The sanctions need to be proportional to he seriousness of the conduct. I don't see why we can't trust admins to use their judgement in evaluating that and determining how long the block should be. Neljack (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he's currently blocked for 1 month for personal attacks. Because of that, his first block would simply replace the currently existing block and escalate from there as per standard processes. He doesn't get to go back to square 1 with block lengths ES&L 23:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen enough, and have unblocked HiLo. Now, I don't believe in escalating civility blocks, and I don't really see a consensus here for some kind of detailed 12-step program. Y'all can go semanticize about that if you like. Suffice it to say that next time HiLo loses his temper he'll be blocked. May I suggest to the next blocking admin that longer civility blocks (like, longer than a day or two) are in my opinion totally counterproductive? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have immense respect for Drmies and Mr. Stradivarius and they should be thanked for their excellent work, (and enjoy interactions with HiLo). I think that Mr. Stradivarius being one of the most civil and nicest Wikipedians made the behavior look rougher to Mr. Stradivarius than it does to me. North8000 (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that civility blocks that are longer than a day or two may be counterproductive for one-off incidents; but if a user has shown a long-term pattern of incivility then I think longer blocks fall under "deter[ing] the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" in WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT. If we do not deter incivility and personal attacks, then it seems obvious to me that the occurrence of incivility and personal attacks will increase. There doesn't seem to be anything in the blocking policy to suggest that civility blocks are exempt from the principal of escalating blocks. If you wish to see such an exception, then you should probably seek to change the blocking policy rather than asking people here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think a consensus yet exists to unblock, especially for a no-strings-attached unblock such as the one Drmies has made. I have left a longer explanation on my talk page. For here I will just say that I don't support an unconditional unblock, especially given the diff I included in my earlier post in this subsection, and that I urge Drmies to reverse his actions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your proposal didn't single out HiLo; it read as a general policy. Furthermore, I think it's clear that this isn't a "no-strings attached" unblock: HiLo knows very well, and I indicated, that further incivility will result in further blocks. Now, the principle of escalating blocks was not brought down by Moses on a stone tablets; perhaps WP:BLOCK should be cited in full, esp. since the suggestion is made that I propose changing policy:

    Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Administrators should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening.

    Last things first: it's clear to me, and to many of the participants in the discussion immediately following the block (before "the way forward"), that there were in fact circumstances--in fact, mitigating circumstances. I have yet to see proof that escalating civility blocks have any effect on "deter[ring] any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conducts". Now, one can easily argue that my unblock still resulted in an escalated block; HiLo's last block was indefinite but was changed to six days (total) after ANI discussion, and his latest block was about seven days. But keep in mind that this is HiLo's third block (or fourth, depending on how you count), but the last one was eight months ago.

    Stradivarius also pointed at a previous diff--I hope I got the right one. For the record, there is an argument in that diff, and I don't agree with the meat of it. I think that HiLo could have handled the situation much, much better, and they could have prevented themselves from being blocked. I also don't agree that it's HiLo's cussing that led to possible action against Collingwood; it's rather the willingness of contributors here that led to it, despite HiLo's comments. In other words, HiLo was wrong and wrong, and my unblock should not be seen as an endorsement of their comments. I tried days ago to help them out, and my efforts failed spectacularly. My unblock is not the result of my being friends with HiLo--I doubt that we are--but of the comments placed in this entire thread, not just this subsection.

    Be all that as it may, I made a decision to unblock HiLo because I think that, for now, the project is better off with him than without him. There is an interaction ban between Skyring and HiLo, and I have hope that this will prevent at least some of the hullabaloo that led to the current situation. I also await another admin (I asked Stradivarius) to close the Collingwood section, which I think has reached critical mass. I don't think that any decision there will necessarily prevent HiLo from losing his cool again in the future, but if you think he's irredeemable you might as well block him indefinitely. I don't think he is. Now, though I disagree with Stradivarius, I continue to respect him as an editor and an admin, and though I disagree with HiLo's comments that led to the block (including the almost interminable complaints about the inefficacy of this board and the admins that make decisions), I think he's a net positive who got blocked righteously and unblocked reasonably. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Correction: the unblock proposal's terms were proposed by EatsShootsAndLeaves; my apologies for ascribing it to Stradivarius. ESL, I don't know if you can live with my unblock; I hope you can. Drmies (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia should be free from CIVIL violations, and should foster a pleasant environment focused on building the encyclopedia, and editors who cannot comply with reasonable standards of collaboration should be removed. However, even more important is that Wikipedia should be free from contentious and misguided contributors who exploit Wikipedia's open structure to push their POV. Such contributors suck time and energy from good editors who have to play all the rules—AGF, BRD, CIVIL, CONSENSUS, consensus-can-change, ad infinitum. I support strong blocks for uncivil behavior provided such blocks occur after any underlying problems are removed. The real problem is that Wikipedia's procedures for handling editors like Collingwood26 are very weak, and it is not helpful to leave that problem unattended while knocking out good-but-uncivil editors who have exhausted their patience. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa whoa whoa ... what happened here? We have consensus that the unblock conditions stated above be presented to HiLo...if he accepted them, then unblock was to be done ASAP. There is zero consensus to unblock in any other manner. Again, unblock without conditions has zero support ES&L 10:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Jusdafax and I called for an unconditional unblock. Neljack (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neljack is absolutely correct. To repeat: both of us are familiar with HiLo from WP:ITN, and have the background to understand that this case is complex. I fully support Drmies unconditional unblock. Jusdafax 20:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't view a consensus for removing the block on HiLo, so am a bit surprised that Drmies unblocked HiLo. This is not to take away credit from Drmies who has worked really hard on attempting to resolve the situation. So all I'll perhaps suggest to Drmies is to reverse his unblock, wait for a clear consensus to develop for the unblock, and then unblock HiLo. Wifione ^Message 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thing is, I can't even see much of a consensus for the month-long block on HiLo. I see a very clear consensus for measures against Collingwood, even a consensus for a site ban, but no one has seen fit to act on it. (And I'm not going to--I'm deep enough in panda shit already! :) ) So no, I don't see why I should reblock, though I appreciate your comments. Look, what we've seen in this thread is a. there are problems with HiLo's style and comments; b. there does not appear to be a consensus for such a long civility block, esp. since there is no evidence whatsoever that their other edits are problematic; c. it has been established (despite HiLo's unwillingness to really help out in that area) that a talk page provocation and a pattern of disruption by two other editors was instrumental here. In addition, HiLo had a week-long block.

    Why don't we just move on, get someone to resolve the Collingwood thread, and wait and see what happens? It is obvious that further infractions on HiLo's part will be followed by blocks, and those will probably be longer (again, I disagree that this is helpful, but that's just me). ROPE and all--ROPE, no pun intended, is the attached string (that is always the attached string, by default: it's human nautre). Let HiLo get back to editing and see if he can maintain some decorum. If he can't, we can handle it easily: a block is just a matter of pushing a button. And doesn't this thread prove that blocking is so much easier than unblocking? and aren't there enough editors here who think that HiLo, for all his potty talk, is a net positive and should get back to work? Drmies (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Drmies. Further discussion is moot in this venue, as I see it. Suggest we close. Jusdafax 20:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how putting one's fingers in one's ears and saying "I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is the right way forward. I have to admit, I'm shocked - Drmies is one of those people AND admins I have a lot of respect for and faith in - but this one-sided unconditional unblock has me right flabbergasted. As can be seen from HiLo's talkpage, I've been trying very very hard to get him to understand how means does not justify the ends, and to actually get them unblocked. However, this unconditional unblock was wholly contrary to the intent of this sub-thread, and similarly contrary to consensus. The fact that 1 or two of you say "it's ok, great" is literally unbelievable ES&L 21:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting developments - been at work all day so couldn't comment until now. I'll try and make this succinct! I disagree with Drmies' assessment of the consensus here and I also think he was wrong to unblock HiLo. (For which you can read "I wouldn't have done that myself".) My reading, FWIW, is that there was no consensus to unblock but that there may have been one to reduce the length or to unblock if HiLo accepted certain conditions. However. Now that Drmies has unblocked I'm going to support his decision, argue against any reblock and move that we close this discussion. Call it a good use of WP:IAR if you like - the unblock was a way of cutting the Gordian Knot that this had become. Almost any decision is better than no decision at this point, and I don't think we were near a decision. Or call my response an example of WP:FUCK - viz. : "Suffering (conflict and stress) is caused by attachment (giving a fuck) and can be relieved by detachment (not giving a fuck)." So, Drmies has enacted something I would not have done. Meh.
  

So why are we in a better place now? Drmies has told HiLo that "I've argued repeatedly that there was a context (here and in other high-profile incivility cases), but the community is less interested in your disclaimers than they are in a promise from you to tone it down." HiLo can be in no doubt about the future consequences of poor behaviour, and in case he is I'm going to be bad cop to Drmies' good cop and spell it out for him. I've long since given up expecting HiLo to like me or respect my views so I have nothing to lose. But HiLo does seem to respect Drmies so maybe out of that respect he may behave better. In the worst case, a further, longer block is only a button away and I'll happily press it. We don't need to wait for HiLo's acceptance of that - it just is the case. In the best case, we retain an able editor with a voice that is very often productive and represents a viewpoint away from the US-Euro axis which is good to have. I will close this part of the discussion in about 12 hours if there are no further contributions; if anyone argues against me closing it with the status quo, I'll leave it open. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Interaction ban between HiLo48 and Skyring (Pete)

I'm very much anti-drama and try hard to be a self-sufficient admin, but I've finally run out of steam in my interactions with Lobsterthermidor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Would someone have a look before I do something I'll later regret, please?

The problem involves his ownership of articles, original research, incivility, bullying etc. My attempts to explain these problems to him over the last year or so have resulted in him claiming that I'm obsessively stalking him. My belief, based on extensive examination of his edits, is that despite the superficial appearance of reliability exhibited by his work it is riddled with errors which he fails to acknowledge. This, coupled with his bullying behaviour means that he has crossed the line into disruptive editing, is not an asset to the project, and should be persuaded to leave permanently (he's already "retired" twice). I believed for a long time that he had the potential to be a valuable member of the team, which is why I've been so patient with him. But he's stopped listening to me so I've taken it as far as I can on my own.

Our latest exchange on his talk page is relevant as are many earlier messages on that page and my previous AN/I report. I'll happily provide any further information required if anyone is willing to help. Thanks in anticipation. —SMALLJIM  15:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been engaging in edit-warring with me for at least 2 years. He attacks on many and varied fronts, OR is just one of his weapons in his continuing war. He is an interested editor in the sphere of Devon articles, in which sphere the warring generally takes place. His modus operandi is generally to spark pedantic debates about immaterial statements where I have "said it my own way" as required by WP, rather than parrotted the author's every word. Thus he argues ad infinitum about which parish a manor is in, even though I give him a totally unambiguous source, and calls my common sense reading of the source "OR". He has become increasingly obsessive about waging this edit-war (if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a Special:Duck), and broke his 2 month wiki-break specifically to rewrite, or attempt to rewrite 3 of my brand new articles submitted. That occupied almost all his time for 2 days, and counting. I feel like the victim of an obsessive. These total rewrites, in the middle of an edit-war were actions of further and continued edit warring, and amounted to effective reversion of my text, without any discussion beforehand on talk. That was bound to be inflammatory, and as an admin he should know that and be above it. He then tried to slap an official warning on me (mixing his role of admin with interseted editor) when I reverted his work for the reason of drastic editing with no discussion on talk. See Dunsland. He continues to give me his master-class of how to write for WP, which even involves him chasing me onto the talk page of persons in totally unrelated areas and suggesting I use more paragraphs in my talk page submissions.

