PMA has been haranguing an admin User:GTBacchus—here on his talk page—about closing an RfC. PMA seems displeased with the manner and timing of his doing so and wrote (∆ edit, here) as follows:

Yes, there was a pack of dosruptive and dishonest editors. A useful admin would have ignored them all, once their arguments had proven to be fallacious.

Parsing that Swiss Army Knife of uncivil personal attacks and baiting, there is a “pack” of editors who are “disruptive” (PMA typo = “dosruptive”), and are “dishonest” and GTBacchus isn’t “useful”. I personally can take all sorts of name calling; it’s just childishness. But hurling accusations of dishonesty against a multitude of experienced and respected editors is ridiculous.

PMA’s pressing of the community’s buttons has gotten out of hand, shows no sign of abating, and I now have doubts as to whether the cost of his participation is worth what he brings to the table. I think it is time for a very lengthy time out for him to reflect if he has it in him to collegially work in a collaborative writing environment.

Greg L (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I blocked PMAnderson for a week for a similar issue earlier this month - see User_talk:Pmanderson#En_dash_spacing. In essence, PMAnderson takes a strict/narrow definition of the term "consensus" which is nigh on impossible to fulfil (i.e it is as if dissenters have the ability to blackball or prevent any difficult decision we have to nut out), hence these debates are going to continue to get dragged out unnecessarily. Unfortunately there are many situations where some form of compromise has to be reached and the approach that PMAnderson adopts is proving incompatible with a collaborative project. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Casliber. From what I've witnessed (over many years) Pmanderson is simply unable to operate in a collaborative environment. When things don't go his way, the people opposing him are immediately labelled (liars, falsehoods, etc). More recently, Pmanderson's behavior is becoming more aggressive and bizarre:

• You have been duped by a cabal of our worst editors. Noetica, Tony1, Ohconfucius, and Dicklyon should be banned...
• MOS should shut the (bleep) up, for once...
• And rhe other liar is heard from...
• Yes, there was a pack of dosruptive and dishonest editors.

The above is simply based on Pmanderson disagreeing with things that the community turned out to support.

I'm happy to experience some healthy rough-and-tumble when working with other people, but Pmanderson's behavior now only serves to deter and discourage other editors (not to mention the time being spent to address his increasingly erratic posts). I'm the first to forgive and forget, but I now suspect there is a fundamental problem that can never be corrected (as evidenced by Pmanderson's block log which contains 17 blocks—10 of which did not get unblocked). Surely the experiment is over and we've reached the point where the community has the right to say enough is enough?

GFHandel ♬  02:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) <sigh> It is such a pity that a very knowledgeable WPian seems hell-bent on being socially destructive. The behaviour seems to have worsened recently: why? If Mr Anderson could reflect on how he could circumvent the following patterns in his edits, he'd at least take the edge off what is upsetting a lot of his colleagues:

(1) Accusations of sockpuppetry, cabalism ("You have been duped by a cabal of our worst editors. Noetica, Tony1, Ohconfucius, and Dicklyon should be banned..."—this one from less than five hours ago I only just tripped over—it would be nice to know when there's a call for you to be banned);

(2) Accusations of dishonesty, lying (e.g. the diff above);

(3) other personal attacks, such as impugning intelligence, substance, and constructing adversarial rather than collaborative positions in the social milieu ("As often, the strengh of my preference is determined by the vacuity of the arguments on the other side.");

(4) a continual rage against stylistic guidance on WP that has been going on for years ("MOS should shut the [bleep] up, for once...").

These diffs are just examples from the past few days, but I can supply an encyclopedia of them if anyone wishes, stretching back however long you choose. But the problematic social behaviour has become a seemless amalgam of his inner anger, certain agendas, and his interpersonal and social relations, not only at the style guides, but in article space. I'd like to suggest that site-bans are counter-productive, since they fuel whatever intemperance is burning in him. More effective for the project, IMO, would be a longer-term topic ban from the MoS, its subpages, and wp:title (the last sometimes used as a power-base with which to beat MoS and MoS editors over the head.) Admins might also consider assigning a mentor to act as a "valve" when Mr Anderson's relations with article editors become heated. Tony (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've already done the RFC/U on PMA; he does not seem to have taken the advice to heart. This is most disappointing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. --Jayron32 04:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what should be done here, but honestly, something's got to give. Pmanderson's constant throwing around abuse at people who argue in or close naming disputes contrary to his wishes has gone too far, and I normally advocate ignoring incivility. The point comes when incivility goes into long-term disruption, and that's what's happening here. If he were railing against people who are incompetent, I'd be more sympathetic, but no, Pmanderson is railing against people for disagreeing with him. He can talk about their dishonesty all he wants, but it's really just disagreement. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I find disappointing is that the same people (at WT:TITLE and WP:MOS) argue again and again (and not just on those issues). Tony1 (to take one example) has had his own problems this week (nearly everything he says above can apply to him as well), with rather fraught behaviour at WT:DYK (the all-caps shouty behaviour included Ohconfucius saying SO SAD!!!, and Tony and others threatened to drag each other to AN). Tony1 was also dragged to the wiki-etiquette board for using a "removing vomit" edit summary. I could indeed provide "an encyclopedia" of diffs and examples of several editors (including the ones Pmanderson names) engaging in the same behaviour they accuse him of. Which doesn't excuse any of it. I'm just saying be careful not to fall for the old trick of banning one 'side' in a dispute (GregL and Tony1, for starters, have a long history of disputes with Pmanderson) where both sides may be behaving badly. Long-term problems are best dealt with by ArbCom, who can properly pick through the history, rather than by the community, who tend to respond to the way things are presented to them (as GregL did above, someone complaining on behalf of someone else instead of letting that person deal with it themselves). If it came to an ArbCom case, I'd be fully prepared to present evidence in support of what I've said above. Furthermore, Tony1 claiming that WP:TITLE is being used as a power-base may have some truth, but there are other editors that do this as well (such as User:Born2cycle, who started that thread on GTBacchus's talk page, and multiple editors have used WP:MOS as a power base for years. That is the real problem here, IMO. Too many people of an argumentative and uncollaborative nature jostling for room at WP:TITLE and WP:MOS. At the time of the date-delinking case, it was suggested that a fuller case on WP:MOS issues might be needed. In my view, that need has never gone away, but combining it with WT:TITLE issues might make the dispute resolution process explode. Anyway, some of the above things I've said will offend some, but the full context needs examining here and that means difficult things need to be said. Carcharoth (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Unnecessary examples struck, I shouldn't have brought up those issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Although I've seen PMA's name on the noticeboards many times, I haven't personally looked into the various claims that have been made about his behavior, so I need to ask you a question about the comment above, and I'm not in any way being disingenuous: given this background, and the behavior of other editors in the current dispute, do you think that it mitigates PMA's behavior? Some of PMA's remarks linked above seem clearly to be beyond the pale, were they justified, in the sense of having been unreasonably provoked, or was his reaction out of scale and therefore worthy of censure -- in your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed this earlier. I think Pmanderson (not User:PMA, by the way, as that appears to be another editor) did go over the top here, and this is worthy of censure, but I don't think it is quite what his those who oppose his views are making it out to be. If GTBacchus had come here to make the complaint, I would have had far more time for it. But as Greg L is the one that made the complaint here, and knowing something of the history there, I'm more sceptical. The other thing that mystifies me somewhat is GTBacchus and Pmanderson engaging in healthy discussion at User talk:GTBacchus and GTBacchus oppposed the community ban, yet he still appears to have a problem with Pmanderson. If all that is needed is for Pmanderson to apologise to GTBacchus for what he (Pmanderson) said to him (and to retract or strike what he said there about him and others), then that should be done and this has been a storm in a teacup. If this is a long-running dispute, about how MoS should function, then a community-wide RfC is needed. If this is long-running incivility and bad-faith from Pmanderson in a specific set of topic areas, then a topic ban is needed (with an eye to others that engage in the same behaviour). In my view, a community ban is an over-reaction, which is why I opposed it. Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the lastest Crepe RM mess, it was perhaps "the same people" because Pmanderson followed Noetica (or me) to Talk:Crepe#Move?. Certainly, lots of people involved in MOS and naming have a long history with him, since the MOS is what he has been campaigning against for so long (I have only a short history with him, as I only got involved in such things this year). Recent RFCs have established broad community support for the MOS, and in particular for the dash provisions that he reviled; having lost the discussion, he continues to fight by disruption; that's what Casliber had blocked him for a few weeks ago. There has been a pretty good set of discussions and improvements going on at WT:MOS, that got under way while he was blocked; and pretty good set of discussions and improvements making progress at WT:TITLE. Moderate contention but not much incivility until he steps in. I don't know what's going on over at DYK, but if Tony used ALL CAPS, that shouldn't distract from the problem at hand. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban

Pmanderson (talk · contribs) difficulties in editing with others mean that the problems of his participation here outweigh the benefits to wikipedia. In which case I propose Pmanderson's editing priviledges be suspended indefinitely. If anyone can think of an alternative proposal please come forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Pmanderson's conduct has not changed. Too many of Pmanderson's contributions to wikipedia, particularly in naming issues, involve unwarranted attacks on other users who happen to disagree with him. Although a community ban would address that problem, that does not take into account Pmanderson's content contributions. A topic ban on the naming/format/move issues, as discussed below, therefore seems more appropriate in the circumstances. Mathsci (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Disclosure: Carcharoth has in the past sent me unsolicited email about Pmanderson, which I found condescending and self-righteous. [reply]

2. Support. This is an issue with Pmanderson—not Tony1, Greg L, or anyone else (and Pmanderson's ability to generate friction extends far beyond the editors and areas mentioned in this ANI). To bring other editors into this is somehow trying to excuse the behavior of Pmanderson's by making it proportional. Well, I add content—lots of it; and I'm appalled by the lack of improvement shown by Pmanderson over the years (and if anything, he's getting worse). The hope he would get better was expressed at the RFC/U last year—to no avail (a RFC/U that ended with the comment "...but the RFC/U indicates that there is a problem that needs correcting"). Sorry, but a block log as long as your arm, frequent mentions at ANI, and increasing streams of irrational abuse at editors who can only be turned off by the misery, should lead to only one outcome here. GFHandel ♬  05:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Pmanderson’s behavior is getting worse lately, not better. I see no end in sight to this disruption and no reason to coddle him anymore as if he is incapable of conduct-expected. Greg L (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support – at least while no other remedy of sufficient potency is tabled. Casliber's proposal is certainly warranted. Some other ban limited to RMs, MOS pages, and naming pages like WP:TITLE may possibly be better; but it would have to be enduring and non-negotiable. I recognise, with others, that PMAnderson is capable of useful and energetic work in articles. I am also intimately aware of his unremitting attacks on WP:MOS and other pages of the Manual of Style: in his trademark substantive edits with cryptic or misleading summaries; in his slanders and gross misrepresentations at the talkpages of WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, WP:TITLE, and so on; in his fly-by denigration of editors who are dedicated to maintaining and improving the Manual of Style through consensual, collegial effort (especially at RMs, but in fact wherever else he edits).
   Disclosure: I come here reluctantly, in good faith, with clean hands, and a spotless record (see my logs). PMAnderson has attacked no one more viciously than me; I would welcome any unbiased assessment of relevant evidence. [Re-signed after amendment:] Noetica^Tea? 08:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Unfortunate Strong Support One would think that a recent ArbCom-imposed ban would have let one or two editors know that civility and collaboration are as important (if not moreso) than contributions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   As a follow-up to Bishonen's "oppose", I too would consider a 6 month ban, and indef ban on MOS to be just as valid. The overall indef to me is the same, because an indef simply means "until the community is convinced" - if the community can be convinced after 6 months, so be it. (Hey, that makes Bishonen's a Support)! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Support. This user has been causing a considerable amount of disruption over a period of more than five years, and has been blocked repeatedly, and has been discussed and advised. The final words of the closing admin in the request for comment were "there is a problem that needs correcting", but the problem has not been corrected, and there is no evidence that it ever will be. It is true that the user has made useful contributions, which is no doubt why there has not been a ban or indefinite block long ago, but the amount of trouble caused by the negative aspects of the user's editing is excessive, and it has reached a point where the trouble clearly outweighs any benefit. There have been innumerable chances for the editor to get the message and address the problem over the last five years, but nothing has changed. Enough is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support - I work in the hospitality industry; when we have an individual that repeatedly causes problems and has been shown that the behavior is unacceptable yet they continue to act in a manner that is contrary to these rules, we ask them to leave. We will allow them to return as long as they follow the established rules of civility and behavior that is socially acceptable in our establishment. If they still continue to act in the same manner that got thrown out before, we inform them that they are no longer welcome at our establishment. It isn't pleasurable to tell someone that despite their valued contributions to your bottom line, their business is no longer welcomed. This is how real life works, and it needs to be applied here. I believe that, despite his positive contributions to the project, his disruptive behavior has overridden the positive nature of his contributions. It is my opinion he needs a minimum 6 month block on contributing; upon the expiration of that block, his return should be under a set of strict rules clearly stating what is allowed - including a topic ban in the areas that he has had repeated conflicts in. If he still cannot behave in such a way that is acceptable to the community after the expiration of the block, he should be banned from editing. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes, it will be best for the community if he would just leave. Good faith on his part is long gone, as evidenced by this accusation of those who disagree with him: "... I accept correction, as I have said, from the informed, the literate, and the intellectually honest. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is a attraction for those who are none of the above." Dicklyon (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Weak support of indef ban, strong support of time-limited ban + topic ban on return. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support for an indeff topic-ban for style guides and wp:title, with the option of returning here to ask for a trial relaxation of the topic-ban after 12 months. Mr Anderson's continual disruption and accusations really wreck the collaboration among the editors, particularly at MoS main page and wp:title, and the whole project suffers. It's not as though the editors don't already disagree among themselves in his absence—but without his destructive tactics, it's more likely to be healthy debate—a much more collegial environment. Tony (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support Even though I haven't interacted with this user very much (if not at all), the block log shows that this user is too difficult to work well with. Has a poor behaviour record on the articles, wikipedia project spaces and the talk pages. Minima© (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support for an indeff topic-ban for style guides and wp:title, with the option of returning here to ask for a trial relaxation of the topic-ban after 12 months to remove him from the issue that causes friction. Agathoclea (talk) 08:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support This is enough. Having to suffer the contributions of this "Most Valued Editor" is like being forced to eat a ton of shit with a shovelful of sugar. None of the previous community sanctions has brought about even a modicum of behavioural change. He comes back from each block apparently reinvigorated and picks up being obnoxious and abusive from where he left off. The proposal is about right. As he appears to treat blocks like a holiday, I hope he gets blocked for considerably longer than a week. More importantly, I sincerely hope that at last that PMAnderson's behaviour will moderate as a result. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support Numerous blocks have had no effect. He already has agreed to not edit on many topics, but this does not help as he simply moves his focus elsewhere. I do not think he will ever change, and a community ban is probably the only option left. A time limited ban of at least 6 months may be an option as well, but a topic ban is surely completely pointless, as shown by earlier behavior. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per above – A tendentious editor who seems not to have learnt any lessons from his many many previous blocks. Graham87 09:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support as pointed out in the MickMacNee arbitration case allowing editors who routinely break the civility guidelines is bad and causes large amounts of damage to the project as a whole. This was brought up in the Economist at the beginning of the year with issues raised about the lack of civility in the project. Further editors commented about the projects civility issues and Arbcom made it clear that continued incivility is incompatible with the project. Arbcom also made it clear that continued incivility would lead to increasingly severe sanctions. As there has been an RFC on this user specifically around civility having an indefinite community ban seems highly appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. PMA is net negative to the project, with too many volunteer hours spent on unneeded conflict caused by the user. PMA has amply demonstrated a chronic inability to be civil, and an egregious and self-serving interpretation of consensus. Binksternet (talk) 04:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. While I can't condone Pmanderson's conduct here, I think that on balance his contributions still outweigh the negative aspects. And I say this as someone who has looked at his article space contributions and compared them to the other people that argue incessantly at WP:TITLE and WP:MOS pages. Unlike most of them, he actually edits articles, with actual content and not just script-assisted fixing of MOS issues. Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) And Mathsci should declare his previous history of disputes with Pmanderson.[reply]
2. I think a less severe ban would be in order. Two possible options which may be more workable A) he could be banned from areas of Wikipedia where he is known to be in constant conflict, specifically WP:MOS related issues and article naming related issues. If he can be confined to article content, it may help ameliorate some of the more eggregious civility issues. B) He could be put under strict civility parole, with a prescribed series of escalating blocks instead of being indeffed now. Maybe 1st offense = 1 week, 2nd offense = 2 weeks, and so on. I think that his contributions to the Encyclopedia can still continue if we can direct him away from the areas where he tends to get into a lot of arguements. --Jayron32 05:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. No, no, Jayron, no civility parole! I've seen some of those up close (what can I say, I know some obstreperous people), and consider such paroles pure invitations to baiting, and to trigger-happy admins. PMAnderson adds good content. I propose a time-limited ban from editing, perhaps six months, plus perhaps an indef ban from anything MOS-related. However, please take this Oppose as a support of any time-limited ban that may be put forward. I'm really against a general indef ban of this editor. Bishonen | talk 13:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
4. I've only seriously dealt with PMA once, and the experience was not pleasant at all. I found this editor to be pushy, arrogant, dismissive of the opinions which did not match his preconceived views of the matter, and not knowledgeable about things he holds a strong opinion of. His tendency to slip insults which are seemingly aimed at no one in particular yet with the only suitable target being his opponent du jour is also most infuriating. I originally wrote this attitude off as an anomaly (everyone has bad days every now and then, after all), but after digging a bit more into this editor's history my astonishment grew in geometric progression. It seems that he gets blocked for the same kind of behavior every few months (as if on a schedule), the number of ANI complaints he's been a subject of can be rivaled only by the long-banned editors, yet for some reason he keeps at it with renewed vigor after each incidence, and no sign of improvement is ever in sight. On top of that, a third (!) of his edits are to policy space, another third is to "talk", and his edits to the article space are also often related to the issues of policy. With all this in mind, do I support a community ban of this editor? No. I am a vocal opposer of the whole community block process, which, I believe, does not work properly most of the time and is not unlike a high-school clique haunting a student they don't like, and am not willing to make an exception even in a grim case like this. I would, however, wholeheartedly support sending this case to ArbComm, which, I trust, should have no difficulty finding an effective solution given the abundance of evidence. Oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 13:53 (UTC)
5. PMA holds a set of positions that are probably currently minority positions on WP, and PMA tends to discuss with a "debating" style. Neither are reasons to ban. Nor is the supposed incivility; from my experience, PMA is typically objective and one of the more civil editors in a dispute. (I've been involved in discussions/disputes on the opposite side of PMA.) Gimmetoo (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't think this user requires an indef ban. Per Bis, I think a time-limited ban is sufficient: something in the 2-6 week range and a 6 month ban on anything MOS related. -Atmoz (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. What a lot I miss when I go offline for 18 hours. I didn't know that Pmanderson had been like this lately; I guess I was right not to take his tone too personally. I've seen him for years participating in move discussions, and he's generally said helpful and reasonable things about article titling.

   Lately he's criticized me over a couple of decisions I've made. They were tough calls, and I knew not everyone would be happy, but I was surprised by his tone. I expect this is smoke from some other fire, and I bet he'll feel better after a break and dealing with whatever needs dealing with. It must be something.

   I would have no prejudice against Pmanderson participating here when he's in a better mood, but if we're on a downward trajectory now, a block is worth considering. Given the lengths and apparent lack of effectiveness of previous recent blocks, something longer would seem appropriate. Maybe month or two?

   I would also add that, if any of you find yourself approaching another editor with a complaint about their performance... then directly beneath a barnstar someone just gave them for making a difficult call in a difficult discussion is probably not the most diplomatic place to do it. If I were doing it, I'd start a whole new section. I'd also try to approach them with an assumption that they'll respond positively to politeness, and they'll give my concerns a fair hearing without being berated by me.

   I know I've been doing my best to address the concerns he brought to my talk page, but I'd prefer if the conversation were more collegial. Others have thinner skin, and I don't hold this against them. We can just be cool to each other; it's okay. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   My apologies for the placement. I've been underwhelmed by most of the random barnstars I've gotten or seen; so I would not have minded the adjacency. Do make a new section; if I see an easy way to do so, I will. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I made a new section. It's the second time in a row you've done that on my talk page. It's something worth being careful about. I would certainly not do it that way on your talk page, no matter how underwhelmed I am by barnstars or anything else. That's because I respect you. I would act out of respect for your feelings, whether or not I know how you feel about the award. Barnstars give me a little smile, and I enjoy them. It's not a big deal.

   I also enjoy criticism, because it teaches me. I'll take it in a friendly tone, though, if I have a choice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. You'll have to deal with people you disagree with in another manner, even if they seem repetitive to you. He is discussing it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed. He's now engaging in productive discussion, after I spent about a day talking him down from a more-or-less blind rage. Great use of time, huh? Most people in my shoes wouldn't have taken the trouble - would you?

   What's more, I would have had the productive discussion with him even if he hadn't started out with wild accusations and histrionics, it would already be over, and this AN/I thread would not exist. That's precisely the issue, isn't it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. He was one of the few who stood up against the sectarian and bullying editors who once controlled the Catholic Church article. If he doesn't place too much emphasis on fake civility then maybe it is because he's been used to dealing with certain kinds of editors were it clearly doesn't work. Yt95 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeah, fake civility doesn't work. The real stuff does. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. PMA is a valuable editor on Wikipedia, and I see absolutely no use in doing this to him. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please note, Locke, that the quality of the arguments matter as much as nose counts here. It would help if you had accompanying reasoning that seemed better founded on the facts. By the way… (slapping my knee with a sudden epiphany) do you remember how you and I engaged in past vitriol over de-linking dates (example of D-related wikidrama here) and gotten so frustrated with my efforts in that regard that you temporarily retired from Wikipedia and blanked your page, which had that cool, Indiana Jones-themed banner atop the top of your page that read “LOCKE COLE and the RAIDERS of the LOST CONSENSUS” (I made a screen shot of that before you retired). Welcome back! Do tell, how did you find out about this ANI? Did you receive an e-mail? There is nothing wrong with that as long as such communications are intended to broaden and improve the quality of an RfC. I do hope that my presence here wasn’t a factor; the last time you were at this venue was 2009. Just curious… Greg L (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Greg, you're trolling. You're also engaging in personal attacks. To answer the only potentially relevant question in this tirade of yours (how did I end up here), I'll explain: There's this page, Special:Watchlist, and I've had this one on it for... ever. It's really hard to miss your edits on here when you're so frequent with them. BTW: I'm flattered you made a screen shot of my user page before I had it deleted. Now, back to more reading and the occasional editing lest I get drawn back in to this bullshit. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry, but this is too much. You really expect everyone here to believe that you've had AN/I on your watchlist "for... ever"? I've had it on my watchlist for about 30 hours and I'm sick of it (the volume of posts means that other watchlist entries get truncated and easily missed). I'm going to remove it as soon as this is over because the effect on pages I really care about is not great. You haven't posted here since May 12, 2009 and you seriously expect everyone to simply believe that you've watchlisted it "for... ever"? What for? Entertainment? I try as hard as I can to assume good faith, but the appearance of the above !vote (with no attempt to address the reasons this AN/I request was created) is too incredulous to be believed. Can an administrator (or someone else) examine the history of a watchlist to verify the above claim?

    Irrespective of the above, this is concerning. Locke Cole's contributions show that he has taken no interest in this sort of administrative action for well over two years. Based on that fact, and on Locke Cole's known history with many of the editors here, I'm forced to ask Pmanderson if he (or anyone acting on his behalf) has contacted Locke Cole since this AN/I action commenced? Also, what other editors have been contacted on this matter (and looking at the posts I have my suspicions). What efforts have been made to ensure that such contact has resulted in a balanced cross-section of opinions being raised here? I guess suspicions were raised in this matter by Pmanderson's recent post on Carcharoth's talk page: "Btw, my Wikipedia e-mail attachment works, and if you ever wish to contact me again, that would be preferable". I'm not fully cognisant with all the issues of Wikipedia:Canvassing, but I'm concerned that the principle of Vote-stacking may have been transgressed. I would also like to ask Lock Cole (irrespective of his watchlist) if he was contacted in any way about this AN/I action?