He popped up when one of my new articles, nothing to do with Devon, was nominated for deletion due to copyright infringement, see List of licences to crenellate and fought tooth and nail to suppress it. That seems to me to be evidence of playing the man not the ball. He used every argument in the book, but lost. He clearly is in the long-term habit of following my contributions log and, it feels to me, of extirpating all trace of me and my contributions from WP. He has recently taken arbitrarily to deleting images contributed by me, even though well-sourced (see Thomas de Berkeley, 5th Baron Berkeley just because of my involvement. That was vandalism, it cannot be described as anything else. I have recently made positive suggestions to him as to how to end the edit-war, I don't know whether he will take the chance or persist in his actions. My talk page history, going back two years or more, provides evidence of the overwhelming mumber of critical messages I get from this editor. I should add I have never knowingly edited a single one of his own contributed articles, the traffic is all one way. A very fresh example of his modus operandi in Dunsland: Source Lauder wrote that the estate had been occupied continuously by the same family since 1066 to 1947 (paraphrase). I wrote in the article: "It is remarkable for having been occupied by the same family since 1066 to 1947". He accused me of breaking WP rules by not parroting the source. this is the sort of argument I am continually dragged into. If Lauder remarks on the fact in her article, it's remarkable. It's very tiresome. There are thousand of articles on WP with no sources at all. Mine generally have several dozen. But it's never enough for this person obsessed with "teaching me a lesson" and being "right", "better", "more in touch with the sources", and just generally a superior human being to myself. I ask him to step back and end the edit-warring now.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)) Hot off the press: a classic example of his edit-warring modus operandi, see Talk:John Arscott (1613-1675) 29 Oct. You can still sniff in the air the gunpowder of his last salvo. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Anyone looking at this? I'll happily justify/correct any of those self-selected minor issues if anyone considers it would be helpful. The main points that are damaging Wikipedia remain un-addressed. —SMALLJIM  20:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not an admin, sorry, and I don't know either of you, but I saw your appeal at the beginning and have taken a look. A few things seem rather obvious to me:

@Smalljim: it seems perfectly clear from your recent contributions that you are following LT around. I'm not accusing you of hounding, because WP:HOUND says "with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor", and I don't think you have that aim. But you are having that effect, and it's rather easy to see why when you post things like this, which really reads as quite personally hostile, after unilaterally splitting off that content with zero discussion. You don't have the right to appoint yourself as someone's mentor against their will. Other editors exist, and you don't have to manage him single-handedly. And bringing this frustrated but good-faith editor to ANI after that isn't good.

@Lobsterthermidor: now that the above has been said, I think you need to cool it too, and to learn what can be learned from the edits that have frustrated you. Talk page section headers like "Reverted vexatious excessively pedantic revert" really raise the temperature. Above, you have accused SJ of vandalism -- I don't agree with the removal of those images without discussion either, but that comment is too confrontational. Some of the edits that SJ has made to your work are very good, and you could benefit from them. Please take more care over fact checking (between Woodbury and Newton Abbot there is Exeter), and if you're ever accused of OR, the right refutation is to add citations.

Good luck, both of you. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stfg, much appreciated. Just a few points from my side: Yes, I've been watching Lt's contributions for some time. I feel a responsibility to do so because no-one else is correcting his errors, which is understandable considering the extremely specialised topics. The message at Talk:Manor of Bratton Fleming is one of a series of similar ones that I started posting after Lt had retired (see User:Smalljim/Pages I have tagged with OR). However, we'd already agreed that the split of extensive Manor details from articles about villages was acceptable (see here) – this was one I'd missed earlier. I must point out too that Lt didn't add 'Newton Abbot' to that article,[12] it had been there for ages.

It would be great if some other editors looked at the content that Lt has added, but I'm pretty sure no-one does, not in the depth needed to check the content. And I've found so many errors in the small amount of his work that I've checked, that despite knowing that he's working in good faith, we cannot accept, without checking, what he adds. That's too big a burden for WP to support, so, I (reluctantly) believe that he needs to be persuaded to publish his research elsewhere.  —SMALLJIM  15:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and regarding my removal of images from Thomas de Berkeley, 5th Baron Berkeley, here (back in July, not "recently" as Lt claims), if you look at the footnote to the top image, Lt corrected the source he used (now found online here) which said he was the 4th Lord Berkeley. Well, despite this coming from a check of Monumental brasses of Gloucestershire where another cited source also says 4th and gives his date of death as 1392, I must admit that was not one of my best edits - a talk page query would have been better; but remember this was selected by Lt from dozens of corrections I've raised. He says nothing about these [13], [14] (see Talk around the collapse box of 9 July), [15], [16] (where he's accepted several of my queries), for instance.  —SMALLJIM  17:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit-box comment on removing the well-sourced image of Baron Berkeley was "Rm graphics - appears to be OR that they are of this person". Perhaps next time don't guess. I only came across your edit when working on Baron Lisle, a related topic, and was surprised to find the image of the brass (which I travelled over 200 miles to photograph at great time, expense and some danger - climbing up and leaning off a 6 foot ladder - in order to donate under free licence to WP) casually deleted. Not one of your best edits, true. I accept your apology.

Let's understand what you seem to be asking support for here: to have me kicked off WP for saying "Arscott, now South Arscott Farm" instead of "Arscott, which Hoskins says is now called South Arscott" and similar. Hardly a disciplinary matter surely? Are you serious? I could explain why I added "Farm" (OK, because it's a farmhouse not a village or town like South Tawton, South Molton or a hundred others in Devon, which it would sound like to a non-Devon, even non-UK, reader: in Devon farms are often, if not generally, known by just the name, i.e. "Arscott", without the word "Farm" added, as is usual elsewhere), but life is too short. Blenheim Palace is generally known as "Blenheim". I never thought someone would nit-pick about that immaterial use of editorial judgement, but this person does just that, all the time. I'm not a copy-typist, and WP does not demand that, despite what Smalljim repeatedly tells me.

Thanks Stfg for the above "You don't have the right to appoint yourself as someone's mentor against their will. Other editors exist, and you don't have to manage him single-handedly". But he did recently inform me: "If your work was of an acceptable standard, I wouldn't have to keep correcting it: as an admin I feel a particularly strong responsibility to do this, since it's unlikely that any other active Wikipedian is in a position to be able to do so". From Smalljim Talk:Dunsland, 28 Oct. How smug: Only I can save the world! Only I read Devon history books like Hoskins (paperback available at Waterstones, sell like hotcakes I'm told). The classic attitude of someone who is becoming delusional. Remember he cut short his 2 month holiday just to spend two solid days, and counting, in heroically manning the barricades against the "threat to the project" of three of my brand-new articles. Where is the threat? Smalljim you are no William Pitt defending England from a French invasion. I think you are actually defending your self-appointed role as acting (and rather bossy) head of the Devon articles user group, which I have opted not to joined. How do I opt out of this person's smug master-classes? (Lobsterthermidor is having log-in issues) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sad that you've chosen to use what I said to him as a weapon against him, instead using what I said to you as a way to help you. You really need to avoid such inflammatory language. And I'm sorry that my attempt to pour oil on the water has instead added fuel to the fire. I don't know what you guys think ought to happen or how you plan to make it happen, but I wish you both luck. --Stfg (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think his post provides good evidence for why he should not be editing WP. Apart from the contempt with which he treats anyone who disagrees with him (his treatment of User:CaroleHenson was heading the same way before he retired for the second time [17][18][19]), he persistently ignores the main problems and tries to deflect attention into minor issues. The two issues I identified at John Arscott (1613-1675) are minor points in themselves which anyone else would either just let go or easily refute, but he's kept harping on about them [20][21][22][23][24] without answering them. Do have a look at Talk:John Arscott (1613-1675), someone and please tell me if I'm wrong. Yes, I know how trivial this example on its own is – the problem arises because this misinterpretation of sources, this failure to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, happens over and over again in his contributions. And that's one element of his behaviour that neatly matches those listed at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. What I feel now is the same as when CaroleHenson and I posted on his Talk page when he first retired, back in June.  —SMALLJIM  23:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your examples are indeed trivial. The "South Arscott" vs. "South Arscott Farm" one I've answered above, I hope. Not a misinterpretation of the source, but a clarification of the source, it's a farmhouse for pity's sake with a thatched roof and the house is in Ashwater parish, just within the boundary. Look at the OS map. I explained Hoskins's inaccuracy in a note. Hoskins sometimes gets things wrong, and I'm not going to parrot something I know is wrong. WP says I have to give a line ref for anything with "more than a 50% chance of being challenged". I did not imagine anyone would demand a source for that minor issue. You should have added a cn note, not reverted.

As for the Arscott family of Tetcott, they "epitomise all the ancient Devonshire squires" (p.493) for one reason, which would be familiar to someone who has understood Hoskins' point intelligently not mechanically. See p.79: "It was a matter of some three centuries or so; ten or twelve generations for the ancient freeholder to establish himself in the ranks of the squirearchy - Acland, Furse, Monk, Edgcumbe, Arscott, a whole host of them succeeded - and marriage was the greatest single cause of their advancement". What the Arscott family epitomised, the Tetcott branch no more than the Dunsland one, both were grand mansions on estates only a few miles apart, and near Arscott itself, was this particularly Devonian phenomenon of the rise from the humble mediaeval freeholder into the county gentry over time, which Hoskins describes. He takes the reader forward to page 493 with that point having been grasped. Unlike the Norman or French warrior class in Devon who were already members of foreign nobilities or gained nobility or gentry through martial deeds, the Fortescues, Bourchiers, Giffards, Dinhams etc. I understood Hoskins to mean this, a return to an earlier theme of his in the book, you thought he was talking literally about "wind-flung rooks on December afternoons" and "branch strewn parks"(p.493). I would guess that on a December afternoon there were as many noisy rooks at Dunsland as at Tetcott, and lots of branches on the grass at both places. That is to miss the real point he was making. The Arscotts were a family which all originated as humble freeholders at Arscott, now a thatched farmhouse. They rose to the gentry by this process so notable in Devon. That's what they epitomise. I think my interpretation of Hoskins's text is the better one than yours - yes you got the words right, but the true import and significance of Hoskins's insight escaped you. Perhaps it might have been better had I quoted as a ref p.79 instead, but passages like this one do need intelligent reading and interpretation. The Rothschilds in all their European branches epitomise something too, a certain forward progress, one successful branch of the family no more than another. It's similar with the Arscotts. I think that's what Hoskins was saying. Some passages in sources are black and white, i.e. "John Smith died in 1501", but others are not, like this one. Not a failure to WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE, just a proper non-mechanical understanding of this unusually florid passage in this book. Lobsterthermidor (212.104.155.43 (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for replying at last, though to have done so where these questions were asked would have been far better – people trying to follow this (if anyone has got this far) don't need to plough through such detail. Both explanations go far beyond what the sources say, of course, and your failure to understand this shows once more that you still don't get WP:OR, despite assertions to the contrary [25][26]. Or maybe it's an inability to say "sorry, I was wrong". Either way you need to publish your research somewhere else, where such constraints don't apply.  —SMALLJIM  08:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think my above "Perhaps it might have been better had I quoted as a ref p.79 instead" comes pretty close to saying "sorry, I was wrong". Please take it as such. --Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

One other point that needs to be raised: According to WP:Administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist." Did you think it was wise for you to embark on a (very) BOLD edit to my new text at Dunsland, actually a series of rapidly consecutive edits which could not easily be unpicked, all amounting to a BOLD? It was so BOLD my text and format were virtually obliterated. I suspect you knew I would revert it as allowed under BOLD rules for discussion on talk. That's exactly what I did, but I had to revert as a block, as my main contention was not the additions, always welcome, but the complete change from the format I generally use for this type of manorial history article, as you know. Instead of treating my revert as a chance to discuss on talk you slapped an admin's warning for disruptive editing on my talk page and stated "reverting is not an option". Effectively you attempted to use your authority as an admin to impose your format and text on my contribution, and to set it in concrete. And then you called me disruptive for objecting. You are a significant editor in this sphere who has been engaging in an edit war with me for at least two years. Comments please. Lobsterthermidor. (212.104.155.43 (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

No. I refuse to get involved in further side issues, unless anyone else asks me to explain my actions. This is about you – I suggested five times that you could raise a DR process about me (three at Talk:Dunsland alone), but you didn't. I'll just say that I've very carefully avoided using any admin tools in my interactions with you. Templated warnings are not only for admin use, as most editors here know (another of your failures to properly interpret our rules), and I carefully weighed the pros and cons before issuing it. Oh and since you've repeated it so many times now, please provide evidence that I've been edit warring with you for "at least two years".  —SMALLJIM  08:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC) (I won't be here for the next 12 hours or so.)[reply]

Not a side issue. My revert of your BOLD to Dunsland (which obliterated in a consecutive series of inextricable edits my format and much of my content, including the very important Domesday Book section) was the issue which sparked this whole matter of your bringing me to this ANI. It was what you called "disruptive editing" - see your first post at the top of this section. (My wording explaining my action on the talk page may have been somewhat intemperate I now admit). You attempted to use your authority as admin to prevent me following the 3RR cycle. Slapping templates on editors who revert BOLDs for good reason is not part of the 3RR process. Did you or did you not follow up your warning template on my talk page with your own words: "Reverting Dunsland again is not an option". That sounds to me like someone wearing his admin's hat to kill the 3RR process. --Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As for all the OR accusations you have made about my text stating that Arscott was now a farmhouse, you should instead just have requested a source. I give it to you now: [27], the authoritative listed buildings text for: "Arscott Farmhouse and Barns Adjoining at West and East, Ashwater, Devon EX21 5DL. Date Listed: 21 January 1986 English Heritage Building ID: 90703". I await your apology, perhaps we could then move on under more amicable terms and you could henceforth be persuaded to assume good faith in regard to my future work on WP. Perhaps you could also remove some of the dozens of defamatory banners you have posted to many of my articles, referred to above by Stfg. It has the effect of blackening my name in the WP community, which isn't nice.Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I must admit that from the map that place looks more like somewhere that would have originated in the time of Henry III than the South Arscott I found on the A388. But what should I apologise for exactly – for listening to you and wasting my time looking for a place called "South Arscott Farm" that doesn't exist? And must I believe that had I just added a {{cn}}, you'd have quietly corrected it instead of ranting on about "immaterial pedantry"?[28] And if you knew of this britishlistedbuildings reference before, why did you not simply add it at the time? And why did you revert my edit, which although incomplete was at least properly referenced, to reinsert wrong info that there's a South Arscott Farm in Ashwater parish? And finally I should now take it that your production of this one reference more or less invalidates all the questions that I've raised or might raise about your work? Wow!

Moreover, let's get the facts straight in your above post: I changed one sentence and a reference - I didn't make lots of OR accusations about this as you claim; and your article text doesn't state that "Arscott [is] now a farmhouse", it says "(today South Arscott Farm)". Further, although this looks like the right place, there's still no reference that definitively links it with Hoskins' South Arscott where the family originated, so there's still an element of OR here, though this time it's not an unreasonable inference. Maybe you have another undisclosed reference that fills that gap (I haven't checked this time).

Anyway, that's a great job you've done in distracting me into minor matters again. It's the last time here...  —SMALLJIM  00:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody forced you to look "for a place called "South Arscott Farm" that doesn't exist"(sic). You took it upon yourself to amend the text submitted by me regarding Arscott, when you might have been better either taking my text as "good faith" or by asking for a source or by looking for your own sources before launching into your edit. Your action was typical of your habit over the last 2 years of following me around WP and changing minutiae in my text as part of your on-going "master-class" directed at me, to purport I'm breaking WP rules. I have to defend myself. South Arscott Farmhouse does exist. I've given you 2 sources now, Hoskins (1954) p.411, under the heading "Holsworthy" (sic): "Arscott (now called South Arscott) was the original home of the Arscotts..."; and the listed buildings text "Arscott Farmhouse and Barns Adjoining at West and East, Ashwater, Devon EX21 5DL". You need to use sources intelligently, that's not the same as OR or SYNTH. You now seem to be retreating from your original position, and now term my text "an element of OR here, though this time it's not an unreasonable inference". I make reasonable inferences elsewhere, which you constantly condemn as OR. It's OR infringements you've been accusing me of in the past, so this is something I'm going to respond to, its not "distracting (you) into minor matters again".

It is the place you have identified 2 miles to the east of the A388 road, situated 3 miles SE of Holsworthy and 3 1/2 miles due north of the village of Ashwater, in which parish it is situated. (A-Z Road Atlas, & Google Maps, esp the one linked from the listed buildings web-site). I trust the following will end this thread as you wish.

Speaking off-main-space I'll elaborate: Hoskins called it "South" Arscott because sometime before 1954 another house was built on the farmland north of the old house. Look at the Google satelite map.[29] That place now operates as a Llama/Alpaca? Farm visitor attraction. Hence for the sake of the postman and visitors, "South Arscott" (the old one) and "North Arscott" (the new one) were adopted as names. This is extremely common with Devon farms, when the farmer gets short of cash he converts a barn or builds another house on his land and sells it. Hence differentiating names are needed for practical purposes. As an experienced editor on Devon matters you might have known that. The farmer generally often however retains the main name for reasons of pride, and will often continue to give his address as "Arscott". It is confusing. I know of one case where a farmer has built a bungalow for himself, sold the adjacent grand "barton" (Devon manor house used as a farm) to someone else and then re-named the bungalow "The Barton". I dare say the Alpaca operation markets itself as "Arscott farm Alpacas". You need to have a certain basic WP:COMPETENCE in the subject area to write well, and some of that I do have in this geographic area. Not OR. In fact this operation repeated many times is how hamlets grow into being. Who knows, one day Arscott may be a big city. Watch out for a paragraph on this historic estate in page Ashwater some time soon. End of off-mainspace talk.Lobsterthermidor (talk) (212.104.155.43 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Enough of this bickering, more input requested

Well that's been useful, but it's gone far enough. We both know where we stand and there's plenty of evidence here now for some helpful advice from other admins to be given (which is why I posted here in the first place). Would someone please do that now and if it involves censure of me too, so be it. But please – no accusations of stalking etc unless Lt is found to be completely in the clear. I repeat what I said elsewhere: if I hadn't spent the time to look into his work, no-one else would have, and the problems would continue. I can understand why Lt is cross with me, but I don't think that providing enough evidence to show disruptive editing can ever be a friendly process.  —SMALLJIM  01:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Enough bickering"? You don't come to ANI enough ... this is the home of endless bickering, and attempts to steer the conversation back on-track are usually met with loud cries. By the way, you're right, there's plenty of evidence...for an WP:RFC/U :-) ES&L 11:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence for a WP:RFC/U, the basic requirements have not been met, please look at the guideline. WP is not the home of "endless bickering", "endless bickering" is destructive to WP. Your input is not helpful or constructive.

I think the mature thing to do now is indeed to stop this to and fro and to get on with building WP. If I have made any minor errors in any of the articles I have submitted, I apologise and I will try to do better. I think my work is constantly improving. But I'm never going to be the perfect WP editor, if such is even possible. I'm not going to provide line refs for every word, every fact or sentence I contribute where I consider, under WP guidelines, there is less than a 50% chance of one being asked for (anyone's still free to ask, and I will provide such of course). I'm not going to parrot sources, but "say it my own way", as WP allows and often requires. And I'm going to say it my own way in an intelligent manner, not as a robotic and mechanical rendering. As for my complaint regarding Smalljim's behaviour I do not wish to make an official complaint on the DR board, as he has urged me to do, I'm not a fan of litigation. The words Wikihounding and stalking may have been mentioned above, not by me, I can't guess at what burning motive drives him with such force and vigour to break his 2 month holiday to recommence chasing me all over WP, but I'd like to notify him here on this public forum that his actions are perceived by me as distressing, threatening and intimidating, which makes editing Wikipedia unpleasant for me, undermines me and discourages me from editing entirely. User:Lobsterthermidor User talk:Lobsterthermidor(212.104.155.43 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for making me smile, Eats - at least your touch of humour wasn't wasted on me. But Lt has highlighted my plight here, which I haven't previously spelled out to avoid his inevitable allegations of canvassing (so thanks, Lt for allowing me to loosen my tactful British reserve). Yes, I need another editor to help certify an RFC/U – will anyone take this on? I can make a prediction though: he'll apologise profusely,[30] claim complete understanding of our rules,[31] scrupulous adherence to them in the future,[32] probably disappear for a while, then return substantially unchanged. Like last time.

Please, Lobsterthermidor, accept the inevitable. Leave now permanently and save us all, yourself included, a great deal of hassle. I'm really sorry that I upset you: I've tried hard to help you understand how WP works, but it's evident that it's not the right place for you. You should go and publish your research elsewhere: it's too clever, contains too much of your own knowledge and opinion (and, I have to add, errors), for a mere encyclopedia.

I need another editor to help certify an RFC/U. Thanks,  —SMALLJIM  18:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"My work's too clever". Right. If I'm nowhere near expert in the topics I write on, which I'm not, I'm just a keen amateur who consults a wide range of sources, I take it Smalljim will be calling for a policy of banning all history professors and phd's from contributing to WP history articles. "Sorry sir, you're a doctor, you're too clever to contribute to WP on medicine! You there Mr Hawkins! we don't want any of your sort tarting up our astro-physics articles!" That's actually what a lot of people involved in the WP project want to encourage, a dream scenario for many, more expert involvement and input. What a ridiculous accusation! "Too clever for Wikipedia", sorry only room for dunces here, we don't really aspire to excellence. Not only have you just insulted your own intelligence but also the intelligence of every wikipedia contributor.