    GFHandel ♬  01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Asked and answered. I explained how I found my way here, I won't partake in an exhaustive Q&A simply because you don't like my answer. Meanwhile, nobody wonders how it is Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) found their way here... As for my watchlist, maybe a dev can verify that I've had AN/I on it "for... ever". Or, you could assume good faith and take my word for it. Why would I lie over something that could (potentially) be proven false? BTW: thank you for joining Greg L in engaging in personal attacks based on my prior history. I never need wonder why I hardly edit here than to come and make myself a victim of the retarded thinking that goes on only on Wikipedia (and some larger government organizations, but at least with those, I stand zero chance of ever being a member). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Locke, I agree that you've explained yourself sufficiently. Greg and GFH, there's no point haranguing this man. He said his bit; let it be. Thank you Locke. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you GTBacchus, for stepping in here. For the record, though Pmanderson did indeed leave me that note on my talk page, I've been busy the past two days and not had a chance to respond properly there yet. I may or may not e-mail him, as there is some advice I wish to give him in private (and may post publicly as well, depending on how I phrase it). But first I need to catch up on what has been said here, though the haranguing above by Greg L and GFHandel doesn't bode well, especially when my cursory look through the edits here so far indicate that other haranguing of those participating in this discussion has been occurring. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC) And having just checked my e-mail, nothing there from anyone about this matter.[reply]

    I checked the definition of "haranguing" and found: "Lecture (someone) at length in an aggressive and critical manner". My single post above was in a polite but direct tone (and in contrast to the "retarded" response), and was a necessary response to what is undoubtedly suspicious circumstances (circumstances that have not been denied by Pmanderson). Any attempt to circumvent the due process on this page must be resisted—which is what I have tried to do. I'm not happy with your "haranguing" and would request that you please use commensurate language when posting here. Thank you. GFHandel ♬  20:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. I would oppose an indefinite block of PMAnderson. I found myself arguing the diametrically opposite position from both him and Locke Cole (welcome back, btw) on the Date-delinking case, but I always found those arguments to be sincere, logical and polite, even if reflecting a minority view on those issues. Gimmetoo sums it up well: Disliking an editor's "debating style" really isn't the right reason for removal of their editing privileges. Although the examples brought here do indicate some problems, surely no more than a limited-term ban from the relevant topics is all that's needed? It worked at ARBDATE, and I can see no reason why the present situation should require stronger action. --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sorry, but he has been provoked mercilesly by Dickylon, Tony, Noetica, etc. The shenigans and edit-warring of these editors in any MOS issue are enough to make anyone angry (I know that it happened to me when trying to replace dashes with hyphens in a certain set od articles). An arbcom case looking at the behaviour of all involved editors might be better. Yes, PMA's behaviour is not good, but this looks like we are banning one side of the dispute while ignoring that the other side is also misbehaving. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. The complaints about civility seem to be a routine matter of WP:POT. Our MOS should not be determined by last-man-standing tactics and so an arbcom case would be more sensible. Warden (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. I don't support an indef ban at this time. I've been following the discussion on GTBacchus talk page fairly closely and at a couple of points I considered whether to say something to PMA to the effect of "chill out", but GTBacchus seems an extraordinarily imperturbable cucumber. I've been following happenings on WT:MOS and related pages somewhat less closely but do have a sense for what went on. I think it is unfortunate that the situation at MOS has become a verbal equivalent of trench warfare. While I greatly admire some of the editors at MOS that PMA views as adversaries, some others seem to go out of their way to provoke reactions from PMA. older ≠ wiser 10:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Civility policing is for chumps. Find something better to do, or take this somewhere wonderfully meaningless like WP:WQA so that board's regulars can tut-tut and we move on. Tarc (talk) 04:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

• I must admit that I have never had a good editing experience with Pmanderson (civilty and objectivity has definitely not characterized my encounters with him), and that I also don't think that good contributions can make up for bad behavior. But even so I am not convinced that a community ban is required here. Perhaps something less severe.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. I'm normally not one to call for "one more chance" for someone who has had so many already and has been so unwilling to acknowledge that their problems are largely of their own making. I have found Pmanderson to be extremely stubborn and condescending, and subject to giving evasive non-answers sometimes when confronted, but the particular incident that led to this thread doesn't seem like anything to be making this big of a fuss over. I'll grant that their block log is absurdly long and I am frankly surprised that it has taken this long to get to this point, but the actual trigger for this ban discussion seems weak. I guess that means I support the alternate restrictions designed to reduce disruption more strongly than a full site ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support an interaction ban with the group of editors that P has repeatedly been in conflict with. This would greatly reduce the possibility of WP:BAIT as an aggravating factor in any future incident. (keeping in mind that interaction bans are binding on all named parties) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, you write (and I underline):

I have found Pmanderson to be extremely stubborn and condescending, and subject to giving evasive non-answers sometimes when confronted, but the particular incident that led to this thread doesn't seem like anything to be making this big of a fuss over. I'll grant that their block log is absurdly long and I am frankly surprised that it has taken this long to get to this point, but the actual trigger for this ban discussion seems weak.

But you highlight an important difficulty in dealing with this editor. Please take note of my extended case study below (under "The need for a serious and enduring solution"):

The latest episode over RMs at Crêpe merges seamlessly with a sustained history of unconscionable behaviour.

The trigger in this instance is just that: a trigger, or the last inch of fuse that makes actual contact with the powder. We grow so accustomed to PMAnderson's abuses that it seems like normal (frogs in boiling water, perhaps?). I'm not making this up. This is no "partisan propaganda", though in the standard run of cases that would be a plausible reaction to what I have just said. This is not an ordinary case, and ordinary solutions will not suffice. They never have in the past, for PMAnderson.

Noetica^Tea? 03:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have never encountered PMA while editing so have no specific opinion on their case or on any of the proposals. All I would say is that my experience does suggest the issue is unlikely to be as clear-cut as is being suggested. The reaction of several of the MOS regulars (who are quite a small group of people after all, who nonetheless seek to exercise control over presentation in pretty much the whole site) to criticism, or even simple questioning of much of what they do, moves pretty swiftly from the patronising, to the disdainful and then to the outright offensive if you don’t fall into line, even if you are someone who broadly agrees with the need for clarity and consistency in style across the site. There is an attitude prevalent there of “we are right”, “our interpretation is the only correct one”, “we are improving this encyclopedia and you are standing in the way” etc etc. Occasionally pointing out what MOS actually says in many instances, or that certain WP projects have different rules and expectations, or that common sense and observation of the real world might suggest that a different conclusion is at least legitimate seems to be resented. Some of the editors complaining above and below have been quite happy to grossly and repeatedly mischaracterise the position of others on various linking/punctuation issues, to fling out insults such as “extremist”, “tendentious” and “troll”, and describe edits as “ignorant” and talk page postings as “vomit” - all over things as trivial as hyphens, dashes and wikilinks. I’m not sure it’s as simple as blaming one person for being difficult. N-HH talk/edits 15:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N-HH, here is an answer that uses the word "I" a great deal. A report from someone near the centre of the action may be useful. You inveigh against "the reaction of several of the MOS regulars (who are quite a small group of people after all, who nonetheless seek to exercise control over presentation in pretty much the whole site) to criticism". As a "MOS regular", I hope I am not one of those you mention. If I am, let the matter be examined. I know that I do not seek to exercise control in the way you suggest, and that I am not "disdainful and then [...] outright offensive if you don’t fall into line". If I am, I hope an ANI action will be taken against me. It is unhelpful to consider members of any group stereotypically, including MOS editors – if there is any such distinct breed.

As an editor seriously committed to a high-quality Manual of Style for Wikipedia and intimately familiar with deliberations at WT:MOS, I can assure you that consensus, collegiality, and the widest consultation are valued very highly there. There are many RFCs, and the more participation the better. I fully appreciate this statement of yours: "my experience does suggest the issue is unlikely to be as clear-cut as is being suggested". If I had less direct knowledge, if I had been less persistently attacked and defamed by PMAnderson, if I had not literally spent weeks of full-time work countering his disruption this year alone, if I too had just taken a quick look from outside – then I would be sceptical also.

The present matter can be assessed by likelihoods and slogans about "MOS editors", or we could take the time to interrogate the evidence. GFHandel and I, for example, present evidence below: he links to many diffs; I link to one recent section at WT:MOS that should be read all the way through. PMAnderson's earlier rejection of this compromise inclusion in MOS is discussed:

"In stylistic points of usage on which this Manual of Style gives no guidance, observe the style adopted by reliable high-quality sources, preferably English-language secondary sources, and follow the usage most commonly adopted – unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise."

PMAnderson's intransigence prolonged the protection of MOS to four full months, followed by a few days in which I reverted his zero-consensus edits, then protection once more. His smoke and mirrors are pretty visible in the linked section, as are exasperated attempts (mine and others') to deal with his provocations and long-standing subversions of Wikipedian practice. Go to what we link, and check the facts.

Noetica^Tea? 22:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with you or your edits, so don't feel that I was necessarily including you. I said "some" MOS editors, and that's what I meant - they should know who they are from the quotes I mentioned. I'm not going to name them here as that's not helpful, or relevant in itself. More generally, there's also a problem where MOS editors as a whole come to consider themselves, and be treated as, some kind of authority across WP (that's in the nature of MOS issues, of course rather than a wp:own allegation), rather than just as other editors with other views. My point was really that there's a wider problem here than just one editor on one side of a dispute; something that others (eg Carcharoth, Enric Naval and Colonel Warden) have also commented on. N-HH talk/edits 10:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is not relevant because this AN/I action (an indef proposed by an arbitrator) was brought about entirely because of Pmanderson's behavior. To try and introduce the behavior of other editors in a way designed to mitigate the documented behavior of Pmanderson is unfair because it suggests that Pmanderson's behavior is dependent on what he sees around him. Each of us must answer for our own behavior, and if you have a problem with the behavior of other editors, feel free to raise cases related to them (but not under this case). In regards Pmanderson's behavior, you could start by examining the 20 instances I linked below where he accuses other editors of lying. Note that none of those cases are related to the other editors you alluded to, and 95% of those cases are in areas unrelated to MOS or policy pages. That's why we are here (again)—and will inevitably be again, and again, and again... GFHandel ♬  20:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the second time you have used an appeal to authority (the "an indef proposed by an arbitrator" comment). Can you please not do that? Casliber (or any other arbitrator) does not have a special status on this noticeboard when it comes to proposing that someone be banned (if it was during an arbitration case, that would be a different matter, but any arbitration case that may result from this would not involve Casliber as he both blocked Pmanderson earlier and proposed a community ban here, so I would expect a recusal if any case request was made). Admins don't have a special status when making community ban proposals. No-one has a special status. Anyone who is in good standing can make reasonable ban proposals, and trying to make out that a community ban proposal at ANI by a sitting arbitrator carries more weight than a proposal by anyone else is insulting, quite frankly. The amount of opposition here alone puts paid to that idea. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right and I've stricken that bit. Now perhaps the substantive point of my post could be addressed? GFHandel ♬  22:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

It seems to me that the primary issues in recent years stem from style and formatting disputes, whether those be move requests (Mexican-American War vs. Mexican–American War comes to mind) or the Manual of Style. Perhaps a very broad topic ban encompassing disputes concerning style and formatting rather than actual content in all namespaces if a community ban does not have sufficient consensus? User probation, enforced by any uninvolved admin, is also a possibility. NW (Talk) 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just edit-conflicted with you proposing essentially the same thing (see oppose section). I think this sort of thing is a workable next step in lieu of a site-wide ban. It would a sort of "last chance" thing, but I'm not ready to show Pmanderson the door just yet. --Jayron32 05:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. With the caveat that the community should also put others who argue incessantly at these pages (WT:TITLE and WP:MOS) on notice and topic ban them in short order as well, if things flare up again. Some of them have been topic banned in the past, so it would be easier to act in those cases. I think Pmanderson was topic banned previously as well, someone will need to check that. Oh, and the unsolicited e-mail Mathsci is talking about is likely the one I sent to him when he and Pmanderson were arguing. over the 's' on the end of Marseilles The e-mail was an attempt to calm them both down. I had meant to send one to Pmanderson as well, but found out I didn't have his e-mail address. Carcharoth (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Update: partially struck. Carcharoth (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth's unsolicited email concerned mathematical edits. Elonka had requested that I help with a mathematical disambiguation page on Hadamard: in response to her request, I created a new article and tripled the number of entries in the disambiguation page. Pmanderson followed me to those pages. Prior to that there had been a move proposal at Marseille, an article where I have added significant amounts of content,[1] using French sources bought locally, and watch the page. Pmanderson removed sourced content in the history section and replaced it with content sourced from a travelogue from the early 1900s; he also suggested that there was a problem because I was French. (I have dreamt of being French, but alas it will never be.)