There's not a snowball in hell's chance of me allowing you to bully me off WP again. Full stop. I think you should now consider whether your desperate appeals for outside help, the above is I think your third, constitute evidence of a lack of support for your position.User:Lobsterthermidor User talk:Lobsterthermidor((212.104.155.43 (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I dunno, the tone of pretty much every comment you've made not only here, but in a random selection of your contributions has me rather convinced that you believe it's your way or the highway, even when shown that your way is incorrect. I don't care if Mr Hawking edited astrophysics stuff...he's not allowed to act like a) a jerk, or b) like he owns the place ES&L 11:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) And furthermore, if Lt actually read what I wrote (it's a similar process to carefully reading and understanding a source document, actually) I didn't say anything about anyone's intelligence, I said his research is too clever for WP. He needs to correct his error in interpretation himself this time, since I'm not allowed to edit his comments :)  —SMALLJIM  12:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My research (no quote marks required) before writing my article on the history of the Devon manor Dunsland (the location of what Smalljim called my disruptive editing) was nothing special. I informed myself about the subject, which involved finding sources, (4 or 5 I think, plus a map and a web-site, all permitted by WP), reading them, comparing them, assessing them. Then this research completed I engaged my brain to use the sources intelligently and wrote the article, often "saying it my own way", and provided several line refs where in my opinion there was more than a 50% chance of a source being requested, per the WP guideline. I made sure I was if anything over-profusive with line refs, often giving 2 in a single short sentence. The text was very well populated with line refs. I used two very standard works covering the history of Devon: Hoskins, still in print (reprinted twice in 1954, and again in 1959) and available today as a paperback in Waterstones stores in large Devon towns, which is the entry level overview book for anyone embarking on a study of Devon history. I also used as a source Vivian's Heraldic Visitations of Devon (1895), a standard work of a more detailed nature, a secondary, reliable, published work, comprising the exhaustive annotated research, presented in pedigree format, of Lt-Col Vivian into the descents of the armigerous families of Devon, from which pool of people were generally selected local government officials. Vivian is relied on heavily by very many Devon historians, and is available in paperback photo-reprints from the USA at very reasonable cost, and is available in original bound copy in the larger Devon free public libraries and also on micro fiche. I also relied heavily on Rosemary Lauder's "Vanished Houses of North Devon", a highly accessible but still authoritative paperback book which has proved extremely popular with the Devon book-buying public and has been issued in a 2nd edition. It is available, often in several copies, in Devon's public libraries. I also used Thorn's 2 volume paperback work on the Devonshire Domesday Book, again a standard work, perhaps requiring some more effort from the reader, but possibly the clearest and most reliable exposition of the subject available, clearly set out with notes. And I used the 1811 edition, with 1810 additions, to Tristram Risdon's ever popular and well known 17th.c work "Survey of Devon", a standard work still forming the essential basis of many Devon historical articles and works. I fail to see how my research based on a handfull of solid well recognised sources, an A-Z Road Map (Geographers' A-Z Map Company Ltd's 7th edition 1994, p.6, West Devon) and a couple of easily accessible websites was "too clever for Wikipedia". User:Lobsterthermidor User talk:Lobsterthermidor(212.104.155.43 (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

What's all that supposed to explain?  —SMALLJIM  23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What it says. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You see that's one of the main problems. You veer from severe incivility to complete misunderstanding. I don't know why you think it's of any benefit here to list, with extensive commentary, all the sources you've used in one article. The problem has never really been about the sources you use, but what you do with them between reading them and using them in articles. I'm certain that the dozens of other interested editors who are avidly following this discussion (joke!) spotted that ages ago.  —SMALLJIM  15:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Between reading a source and writing a WP article comes an important stage: "saying it your own way" (unless quoting). That's actually a requirement of WP. That involves using one's brain. Your editorial style can be, in my experience, overly conservative in the extreme, which actually damages WP articles: in the Dunsland article (the site of your allegation of disruptive editing) you deleted the whole of the highly important paragraph on the Domesday Book, because some doubt existed. That was even though Rosemary Lauder (a source you are very familiar with), possibly the leading authority on this manor, said "The records of ownership are incomplete but it seems certain" (that implies 99%?) "that Dunsland passed in unbroken line down the long centuries from the days of William the Conqueror until it was sold in 1947". She said that for a good reason: the DB tenant was called Cadio (the only example of this extremely rare name amongst the many hundred Devonshire DB tenants (see Thorn, part 2, appendix "index of persons") and Risdon (c.1630) states (p.250, per my line ref) that the manor remained for 8 generations held by the family of Cadiho: "After 8 descents in that family Robert Cadiho, the last who inhabited here, left these lands to Thomazin his daughter wife of John Daubernon". Lauder accepted this (Risdon is a solid source and had access to documents and charters now lost and frequently quotes from them), and even added from her additional (undisclosed) source that "The name crops up intermittently and is last mentioned in 1428 when the male line apparently died out and John Dabernon, husband of Thomasine Cadiho, inherited".

Your response to this tiny bit of uncertainty (1%?): Delete the whole paragraph and make no mention of DB at all, generally the vital starting point for any manorial history. Thorn's note (part 2, 16:16) said of the DB entry Donesland: "probably in Bradford parish" (i.e. the subject of the WP article Dunsland). An intelligent and informed and WP:COMPETENT use of that source would have assessed the probability referred to as 99%, and hence would not have felt it worth mentioning in the text, maybe just possibly in a footnote, but your response: a total deletion of any mention of DB whatsoever. Overly conservative editing which destroys a valuable part of a WP article. And when I tried to use the 3RR process to revert your BOLD, inextricably tied up with a series other BOLDs in the same vein, to discuss your deletion on the talk page, you slapped a warning template on my talk page for "disruptive editing" and then warned me with your admin's hat on that "reverting is not an option".(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Sure, miss the point and pick at a tiny spot again: anything to avoid looking at the open sore of your disruption to the project. I won't bother trying to reason with you about the above – your research both on the subject matter and the procedural issues is faulty. Just look at the edit page for Dunsland [33]. Did I leave myself a comment there? If you hadn't been so unreasonable I'd have got round to doing the necessary bit of research days ago and re-added something.

And since you've wailed about it several times now, the full appropriate quote from that level 3 warning (following on from the level 2 issued on 9 July) is "This templated warning sets out the things you can do now. Reverting Dunsland again is not an option." Though you reverted it again anyway...

You've quoted Wikipedia:Competence is required twice on this page now, apparently without reading or understanding it. I suggest you should read it carefully and see how it applies to you. Is that too forthright? No, nothing else is getting through.  —SMALLJIM  16:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarhound21 (talk · contribs), apparently a single purpose account, is involved in an edit war on Sea salt. Several editors, including myself, have attempted to communicate with Tarhound without success, both in edit comments and Talk:Sea salt#Where sea salt comes from. Tarhound has been confronted with a number of arguments against inclusion, including reliable source, off-topic, original research, undue, and failed verification. I've posted a {{edit war}} warning on Tarhound's talk.[34] --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, editor looks like a poster child for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Topic ban? --cyclopia^speak! 13:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a short block for edit warring first with a stern warning. If that doesn't get their attention ... then more drastic measures. Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith and Fama Clamosa have been reverting my edits. I have reached out to both of them on the talk page to discuss the edit which is backed by multiple references. This noticeboard discussion seems to have been prompted by Fama Clamosa reverting my edit and not discussing it. I have posted on his talk page in the past asking him to please discuss his objections to my edit and have received no response from him. --Tarhound21 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarhound21, the objections are on the talk page, loud and clear, including mine, which you should take as a final warning. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response to you on the talk page Drmies--Tarhound21 (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Sea salt#Where sea salt comes from. clearly shows that Tarhound21 is either incapable of or simply refuses to follow basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:RS. I suggest a short block followed by an escalating series of blocks if the behavior continues as having the best chance of converting Tarhound21 into a productive editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NE Ent is trying a different tack on the talk page, one with a better chance of success. Tarhound is not fighting over anything right now so I don't see any reason to block. Drmies (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edit war ended two days ago - a block now would be punitive, not preventative. Talk page discussion is (hopefully) now headed back toward the actual article content (thank you NE Ent for the addition of sources on the talk page). Suggest this thread can be closed as "no further action" at this time. Euryalus (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no indications that Tarhound221 understands the "last warnings" forwarded to him/her. The last edit from this contributor is less than convincing. I fail to understand how this lack of edits or comments from this contributor is an argument for "no further action". --Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because blocks aren't usually punishment for past misdeeds. Tarhound attempted to insert material to the article, and then unsuccessfully edit-warred to keep it there when the consensus was for it to be removed. They could have been blocked at the time for edit-warring, but they weren't and the disruptive conduct has since stopped. What we have left is a content dispute, which is best resolved on the article talk page. There's presently no consensus for including Tarhound's California factoid in the article. If they argue their case and achieve a change of consensus on the talk page, good luck to them. If they don't bother with that and instead resume edit-warring to force its inclusion in the article, that will again be disruptive and action taken. In the interim there's no immediate action required. Euryalus (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We're not going to block because an edit on a user talk page gives you pause. They haven't edited the article and now they know where the talk page is. I suggest someone close this, since there is no admin action required at this moment. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring between User:ChrisGualtieri and User:Ryulong is becoming problematic in the Anime and Manga Wikiproject, most recently Chris's splitoff of Bleach (anime) and Ryu's AfD of the article here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime). This is not new these users have been mentioned here before and what I would love to see is a solution being brought up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris is knowingly acting against the consensuses formed at Talk:Bleach (anime)#Proposed merge with Bleach (manga) and Wikipedia talk:MOSAM#Bleach break that decided that splitting was not a good idea and only claims that the cancelled mediation was the reason he avoided further editing the article and the no-consensus close of the Dragon Ball (anime) AFD backs up his decision to split. I am sick and tired of having to deal with this nonsense as much as the community is sick and tired of me and ChrisGualtieri fighting all the time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The merge discussion for the Dragon Ball anime is so far largely against the merge Talk:Dragon_Ball#Proposed_merge_with_Dragon_Ball_.28anime.29 with Ryulong the only one wanting a merge there and 5 others opposing it. When more people are involved in the discussion, the results are different. All of the articles involved in this, have valid reasons given for their existence, including plenty of information that wouldn't fit in the manga article, and things created which weren't based on the manga content. Dream Focus 17:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be perfectly fine accepting the decision there if the community believes that discussion of Dragon Ball as an anime should be separate from Dragon Ball as a manga. Though I will be really annoyed if someone suddenly decides that Dragon Ball should become a "franchise page" and produce Dragon Ball (manga) separate from it. But I should not have to go to WP:AFD because ChrisGualtieri keeps citing WP:BLAR as if it is the end all and be all policy on when an article ultimately ends up as a redirect, which is what normally happens during merges.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong has repeatedly, consistently and for months refused to discuss or bring articles that he disagrees with to AFD. Simply put, a page with 40+ citations and a contested blank and redirect should go to AFD per WP:BLAR. I hoped mediation would work, but Ryulong broke it off because he wanted to continue the dispute while it ran.[35][36] Ryulong chose to repeatedly blank and redirect Dragon Ball (anime) during mediation.[37][38] Then he finally brought it to AFD where it was no consensus and kept.[39] Rather than continuing with mediation he opened a merge discussion afterwards at this page, which is likely to be kept. Simply put, repeatedly blank and redirect a contested page is not helpful much less than one of such size. The Bleach (anime) page was no different, but it was on hold for mediation and frankly the blank and redirects are not constructive and removed large amounts of content.[40] I've been asking for months for AFDs and such if they disagree and at each and every single case, it has been kept. Including the three month issue with Dragon Ball Z that had over 60 sources and was repeatedly blanked and redirected by Ryulong. It was not me who has disdain for mediation or discussion, but Ryulong's believes he is better than the community and that is why 2 RFCs on his MOSAM reason were made and both showed MOSAM is not able to institute its own notability criteria for blank and redirecting adaptations and that the community never made it an official manual of style.[41][42] Knowledgekid87, you yourself changed MOSAM on September 9th.[43] Yet your seem to have no recollection of this with your edit.[44] Honestly, Ryulong's inability to discuss and constantly abuse rollback and blank and redirect articles is disruptive and destructive. It should be noted that I undid his redirect of this article with this edit, but Ryulong had previously redirected it twice before and it was challenged by different editors.[45][46] The sources existed and now it is kept, but Ryulong avoided WP:BLAR and made things needlessly difficult with his actions. I'm trying to improve Wikipedia and discuss with him, but a disputed blank and redirect should go before AFD. And I don't want to bring it before Arb Com unless I have to, but I did inquire about it after Ryulong's actions at mediation. This "fighting" is whether or not Ryulong can unilaterally enforce his will and destroy coverage because he has problems with "the fandom" and has stated he'd gut the articles if he could.[47] Not to mention the repeated Rollback issue that was part of the original ArbCom case and the subject of more issues.[48][49] I wish Ryulong could discuss, but if he just has to constantly blank and redirect and remove vast amounts of content repeatedly before discussing and than refused to discuss - I simply have no option but to confront the destructive action because we've lost hundreds of articles through Ryulong's interpretation of a nonexistent and community rejected line in MOSAM. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just my two cents but I do not see any official RFC or such where the community rejected MOSAM. The discussion died a natural death with nothing being done. When my edit was changed so it was a guideline again and it remained unchanged until you edited it today I assumed that bit was over with. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was official and the community expressed issue and evidence was brought it was not ever put up for discussion as the page was created with the guideline status after being taken straight from A&M without so much as a talk page post. Also, more discussion followed the RFC. Which was then part of another discussion. Now you say your revert went unchanged, but it did not remain settled.[50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58] Clearly it is disputed and it is not a me vs Ryulong and the lengthy discussions surrounding it perhaps need an admin to get involved or another RFC, but whether or not the RFC ended without close the evidence and arguments were clearly against it. Slipping it by "oh it was listed for 5 years" doesn't help when its been actively disputed for more than half a year and it never went through the process and has had repeated issues in its implementation and usage. Sorry, but I believed you who initially opposed and than made the change was indicative of its natural resolution. Pardon me, I did not notice it had been repeatedly contested post RFC until now. I think the original resolution you provided was satisfactory given the situation and the way which A&M does not want the community to control the fate of MOSAM. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisGualtieri: So it's my fault now that years ago WP:ANIME came together and decided to avoid the wholly unsourced and shittly formed walled gardens that you can still sort of see in the Gundam articles? And you are taking my comment here extremely out of context. I have to deal with incredibly poor sourcing, lack of sourcing, a vociferous opposition to the use of official spellings over spellings decided as "more correct" by illegal fansubs every day on articles that are not anime and manga related. God, the amount of hate I get on a bunch of fansites because I say the English Wikipedia should call something that has a very clearly visible English name the one that it says on the box rather than some name three people distributing illegal copies of the TV show to English speakers chose because it makes more sense in English is staggering. And in most cases the articles that I have to make sure that they are devoid of unnecessary plot summary and walled-garden-ness would make your head spin. There are so many articles that are in such a horrible condition that I have been actively trying to change how to coordinate them so articles on newer subjects can at least be up to par with an anime or manga article but I am opposed at every turn. There are too many articles on individual characters and groups of characters that are in such a poor condition and full of unnecessary plot summary and barely any real world context. Those are the articles I want to cut down and get rid of. And holy cow, you decided to extend our dispute into a topic area that you never touched in your life when you saw I made the same kind of edit you so detest that you reverted me to add a link to something that doesn't meet WP:RS. I should not have had to follow WP:BLAR as you have been demanding that I do for an article that I simply do not think that week meets WP:N (because up until then it didn't). It is so frustrating to have to deal with you constantly in ways that I never had to deal with you before and the community is clearly tired of having to watch us.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but you should not be taking it out on your fellow editors and you seem to forget that that website is cited and used by Anime News Network which is a RS. I just took ANN's citation of the news and cited it instead and the fact the article is sourced and meets N shows that blanking and redirecting it multiple times was not the best practice. You are not judge, jury and executioner after your first blank and redirect was contested you should have acted properly. You take everything as personal and do not even listen to the why behind the actions and you just close everyone off. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, but under no circumstances should we be miserable. I don't even do a lot of edits in the area, but it is clearly one of the most unpleasant and hostile regions of Wikipedia. You may be burnt out and frustrated - but you know I back you up when you are correct on something. I just wish you would drop the issue and discuss - we'd still be at mediation if you could do that much. At least that way it won't be a struggle just to get a wider community input besides three or four people. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HJU's banner should have told you off. And the article, at the time, was only sourced to the production company's website. I turned it into a redirect because it was only just announced and there were, at the time, no third party sources discussing it. Now there are. I did not want to have to go through AFD on an article that would be valid under WP:N a week later. And honestly, most of my post is venting, because I am very obviously burnt out but I cannot trust the upkeep of these pages to other editors, no matter how well intentioned they are. I constantly have to remind them that they need to keep in line with WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:V, and the like on a weekly basis. But this is all besides the point. I know you want to make as many good articles and featured articles as you can and that's a wonderful goal to live up to. I would kill to have one of the Sentai or Kamen Rider pages reach such a bar. But I just do not agree with the page layout choices you have been putting into place. These splits just produce identical pages that only differ in that one has a list of chapters you link to and the other has a list of episodes. And the creation of a franchise page for Ghost in the Shell just seems ridiculous. Why are we creating a separate article for the originating work and leaving all of the related media to its own page? I just cannot understand your reasoning behind this split.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to examine that specific behavior of blank and redirect more closely. If you know the article will meet N and will have citations within a week, why blank and redirect? Even more disruptive is the fact that you won't AFD it because the AFD will close as keep after the citations are inserted. And the citations were online even prior to blank and redirect. Clearly, something is amiss here. You blanked and redirected an article three times that you knew would meet N and would be kept if it went to AFD. How is this not disruptive editing? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. If I had sent Kamen Rider × Kamen Rider Gaim & Wizard: The Fateful Sengoku Movie Battle to AFD on October 11, by October 18 it would have been closed as delete because at the time there were no third party reliable sources to support the film's notability. It's easier to keep everything in the edit history under a redirect for another 10 days when reliable sources do come out than it is to go through all the red tape on en.wp. I had to go through this in the past and because sources did eventually come out for something that I sent to AFD and that AFD closed as delete, I had to deal with convincing an admin or other editor (I can't remember) that time had passed such that it could be a valid article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to debate whether or not Henshin or Hero Shock are RSes when the scans on the site is what is relevant. Plenty of coverage existed before it could be deleted as well.[59][60][61][62][63] There is more in Japanese as you clearly know, but the fact you decided to repeatedly blank and redirect matters. You are trying to justify it when even the official site had coverage on the 11th.[64] The whole knowing it will be kept yet choosing to blank and redirect it three times is the problem and everyone knows that once deleted or more likely redirected for WP:TOOSOON does not preclude future creations. Are you stating that your repeated blank and redirects are acceptable or beneficial? Policy seems to disagree. You seem to have a completely different interpretation of policies including their intentions - because if you are so worried about the edit history, I'd just ask for a redirect or merge to keep the history. You are worried problems that don't exist and your blanking causes disruption which causes arguments which causes community issues. Why do you find it so difficult to put something up for AFD or to discuss it at all? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting words in my mouth. Fansites should never ever be used as sources on these pages. Half of the time they just post whatever shitty resolution photograph someone who got a week's early copy of Terebi-kun or Terebi Magazine took on their prepaid Softbank cellphone and then posted it to 2ch which then got disseminated to 4chan and the fansites, which cannot be used as a source because it cannot be independently verified until anyone (like myself) can go to a bookstore and buy a copy of the magazine themselves to see what it says. Or they say that they're "leaks" which come from the same kind of person who works in the toy industry and posts photographs or scans of the toy catalogs and posts them and everyone sees them. Because no lay person can independently verify the catalog, it's invalid as a source. And this was the case on October 11 when Kamen Rider × Kamen Rider Gaim & Wizard: The Fateful Sengoku Movie Battle was created. I knew the film was scheduled for release. I knew that it would be a little while longer until reliable sources actually came out to support its notability. But I have people on this website chomping at the bit to get every little piece of Kamen Rider minutae posted as soon as they find out about it that they do not realize that WP:TOOSOON exists and I have to clean up. You are the only one who demands that WP:BLAR should be followed. I had never even heard of it prior to you throwing it in my face whenever I revert one of your undiscussed article splits. I should not have to go to AFD to temporarily delete an article that at the time is does not meet WP:GNG but will in a week's time. That is just retarded. There are people waiting to make Ressha Sentai Tokkyuger because people found out that the trademark was requested and that's the only source they have and they're going to speculate out the ass unless I watch the redirect I made like a hawk.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess I am "retarded" for thinking the procedure and policy are there to solve disputes or that articles with 40+ sources and being a major international success should not be blindly blanked and redirected two, three, five times. I didn't even make that article. I only reverted your blank and redirect because a bunch of sources were online and added one that I could read to cite some issues. Maybe you want to explain why blanked and redirected Dragon Ball Z five times despite it being a multi billion dollar success. I think you need to calm down, take a break and come back when you stop calling people "retarded" or some work "shit". Lastly, you know where page protection is and I suggested it several times already. You were an admin after all, but it seems that your behavior hasn't changed after ArbCom or the numerous ANIs and repeated issues raised on your talk page. I'm going to let someone else take this, because its dragged on long enough and I am tired of the excuses. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How many times have the two of you brought a dispute to AN/I? It must be at least half a dozen times, probably more. Weren't you two participating in dispute resolution? What happened there? Frankly, I think people are growing weary of this as this fighting seems endless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who brought this to WP:ANI because as you said people growing weary of it, so far three articles have been involved in dispute Dragon Ball (anime), Ghost in the Shell (manga), and now Bleach (anime). If you look at the page histories you will see reverts back and forth. It looks like to me the dispute resolution fell through. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mediation was on hold for Ryulong's AFD of Dragon Ball, but after it closed as no consensus (default keep), Ryulong opened the merge discussion and announced he no longer wanted to participate in mediation if it has to be held up during the dispute.[65][66] Mr. Stradivarius did mention that the next step was likely a lengthy ANI or Arb Com. While mediation is privileged and non-actionable, Ryulong's disdain for the process and refusal to discuss and hold off on the dispute is the reason why it began again. He broke it off to continue the merger at Talk:Dragon_Ball#Proposed_merge_with_Dragon_Ball_.28anime.29 which is decidedly against merging. Simply put, I am frustrated with his repeated blank and redirects, but happy that the community and new fresh eyes can weigh in on the matter. Bleach (anime) has 57 sources and is 40kb in length now yet Ryulong seeks its effective deletion by blank and redirect. I think everyone is weary of the bickering. I've asked about Arb Com taking the matter. I just simply do not agree that multi-billion dollar franchises need to be merged to one page nor should they be. I'd gladly make my case before the community, but it is sad that there is fighting over the basic principals of N and GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Chris Arbcom should be the very last resort, I feel some admin input would be best first before we take the case over. The process is long, and The most I see from arbcom are topic bans. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Arb Com is the last resort, but mediation is supposed to be as well. For many months, I have begged for admin intervention. I ask for policy to be followed and discussed; even RFCs seem to be of little use. After all, the RFC stated MOSAM cannot push its own notability - but now here we are having it as "editorial decision" instead. There is absolutely no policy to go on for these actions and "this is what we do" has proven disastrous. Arb Com does much more than topic bans, but given the circumstances I am willing to take the risk so I can actually add the content and get the community's input. I've merged hundreds of articles in the last month - yet only in A&M do I have issues. A&M represents less than 2% of all my edits and yet it is more than 98% of the problems I've had. As an expert in the subject area; I know I can be assertive, but never does anyone listen to why I do what I do or attempt to engage in consensus building or even improvements with me on said content. When the Wikiproject's response is to blank and redirect and delete - how will it ever grow? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only recommend ARBCOM because a) Admins seem to be giving this dispute a wide berth despite it going back to early summer and b) not all of the parties will participate in Dispute Resolution (which is voluntary). I hear your frustration, Chris . I sense a reluctance on the part of Admins to hand out blocks in this conflict over content which centers on one WikiProject (but the conflict spills out into other areas of WP).

Basically, the only tools I see used at AN/I are warnings and blocks. I'm sure the two parties have already been warned so it becomes a question of whether a block would be effective at resolving this conflict. And here, the Admin crew seems undecided. It would be great if Admins used the power of persuasion to request Editors be less adversarial and work together cooperatively but I've only seen a few of Admins comfortably step into the role of a mediator.

This is why I recommended ARBCOM. It's an exhausting process but so are these frequent trips to AN/I. Maybe just filing an ARBCOM request would move some Admins to come to a decision or at least, reopen a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for the correction, Knowledgekid87, I overlooked who brought this case to AN/I. I sense this conflict is affecting more Editors than the two involved. L.

Send this to arbcom then, I am not sure they will take the case but if what you say is true then there is really no other choice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While every case is different and must be judged on its own merits, ArbCom usually accept cases that have not been resolved by formal mediation. So if the parties feel that going to ArbCom is necessary, then it would certainly be worth asking. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom does not handle content disputes, which is what this all boils down to. All that has to happen now is that the various merge and deletion discussions concerning Dragon Ball (anime), Bleach (anime), and Ghost in the Shell (manga) reach decisions that have consensus. Also I'd rather brick this account that I've put nearly 190 thousand edits into than do another trip to arbcom.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "Solomon's Judgement" Proposal

A giant step back

I've been following this for a little while, from an extreme distance, but considering the topic ban proposal above I think I'm going to step in this time.

There was a time when this was a genuine content dispute between two parties that genuinely had Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Best I can tell, Ryulong's position was that anime and manga adaptations of the same work should share a page, and that the number of anime/manga articles for a specific series needed to be crimped down upon. The reasoning behind this position was that we were generating a stream of truly awful quality articles on minor characters and had separate pages for anime and manga adaptations of a work even when there was almost no difference between the two. ChrisGualtieri's position, on the other hand, was that we should have seperate articles for the anime and the manga adaptions of a work, especially when there are significant divergences between the two, and that Wikipedia tends to treat novels and movie/TV adaptations of those novels as separate articles, so the anime/manga position is inconsistent with practice on the rest of the site. These are both good positions that are grounded in valid observations and aim to improve coverage of anime and manga on Wikipedia.

The issue, however, is that those positions have become muddled over time and have taken a back seat recently. The discussion is no longer about splitting anime and manga into two separate articles, it is about Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri fighting each other at every turn. It reminds me of American politics; the positions held have become more and more malleable as the priority of the sides shifts from attacking each other's arguments to simply attacking each other and trying to "win". A half dozen major fights later, it's clear that there isn't a winner here, the losers are Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri (in terms of standing within the community), anime and manga (in terms of the paralyzing effect this fight has had, and because the fight is keeping other editors from wanting to work in the area), and Wikipedia as a whole (because we keep having to sort this mess out).

What we need is to take a giant step back and try to re-establish exactly what the two parties' visions are: Where should there be one article for the manga and the anime (i.e. one article) and where should there one for the manga and another for the anime (i.e. two articles)? What should be the the criteria for having multiple articles about the same franchise? We need to think about how we're treating the major properties like Naruto (significant scholarly coverage of several of the characters), Gundam (several anime adaptations that are individually notable), Fullmetal Alchemist (two anime, one of which differs wildly from the manga, one of which doesn't). In short, we need both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri to lay out their positions in great detail, and then we need to have a discussion about those positions with minimal further involvement from Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri (because their bickering would kill the discussion before it started), that brings in editors with no involvement with anime/manga. It's clear to me that both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri want the best for the project, but attempts to find an agreeable stance on coverage have turned into a brawl. Lets end the brawl with a well moderated RfC. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Don't topic ban Ryulong and make him quit Wikipedia altogether. Both editors just want what is best for the project. They need to lay out their ideas and then let other people carry out them instead of acting on their own ideas and arguing about them. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 21:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Chris and Ryulong are topic banned for a bit (By the looks of things this is not an indef ban being proposed) there is still time to have this RfC and talk things over without having the risk of the discussion becoming faded over time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept - Make this binding! Block me if I make a respond beyond my single post at the RFC! I want this solved. I may not agree with Ryulong, but he does what I cannot and a topic ban for him will prevent his maintenance of numerous problematic articles. If not drive him from Wikipedia itself. Hell, my improvements and contributions mean nothing without someone like Ryulong to ensure that they have integrity. Let the community hear both our cases side by side, blind, posted by Sven. Argument 1 and Argument 2. I've tried desperately to reach the community - I'll not throw away the best chance to end this dispute, outside of ArbCom. Which if Ryulong's comments say anything would result in him leaving Wikipedia. And that is not "win or lose" that is "lose or lose". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we pinning this on Ryulong? Who's doing the radical splits without consensus? And who's trying to do the proper procedures? Ryulong is only trying to gain proper consensus before splits and merges, in which these articles have faced.

Let me note, that ChrisGualtieri does not have personal issues with Ryulong, but the fact that it is against the entire WP:ANIME's way of editing and has snapped to multiple editors. Banning these editors wont solve anything, and if this was an issue an issue worth ANI. i would say due to WP:OWN and WP:POINTY of certain editors who have split/merged articles without consensus.Lucia Black (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Chris' "Which if Ryulong's comments say anything would result in him leaving Wikipedia." refers to Ryulong's "This is extremely draconian with the extension to all Japanese culture, as I edit a topic area that ChrisGualtieri does not that falls within this, making it effectively a complete site ban for me if it were to be enacted and I would rather leave and never return than deal with anything of this sort." Sven Manguard Wha? 03:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I will agree to this sort of rigid form of dispute resolution. Anything is better than a topic ban or going up in front of the arbitration committee (again).—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that if the RfC is held there is still the matter of the ongoing merge discussions and the AfD at hand, both of you need to put down your weapons and the discussions you have been involved in to counter the other's point in order for a meaningful RfC to go forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AFD is ending soon (I think) and the two merge discussions seem to be heading towards conclusions, though. Unless agreeing to this sort of RFC completely shuts down those three discussions and then what happens there has ripple effects across the whole project.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I say screw it. Dragon Ball is going to close as a no merge. Bleach the anime. If Ryulong can deal with merging it for the time being. Do it. If its up in 24 hours and no one objects, I guess I can merge it myself. While its the last thing I want to do - Ryulong's agreement is cause for a "Drop all conflicts" situation and I'm not picky about closing them prematurely. Ghost in the Shell is a nightmare, but Ryulong. Merge the damn thing to one page. This is absolutely not a "win or lose" mentality for me. This conflict must end. And I'm willing to throw out basically all my work and drop all the issues if it lets us finally end it on reasonable terms. Because neither of us want topic bans. And the community is simply pissed off - I didn't bring this to ANI, but I don't want it to come back here or end in topic bans which will prevent you from doing as much work as myself. Let's do this. Agreed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • While I rather not say it, I will: I'm going to take this RFC as binding, if not officially, but personally. If unfavorable, I'd be content to work within the communities decision. If favorable, I'd walk away from conflicts raised by Ryulong. Why? Losing Ryulong, topic ban or otherwise, is much worse for the long term integrity of the articles in the area than it is for me. I intend this to be the final matter. Long have I wanted the community to hear out the issues and decide for us - truly Sven's way is the best way. I'm willing to do whatever is necessary to make sure this ends with the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is going to happen. I've sent off emails to Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri and once they post their initial statements, I will bring it live and spread the word of its existence. If both of them get back to me soon, expect it to go live in somewhere around 16 to 24 hours from now. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is going to happen, yes, but does it mean ChrisGualtieri will stick to its result even if it doesn't go his way ? The recent Bleach (anime) incident shows Chris is ready to deliberately ignore a solid consensus against him, formed by more or less the same users who'll be involved in the RfC, and to intentionally misquote and abuse guidelines such as WP:BLAR to push for his views. Ryulong was wrong to play along with Chris' disruptive behavior, yes, but I'm afraid this is not just about ChrisGualtieri vs Ryulong, and I would find it unfair to equally associate Ryulong with any sanction against Chris. Chris has been involved in heated conflicts with several other editors of the anime/manga articles, and it is not the first time he crosses the line to apologize immediately after. For how long will this be allowed to go on ? Is there any indication that he has learned from his mistakes ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought our differences were in the past, Folken. I've not had issue with you since apologizing to you over the D&D issue. And I've not had issue with the communities decision on anything before, including Deadmau5. I'm offended that you are stating that I am abusing something as clear as WP:BLAR and say that my apologies mean nothing. Look, I am here stating that I don't want Ryulong topic banned cause he is more useful than I in maintaining the integrity of the space. Despite our differences, I repeatedly take his side in conflicts.[67] I've indeed worked hard in the time since the edit warring and the deletion of the AFD which I made to have the community decide that pages fate. It was on hold for mediation and I do not call a forceful blank and redirect, repeatedly, within 24 hours to be a consensus. It had over 40 sources my work out of mainspace has resulted in twice the size and three times the sources. It was actually bigger than the original article it came from! I stand by my work, but let the RFC happen - I've only and repeatedly stated that I want the community to decide how to handle such articles with 90 sources and over 100 episodes of original content that get no coverage here because a handful of A&M editors decide by fiat after the community RFC disagreed with the premise.[68] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I see these arguments over cartoons and comic books and wonder what this stuff is doing on WP at all. Probably not the right place to ask this, but how is any of this trivia considered notable? Why do you have do establish notability for academics or classical musicians for instance but cartoon characters get their own articles?Smeat75 (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct that this is not the right place to ask this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like having to come to this board for any reason, but due to the continued actions of the user listed above, I find myself with no other options. For several months, I've noticed that User:ProudIrishAspie has gone on long tears of adding flags to military history info boxes - generally for biographies, ships, and battles. The problems are that a) I don't think WP:INFOBOXFLAG supports such wholesale use of flags, but more importantly, it doesn't support the use of ahistorical and fantastical flags. For instance, this user has added the Gadsden flag to numerous articles as the flag of the Continental Army; this flag simply was never used in any such capacity. See an example of this here. In another set of instances, s/he has added a template with the Red Ensign to symbolize the Royal Navy during the American Revolutionary War; this is also incorrect, as the Royal Navy was also represented by a White Ensign and a Blue Ensign, and there is no consensus that the Red version ought to represent the Royal Navy as a whole. See an example of this here. Not all of PIA's flag additions are inaccurate, but enough are that a whole lot of reverting will need to take place. Even if accurate, as I expressed on his/her talk, I don't believe they add any more information other than what the words say.

• A look at his/her recent contributions will show you the extent of this user's single-mindedness. I would guesstimate that the user has made over 1,500 infobox flag edits since October 1; in my opinion (based on my knowledge and frequent work in and around American Revolutionary War issues), nearly all of his contributions to 18th century military history articles will be inaccurate. Even if not, he's cluttering up thousands of info boxes.
• I attempted to converse with the user three times, once in May, here, and twice more in the past week, here and here.
• This user has previously been blocked at least once because of this same issue this year; that discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#ProudIrishAspie.
• I understand the user has self-identified as being a person with Aspergers Syndrome; while I would in no way ever denigrate or "pick on" another user because of his disability, I do not believe a disability should allow a user to continue to edit disruptively - and to avoid talking about it. If he thought I was wrong, all he'd have to do is answer my multiple comments.

I am willing to answer any questions or concerns, particularly about the subject matter, which I know is unfamiliar to many. Cdtew (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice left on the user's talk here. Cdtew (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Cdtew, I was involved in the discussion last time that led to the block, which I fully supported. I have a few questions for you and for the general audience: 1. WP:INFOBOXFLAG seems to support no flags at all in infoboxes in biographies, except for sportspeople in very specific contexts. I know it's customary to have them in military people's infoboxes, but I don't even see that supported. Did I misread? What does MILHIST have to say? 2. Can you identify (for the non-specialist) incorrect flags after your second recent note? 3. Do you (and others) think that the ratio of incorrect vs. correct is high enough to warrant mass rollback? It's a drastic step, but it may be legitimate if there's simply too many incorrect flags.

  I'm going to leave another note for them, a kind of cease and desist note, though I don't anticipate any answer--this is one of the things that make working with the editor so impossible. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm struggling to remember the last time I even participated in a thread at ANI but I think it's worth doing so here... I agree that INFOBOXFLAG appears to support not using flags in infoboxes as a general rule. I don't know if this was always the case. When I started editing military articles (primarily biographies) in around 2007, infoboxes always used little flags for nationality/allegiance and service, so I followed suit. Sometime in the past year my attention was drawn to the guideline and I stopped using infobox flags in my new articles and removed them from existing articles that I was improving. The world did not end; several other MilHist editors have adopted a similar practice. I don't think the issue is necessarily bad enough to systematically remove all flags in all articles, but I'd strongly discourage systematically adding flags (whether they're 'correct' or not) to articles -- it's imagecruft at best, misleading at worst, and is one of those WP behaviours that strikes me as plain obsessive. I'd have no issue with a mass rollback in this particular case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Ian, for that useful narrative. (I always like stories.) I'm hoping for a bit more input from your fellow editors there. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The issue of flags in infoboxes in ship articles was recently discussed at WT:SHIPS and it was consensus that for them it was appropriate due to flag variations, ensigns, etc. I think it was discussed awhile back at MILHIST that flags for battles and such in infoboxes were not, but I'm drawing a blank on finding it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Drmies: I think you have most of an answer for (1) - I'm with Ian, but my position is that because a nation/kingdom's name is generally found in the "allegiance" and "service" fields, the flag adds no additional information, and serves to disproportionately emphasize the importance of those sections, which is contrary to INFOBOXFLAG. As for (2), here are some examples of edits that came after my recent warnings:
          1. Theophile Aube - This edit ignores the actual article, inserting the Kingdom of France's flag and the white French Navy flag for an admiral who served only under the Tricolour; PIA relied solely on the apparently incorrect dates in the infobox to add the wrong flag; this is emblematic of this editor's modus operandi: in previous discussions, he's stated that he makes these edits quickly, and acknowledges this leads to mistakes.
          2. Armand Blanquet du Chayla - Here, the editor removed the tricolor and replaced it with the Kingdom of France flag and the French royal naval ensign; this ignores the fact that the article expressly mentions du Chayla's service in the post-revolutionary navy, thus under the tricolor.
          3. Frank Matteson Bostwick - This is another systemic issue; throughout an untold number of articles, the editor has placed the Flag of the United States Navy (which was adopted in 1959) in infoboxes of people who died before 1959. This is ahistorical and should be rolled back.
          4. Samuel Hood - Here's one showing the Royal Navy flag issue.
          5. George Little - Another U.S. Navy flag issue, but this also includes a US flag issue; the reason flags are so messy for this period are that there were multiple U.S. flags between 1775-1800. So, this subject served in the American revolution under the 13-star flag, but also served in the U.S. navy under the 15-star flag (adopted in 1795); PIA has only chosen to put one, which is misleading. Multiple flags, though, will be too much.
          6. Francis Nash - This one is what initially caught my attention; note this was before my warnings. In this one, a U.S. flag issue appears (Nash would have in theory served under the Grand Union Flag of 1775-6, and the 13-star flag of 1777). Most importantly, though, this is an appearance of the Gadsden flag issue, which is now in a multitude of articles about Continental Army soldiers.
        • That's just some, for now. Admittedly, the last one came before my warning, but I wanted to explain to be clear. Cdtew (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Warning given: I will block if there's any more flag edits pending this discussion. Drmies (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Such edits were indeed made since the warning was given: here, for instance. That warrants a block, unfortunately. In addition, there is enough doubt here about the editor's competence that I believe mass rollback is warranted, as painful as it is: this probably undoes a large number of valid edits, but taking samples from the last 500 edits confirms that many of these edits are problematic, especially since none of them come with any kind of explanation. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of an outright block, is there a way to topic ban the user from the narrow point of adding flags, rank insignia, or other images and icons to the infoboxes of military history biographies? Cdtew (talk) 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure--the moment they start talking. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, we can open a discussion and even enact it without their discussion input - which appears to be necessary ES&L 15:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to see this section heading pop on my watchlist, and bells went off. I can't put my finger on anything specific, but this first edit to the user page stands out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment redacted by author]

Oh my. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen equipment - ships mostly, but occasionally other military vehicles if there has been a long enough history of said vehicles being in operation - use flags to denote operators or allegiances, but in most cases save for specific ships the use of flags in such an article is limited to a section on foreign use and is not in the infobox. In most cases battle or war articles will use flags to denote the allegiance of the military commander in the battle or the faction that fights the battle in the infobox, but again this is only done in a limited capacity, particularly since we get anal about citations and verifiability at MILHIST for articles on such material. Personally I think it a bad idea since most of the flags used have long since fallen out of use by a nation and the addition of flags to infoboxes A) unnecessarily increases the size of an infobox, B) can be said to violate POV by assigning a specific nation or allegiance to the subject of the infobox, and C) adds nothing to the infobox that could not be expanded upon in better, more accurate, and well cited way within the article body itself. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• @TomStar81: Tom, I agree that there are instances where it appears flag use has become acceptable. I personally don't use flags in biography infoboxes, as I think the flag places undue emphasis on allegiance/branch of service. For instance, I think we can all agree that Elvis Presley shouldn't have a portion of his infobox with flags for allegiance and branch of service, as those were minor factors in his life. My main problem with the flags that PIA is putting in infoboxes is that many of them are erroneous. In the 18th century, flags (aside from naval ensigns and those flown from fortifications) didn't have much consistency or official backing.

To further confuse issues, there are a ton of flags that were adopted in the 19th/20th centuries that people want to impose on 18th century conflicts and figures. Look at the Seven Years' War article as an example, where the infobox will occasionally be littered by things like the Iroquois flag (a 20th century creation), the Russian flag {not made official until the 19th century), or variations of the Austrian/Holy Roman Empire/Austro-Hungarian flag (all either 19th century creations or representative of something larger than "Austria"). Or, on the other hand, look at problems with Civil War articles like 7th Arkansas Field Battery, where, despite constant warning, another editor continues to create articles on Arkansas confederate units featuring the Arkansas flag (for the record: not even thought of in concept until 1912).

So, in short, there's a huge issue with Wikipedia's credibility at stake because of something as silly as flag icons, and users like ProudIrishAspie, who appears to be a single-issue (or dual-issue, along with the subject of mass killings) editor undermining that credibility. That being said, Proud made a note on his talk page here, calling Drmies a prick and asking why he'd been blocked. Drmies and I both responded here asking for him to please talk with us, but since then Proud has not attempted further contact. I'm not an admin, but I would ask for a narrow topic ban now that Proud's edits have been rolled back. Cdtew (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I just removed the flag at 7th Arkansas Field Battery; as I said in my edit summary, today's Arkansas is not that of 1865--at least I hope not. "Prick"--ah well, I've been called worse, and since I blocked the editors and rolled back a bunch of their edits a bit of anger is understandable. Mind you, I did not roll back all their edits: it's like drowning puppies, it gets to one after a while. (And it seems that mass rollback only rolls back one screen--I went 50 edits per screen to try and prevent my browser from crashing with 100 windows open.) A topic ban is fine with me, as I said before, but the unblocking will have to come after an unblock request--or perhaps someone can volunteer as a kind of mentor, at least initially. But since the editor doesn't wish to communicate there's little to go on right now. Please note that I derive no pleasure from rolling back good-faith though erroneous edits, or from imposing this indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Enok (talk · contribs) This user has been going around the various pages related to Italian cuisine and changing them based on his own person opinion of what constitutes "Italian". This behavior includes rewriting articles, changing templates (e.g. Template:Pasta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Italian cuisine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), removing categories from articles (e.g. Category:Italian restaurants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) and name calling instead of discussing issues properly.

Some examples:

1. He has removed Category:Italian restaurants from every article that pertains to restaurants that are not in Italy based on his belief that since these restaurants are not in Italy, they are not Italian. One such example: diff
2. He has edited every article that relates to pasta and removed any articles that concern non-Italian pastas based on his personal opinion only Italian pastas can be called pasta. One such example: diff
3. He has engaged in several edit wars during his tenure as an editor. (see discussions on his talk page)
4. He has serious issues with civility, 3R violations and other problems. One such example: diff

I and others have warned him several times to stop and he continues his troublesome edit patterns. His edit style is rough at best and he has become excessively disruptive in the past few weeks. I personally believe that he should be category blocked in regards to Italian-related subjects, but that is just me. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that after getting lots of feedback yesterday, while Enok doesn't agree with the categorizations, he understands that he is in the minority and I don't think he will continue with changing categories for Italian restaurants and dishes. I don't know his/her entire editing history but it could be that he/she took these warnings to heart and won't continue this behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Liz. If there are no more disruptive edits then the practical problem is solved. However, what I think the attitude is behind the edits and the subsequent responses to legitimate concerns is troubling enough. If they keep that to themselves (that is, off-wiki) that's fine. But note their response in the Fettuccine Alfredo exchange on their talk page: that's totally not kosher on many different levels, and mirrors some of the discussions you see in Balkan-related pages: "book x is written by a person from country y and published by publisher z, so it cannot be authoritative". That's unacceptable and immediately disbars the editor from commenting on reliable sources, for instance. (Never mind that the author's grandfather and the supposed inventor of the dish "fought side by side in World War I", a nice detail.) Drmies (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What troubles me as to the future is not the removal of dozens of Italian cuisine cat references episode. That was an upsetting episode -- given the editor's odd, unique, views. Given his removal of appropriate cats from dozens of articles. Given that he did nothing at all to remediate the matter and revert himself after it was brought to his attention by multiple editors. And given his ongoing "I am completely right, the rest of the world is completely wrong" attitude. But as to the future, he has at least in this case deigned to defer to the completely wrong approach of the rest of the world. What does bother me as to the future is that this is apparently not the first instance in which his attitude has led to disruptive editing. While this cat is now safe from him, apparently, as long as he continues to have this attitude I'm concerned that he may -- yet again -- engage in similar behavior, to the detriment of the Project. I think that he would benefit from a final warning, indicating that similarly disruptive behavior elsewhere will not be tolerated.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with the above comments by Liz and Drmies – based on the fact that the user is confronted with the overwhelming evidence against him, I think he'll stop. Otherwise, he might be facing a block (but it might be better to first warn him, then block him for 24 hours). Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 20:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• My major issue is that he needs to be officially warned in some manner that his behavior is unacceptable. A final warning with the potential for a block would work fine. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Admins, just wondering what the procedure is if an IP accuses you of harassment on Facebook, which of course is complete rubbish, but at the same time I take it rather seriously. It's from a disruptive IP, who's block evading has made this accusation - here Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User has been harassing me for several months, reverting edits for no reason e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Damien_Delaney&action=history and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Kilbane&action=history and has also been edit warring with myriad other users causing umpteen pages to be locked for frivolous reasons.

He has also got me blocked several times for frivolous reasons and clearly does not want me editing on this site.

He is accusing me of evading blocks which is complete nonsense because I am making edits from a different house. Not that I have been blocked for genuine reasons.

The last time I got blocked, I received no warnings; which is against etiquette.

User is now harassing me on social media under fake accounts. I suspect it is him because he made references to my editing on Wikipedia. I also suspect it is him because he has been harassing me and stalking my edits on this site for over three months now.

He is causing non-stop disruptions on this site by picking fights with me and other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.15 (talk) 16:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "He is accusing me of evading blocks which is complete nonsense because I am making edits from a different house" er, no, that's not how it works. Blocks apply to the user, not the IP address. Since I can't actually see an existing block for you (the last one seems to have expired yesterday), I won't block this IP address as well, but you would be as well to consider this. However, you do need to substantiate your claims about Facebook harrassment (which frankly appear to be nonsense), or you'll find a different block being applied. Black Kite (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I get any warnings for last block. It seems to have been implemented for no reason whatsoever. That isn't allowed. Yes, I do agree that this account shouldn't be blocked. Look through my edit histories. I don't vandalise pages or put in incorrect edits. I also don't revert factual edits which JMHamo has constantly being allowed to get away with, with no repercussions or warnings; which encourages him to keep doing it.

As I said on The Rambling Man's Talk page. I refute this allegation about your Facebook account, and I am offended by this accusation. In my opinion this statement alone deserves you are blocked for further editing. JMHamo (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"timestamp man" is one of the less vitriolic insults aimed at me in aforementioned message. User since blocked me/cancelled troll account but message is still readable in my message history and I took the precaution of taking a picture of the screenshot. I take my privacy being invaded very seriously and I am not happy about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.15 (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it sounds like private stuff is involved, you should send any evidence you have go an appropriate place like WP:Arbcom and in the meantime stop making accusations on wikipedia. Also there's no requirement or expectation for a warning before a block in all cases. For example, if you are clearly aware you are violating policy and you're unlikely to stop, no warning may be expected. To give a more specific example, if you have recently been blocked for the same problem, under any IP, it's likely you'll be blocked again and for a longer period without further warning if you come back after the block and repeat the behaviour. And as has already been pointed out, if you are blocked and come back even under a different IP and you don't repeat the same problems, you may be reblocked for block evading. The best thing to do is to be honest and either wait out the block or ask for it to be lifted if you want to start editing constructively. Nil Einne (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPs that appear to have been used by the same user:
86.42.0.170 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.0.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.1.70 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.3.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.8.57 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.11.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.12.125 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
86.42.14.15 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Also see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/86.42.11.48 --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition to this SPI, Murry1975 had been keeping a log of this disruptive IP's hopping to evade any block. JMHamo (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP appears to have become deliberately disruptive and perhaps even drunk. Edits vary between correct updates but those which aren't inline with common project goals, and those which are plainly vandalism. Pathetic. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the Begovic edit. Don't be attributing vandal edits to me. I am simply doing to you what you and that other user have been doing to me for months. I waste hours of my life making edits for you two to revert them for no reason. Quit playing the victim. It's tit for tat. I am just being as childish as you and JMHamo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.170 (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you make absolute lies about me "refusing to discuss" the problems that have been going on for over three months now. What do you call all of this? JMHamo was told by another admin that there were no grounds to block me but he ignored him and went to you to enforce a frivolous ban, again. All over timestamps. You two have been reverting my edits for no reason for over three months AND I AM THE ONE "EDIT WARRING". Bloody pathetic. You two should not have the privilege of enforcing bans. You are as bad as me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.14.170 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could an Admin please block the latest IP 86.42.14.170? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These all seem to be in the 86.42.0.0/20 range, so I've thrown down a rangeblock.--v/r - TP 22:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been busy and not around much. This IP isnt a co-operative editor and most edits who interact with him spend thier weekends tiding up his mess, he wont work within the football project guidelines and tries to bully his way along with treats. If any admin would like to step in most weekends and block this guy on sight it wouldnt go astray. As can be seen on my log- which I havent updated in awhile, there are rascist remarks, slanderous comments on BLP pages, and a whole bunch of these "I am not evading my block" comments. Murry1975 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm this IP-hopper is disruptive, and I have blocked him on previous occasions. GiantSnowman 13:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Ireneshih (talk · contribs) when I was responding to a request from User:Antiqueight for the use of a navbar I'd borrowed from another editor. I helped Antiqueight with a speedy deletion and also noticed Ireneshih, whose article creations stood out as promotional (and with hyped and badly sourced content. I deleted Christiane Wyler as obvious copyvio. I did some editing at Murray Newlands and Online Marketing: A User’s Manual and took one of her articles to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance Marketing for Professionals. On October 14th BillingTracker was deleted as a G11, then on the 17th Duncan Law Group was deleted as a G11, obviously promotional, all by User:Jimfbleak along with DataNumen Zip Repair as an A7. SEOZEO had been deleted earlier as an A7 by User:RHaworth who deleted Icansia yesterday as G11. User:DGG has taken TeenzFAV and Yliana Yepez to AfD, possibly after I posted something about paid editors to his talk page.

The icing on the cake was a post by an IP to my talk page today at User talk:Dougweller#Deleting the entry for Christiane Wyler about Ireneshih's article on Christiane Wyler, signed by Christiane Wyler and asking why the article was deleted and saying the copyrights for her photos registered on Commons (although it was the text that I was concerned with). This establishes a link between the editor creating the article and the subject of the article.

I am also getting anonymous tips about paid editors, see User talk:Dougweller#Paid page creation of non notable artist and User talk:Dougweller#Paid creation of Carter Hargrave page naming or pointing to Khocon (talk · contribs) (some promotional articles already deleted) and BiH (talk · contribs) (with the accusation that this user has multiple accounts). Again this editor has had several articles deleted, one as a G5 by User:Mark Arsten which I need to investigate. Real life calls and I don't have time to deal with all the deleted articles by these two editors and must go off and notify everyone! Dougweller (talk) 06:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BiH responded at User talk:Dougweller#Advice. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had one or two deleted articles a few months because I used sources I thought are reliable, but they were not and I complied with it, because I was indeed wrong. Since then, I tend to use reliable sources and write and update things I find interesting and useful to Wikipedia (I tend to patrol random pages and improve them visually and with references or just tag them for later improvement), and I had no issues with the rules when I was told what can be used for sourcing. As far as "I have multiple accounts", please make sure that your triple check that, and I assure you that I use only one account. --BiH (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about the paid editing issue but I am very puzzled as to why the edits to Icansia and its talk page seem to have completely disappeared. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only explanation I can think of is that they have been oversighted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very weird indeed. If I remember rightly, when all deleted edits to a page have been the subject of oversighter-only RevDel, we still get the "___ deleted edits" link under the title of the page. Oversighters haven't been using the Oversight extension very much for the last several years, but that's the only reason I would expect the link to disappear entirely without a total removal of all deleted edits project-wide by server admins. Let me ask for the input of an oversighter. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only explanation I can think of is that they have been oversighted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

−

Same with Geoffrey Said which was deleted successively by Jimfbleak and myself. I wonder what oversight policy applies.

The only explanation I can think of is that they have been oversighted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

−

Same with Geoffrey Said which was deleted successively by Jimfbleak and myself. I wonder what oversight policy applies. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also listed most other of BiH's articles for deletion, by AfD, MfD, and speedy. One or two seem acceptable, and I do not like to delete acceptable articles no matter who writes them. Most paid editors make a few edits to establish their legitimacy. BiH has made a fair number of decent contributions, and a good deal of valid Wikignomeing, along with a fair number of references for political figures worded in a rather promotional manner. The best course to take with editing of this sort is to hunt out the questionable articles for deletion. Not all were in his edit history marked with N; for many, he wrote them in user space, and I found them in his move log. Doing it this way evades NP, (I'm not sure if it evades NPP) but it is nonetheless legitimate, & in fact a technique we have often recommended, especially before the rise of AfC. (Personally, I think the concentration on sockpuppets less important than being careful to remove all the bad articles in the first place, though of course sockpuppet identification does permit speedy deletion of anything subsequently written DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the deleted revision just fine, and no indication of oversight or revdel. Special:Undelete/Geoffrey Said and Special:Undelete/Icansia both show the deleted revisions. My guess is that this is just a server hiccup. T. Canens (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too can see all the deleted revisions just fine. "Old-school" oversight, which disrupted the history of a page, has been disabled for several years now; current oversighters can see the edits that were oversighted using the old tool (if they know what log to look at) but have no access to use the old tool. All revision-deleted or suppressed edits remain in the page history of the article. I agre with Timotheus Canens that it's likely a server hiccup; I've had problems all day with (a) logging in and (b) navigating via links when I do manage to log in. Risker (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that there's no entry in the old oversight log for either Icansia or Geoffrey Said. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 20:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I couldn't see anything here this morning but it's showing up fine for me now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone.

It looks like these temporarily missing deleted revisions is part of a bug which was previously thought to be fixed. The issue was reported originally in this bug. A similar issue to the one above that happened on frwp is documented in this bug. I've added the above information to the bug report so it can be looked in to.

Best regards,

--Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to comment anything is discussions, but most of my articles have at least possitive opinions from other users regarding notability and reference coverage. Also, one article in my userspace is tagged for deletion? That is MY userspace and my work, which is not in mainspace, so it should not be a subject of your concern.. I am really disappointed by the way you treat me as an editor. --BiH (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even in your userspace, they are not "your" articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the discussion of paid editors, it does appear that User:Ireneshih is a primarily promotional account, and the number of poorly sourced articles created by this user are taking up other editors' time through multiple afd's. I am not familiar with the policy for dealing with probable paid editing, but from Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, it looks like the next step is a warning about promotion followed by a possible block.Dialectric (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She is denying promotion[69] saying there isn't a line of promotion in the article at AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced DBF Repair (software), whose nominator sees it quite differently. BiH has not denied being a paid editor. And Khocon, like Ireneshih, hasn't responded here. Sure, we can keep an eye on their articles, spend a lot of time making sure they meet our criteria (although forged sources are hard to detect and we know they are used) - but is that really all we can do? I've given Ireneshih an only warning for promotion, I guess the other 2 should have similar warnings? Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on Wikipedia for more than 8 years, because I enjoy it and I never had similar issues. Normally, I deny all accusations from that anonymous user. Sometimes I patrol random articles and tag some of those being without references or having some other issue, so I must have caught someone's attention. Otherwise, he/she would use him/her username instead of IP. That is my opinion. --BiH (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[84]. I have told this user that he should refrain from placing very serious and unsourced accusations of a living persons human rights record being "unapologetic". This is clear WP:OR by the user and now he has threatened to send me to report me [85]. I really need a third party opinion from an admin. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, he's using a Turkish newspaper as a source, but it looks like it's either a column or an editorial not a news story. Further it doesn't say what he says it does. It would be better if a native Turkish speaker read the paper, of course, but yes, it looks like BLP all the way here.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – User Blocked