Casliber suggested a community ban and I agreed because of all the previous lengthy postings we've had here. Personally, however, I think a topic ban on discussing page moves, renaming and other issues of style is probably sufficient. If such a proposal were made, I would strike my support vote and vote for an alternative of that sort. Mathsci (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only just now catching up on what has been said here, and while there is a fair amount that needs to be responded to, I need to reply here to state for the record that I'd never heard of Hadamard before Mathsci mentioned this above. I've reviewed the two e-mail conversations I've had with Mathsci in the 7.5 months since my term on the Arbitration Committee ended (there were numerous other e-mails from him before that date, but I think all those were part of official ArbCom business), and one was on the Marseille dispute at the time, and the other (many months later) was on another matter. Neither concerned Hadamard, so I think Mathsci may have confused me with someone else here. I'll drop a note on his talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: struck part of the above, as the first e-mail conversation was initiated on 17 December 2010, as Mathsci pointed out to me on his talk page, where I've apologised for getting the dates wrong. For the avoidance of confusion, the approach to Mathsci when I saw the Marseille dispute escalating was a personal one, not as an arbitrator, as I never like to see long-established editors at loggerheads like that. Carcharoth (talk) 11:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the contentious behavior comes up when dealing with TITLE and MOS issues then maybe a topic ban would be sufficient.   Will Beback  talk  06:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "a very broad topic ban encompassing disputes concerning style and formatting rather than actual content in all namespaces" would be a sufficient preventative, and less punitive, and would give him a chance to continue with the positive part of his contributions. Can you write that as a more definitive community topic ban proposal? Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I admit to sometimes not meeting Carcharoth's high requirement for absolute civility and agree that he may have reason to chastise me, but this dispute isn't about me. I wasn't even going to comment here, but now feel compelled to because Carcharoth has muddied the waters with a comment I posted at DYK which has absolutely zilch to do with the issue and subject at hand.

  My conscious efforts to de-escalate the recurring drama with a certain individual has seen a reduction of conflict in general as far as I am concerned. We often inhabit the same spaces, but I now more often than not tend not to let him provoke me; my responses and retorts to said editor have diminished greatly in frequency in recent months. Although I also try hard to depersonalise, it is clear just from the small number of diffs cited above that the assaults and insults continue. Whilst his conviction does him great credit, the manifestations do not. I welcome any admin action that can bring about more collegiate atmosphere wherever he goes. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. I fail to see how mentioning script assisted editing is at all relevant; it further threatens to muddy the waters. Carcharoth seems to be insinuating that there is something inherently improper with my or others' using scripts to edit, or that such contributions to the quality of this encyclopaedia is lesser than another who "actually edits articles". If Carcharoth has any issues he wishes to elaborate, users' talk pages are where this should occur; they should not be conflated with another's alleged misdeeds. I would note that Carcharoth seems not to have made any such complaint. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ohconfucius is correct to say that I should have raised my concerns about him and Tony1 on their user talk pages, and I apologise for not doing so before mentioning them here. They've both posted to my talk page, and I'll (eventually) respond in more detail there, rather than here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I feel aggrieved at Carcharoth's out-of-context slurs. Yet when it suits him he stands by while other editors are unspeakably rude. Tony (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See response above at same timestamp. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING: HYPERBOLE ALERT. If editors were being unspeakably rude you wouldn't be discussing them, now, would you? Ironholds (talk) 08:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't look at the word unspeakable without the Cthulhu mythos coming to mind...but seriously, if someone wants to craft an alternate proposal by all means - maybe include any discussion where a vote is required? See the issue which led here, namely whether crepe should have a circumflex or not. Anyone want to have a go? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly rather support a topic ban of the type NW mentioned, if someone uninvolved could formulate it. Mathsci (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban of all contending editors was suggested at this ANI post; perhaps that should be reconsidered. I opposed it at the time; they were showing signs of compromise then. At least Tony and Dicklyon aren't talking about "subversion" today (search on the phrase); that appears to be their usual response to criticism of the Manual of Style, or a preference for reliable sources.

Tony says I called him, or them, sockpuppets. When? I don't believe it; unless this is a confession, I have no evidence for it. Beyond that, he objects to my criticizing their arguments. The abuse of WP:CIVIL to win an argument: "you can't say I'm wrong; that's uncivil", followed by "see, nobody says I'm wrong; my position is consensus" is long-standing; it should not be encouraged here. The way not to have one's arguments called vacuous is to have substantive arguments. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More background on PMA's disruptions

To understand the problem, it may to helpful to search the AN/I archives, where he makes a couple hundred appearances. A few with archive number and section title and relevant pages and some quotes by or about him are listed below. Many are in policy or RMs, but many are in article content issues, too. If there's currently a "cabal" of editors wanting him to talk a long holiday, these may help explain why; there are not many editors that he has disagreed with and hasn't been incivil to or called a liar, it appears.

• 706 User:Pmanderson's behavior re Wikipedia:RUS; "To say I find Pmanderson's behavior and attitude flabbergasting is to put it mildly. What's even more flabbergasting is the fact that edits to the WP and WT namespaces constitute over a third of all his edits, and if he shows this kind of even on some of them, the problem starts looking serious indeed. In my seven years with Wikipedia, I've never seen an established editor who in one fell swoop managed to dismiss others' opinions while aggressively promoting his own, expressed battleground behavior, engaged in personal attacks (no matter how craftily veiled), and usurped the power to make the final decisions while stomping out the opposition. This report is not the indication of how offended I am personally; it's an indication of how concerned I am that similar things are occurring elsewhere in the policy space where Pmanderson participates. As far as I can see, this is not an isolated incident. An RfC concerning this editor's behavior was filed last year, followed by an ANI report in January, followed by another ANI report in January, followed by a trout wacking for making comments which are perceived as abusive and racist, followed by another ANI report this May, followed by an accusation about edit warring with regards to the guidelines (where the user finally self-corrected)."
• 699 Subject line insults by User:Pmanderson and removal of AFD tag re Touché
• 692 Incivilities by Pmanderson re WP:MOS
• 681 Non-consensual title-changes re Mexican-American War and others, 1-week block
• 667 PMAnderson - another controversial/disruptive page move: Juan Carlos I re Juan Carlos RM; "This is growing wearisome. Is there a page-move or article-titling controversy that PMAnderson is not at the center of? It never ends. I'm beginning to believe that, if he were removed from the matter entirely, 90% of all article-title wars would evaporate overnight. After seeing this go one for years, I am beginning to feel that he's an aggrivating force in these controversies, and something, perhaps some sort of community imposed editing restrictions, may be in order at this point."
• 662 Uncivil behavior and harassment from Pmanderson re Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation & others
• 661 Pmanderson and Byzantine names re Michael Attaleiates & others
• 659 PMAnderson and Civility, Again re Aorist
• 657 Pmanderson's continuing disruption on Marseille re Marseille RM
• 655 Ryulong + Pmanderson re blocks; an editor opines that "it was proper to block Pmanderson, who has only has had a relatively (Compared to Ryulong) minimal edits and only marginal productivity to the article space, but Ryulong is a much more valuable editor and should have been given to explain before being blocked."
• 641 Pmanderson redux re Turpan RM
• 638 User:Pmanderson and Civility re Aorist
• 631 User:Pmanderson removes tags and breaks 3RR rule. re List of wars between democracies
• 628 User:Pmanderson re Democratic peace theory
• 626 User:Pmanderson re List of wars between democracies
• 551 User:Pmanderson re Merano RM
• 494 User:Pmanderson re Bible citation
• 481 Samuel Johnson and FAC re Samuel Johnson, "I'm taking this here because I just can't deal with User:Pmanderson's actions on FAC or on the Samuel Johnson article anymore."
• 438 Insult by administrator PMAnderson re Wikipedia_talk:Usage_of_diacritics; "I utterly oppose this effort by aliens to rewrite the English language for their own convenience"
• 436 Expand tag on 44kb article re Serbian-Greek relations
• 351 Incivility by User:Pmanderson re Jassy–Kishinev Offensive (August 1944)
• 338 Stalking? re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operation Pliers; interesting that User:Carcharoth was jumping in to defend Pmanderson even then, back in 2007.
• 338 Disruption of on-going RfC re Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll "User:Pmanderson has disrupted the voting via struck text and this {disputed} tag on month-day and here too on years."
• 72 Democratic peace theory re Democratic peace theory, filed by PMA, who says "This is a lie." and "that's how I know it's false." and "I dislike being lied about" and "This is a deliberate lie." (his bold) back in 2006. Old habits die hard.

Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to stipulate that in many cases PMA had reason to be frustrated with the argument; I've been there, and I've been incivil, too (I had a few AN/I complaints back in 2008/09; nobody's perfect). But most of us learn, and improve. He's been incivil, and has been calling people liars, since 2006, without slowing down, except briefly during his 17 temporary blocks. Enough is enough. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

The problem here is essentially one of the Manual of Style. It has a lot of people who believe, to quote one of them, If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition. This bullying attitude is what has produced the 130 pages of discussion (most of which I observe, not cause); minorities do not like to be ignored, especially when they are merely trying to write English. Casliber has chosen to support them, and impose a majority (rather than a consensus) solution to the dash/hyphen discussion; he would understandably prefer not to be criticized for this violation of policy. Silencing his most prominent critic may well accomplish this.

He has, however, persuaded me that the Manual of Style cannot be fixed. I therefore intend to join the vast majority of Wikipedians in ignoring it; if there is general agreement in imposing a topic ban, fine. Someone else can tell those so ill-advised to come to WT:MOS for counsel that it is the decision of a dozen editors whose WP:ILIKEIT is exercised by majority vote.

The usual unrelated grievances have been tacked on to this discussion; the header at the top of this page advises against this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That’s a response to a complaint about chronic incivility?? Damn-it PMA. You just did a classic PMA-hood where you exhibited a galactic dose of the underlying problem with you. This jewel from you is soooo classic: minorities do not like to be ignored (but not one single word regarding your behavior towards others who are merely trying to go about contributing to the project and enjoy a hobby). Minorities don’t like to be ignored? First, let’s get serious; you are impossible to ignore on Wikipedia. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that. What your statement really meant is “minorities do not like to be man-handled and plowed under by a majority that gets it way all the time.” Well… welcome to Wikipedia, where consensus rules.

  Secondly, not one twit of your above “Response” addresses the whole topic—including the very title of this section: Incivility. Baiting. Declaring that a whole group of other editors with whom you disagree are dishonest. And of their being “disruptive” (read: they didn’t agree with you and used evidence you felt had shortcomings, which is to say, the evidence didn’t support what you want). And then haranguing the closing admin on an RfC, suggesting he is pretty much worthless for not ignoring the consensus view because he was incapable of seeing how those behind the consensus view were “dishonest.”

  Do you even see what I am talking about here? I’m serious; are you even capable of comprehending the theory of mind I am trying to convey? Just because there is a clear majority of other editors who disagree with you, is no excuse for you to come to Wikipedia with your attitude. Or does the “end” (you getting your way, which is always right) justify the means (tendentious incivility against those who have the misfortune of not seeing the universe the way you do)? Did it even occur to you that if you just abided by the spirit and letter of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPA, we wouldn’t be here? Now…

  Let me see one single paragraph out of you acknowledging what my complaint is about: your treatment of other editors in what is supposed to be a collegial collaborative writing environment.

  Oh, BTW, I strongly encourage you to not make the core of your response one where you repeat what you wrote above, which is a linked sentence in which you ridicule what you see as the root of the problem causing all this grief on Wikipedia: “If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition.” A repeat of that sort of attitude would just cement the fact that you have a chronic inability to conform to conduct-expected and can not even understand why the world goes on even though you don’t like something. Casliber, an admin and arb, made a darn insightful, pithy comment above that did an amazing job of summarizing my entire post here. He wrote PMAnderson takes a strict/narrow definition of the term "consensus" which is nigh on impossible to fulfil (i.e it is as if dissenters have the ability to blackball or prevent any difficult decision we have to nut out), hence these debates are going to continue to get dragged out unnecessarily. While you are responding to my hot-button issue (civility towards others), PMA, let’s see you also address Casliber’s observation, which speaks to the heart of the matter (both in Casliber’s mind and mine). His being an arb and all that, you might view his opinion as being an outside view worthy of addressing. Greg L (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Greg L, I'm not involved in this debate, I don't have a stake in this debate, and as far as I'm aware we've never encountered each other before. If I see you make a comment like this one again, I block you. Capische? To channel you; that's a response to a response to a complaint about chronic incivility? Ironholds (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I’ll try to use more “little pinky-out” language more befitting this venue. I do have a tendency to tell it the way I see it. And frankly, the above is precisely what I think is going on here. Perhaps I should have used a less inflammatory tone. Greg L (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya think? The above post is incredibly patronising and rude; if this user is indeed uncivil, I can't think of anything better to poke him into roaring in response, which is obviously not optimal. Keep it calm. Ironholds (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks. Since I was not the direct object of PMA’s attack and was coming to the defense of another (GTBacchus, who was just trying to do his best) I took more liberty than I should have. “Little pinky-out” language like Casliber’s excellent nigh on impossible to fulfil is more befitting this venue. Perhaps now, PMA might see it fitting to directly address Casliber’s observation, which I also think is the root of the problem here. Greg L (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, do you have to link to external images and pages like that to illustrate your points? Some of the links (there was one to a tank at some point) seem to be for shock value only and you could use words just as well as images. If you must link to external images, can you at least give people some warning of where you are sending them? Not everyone checks where such links are going before clicking them. Carcharoth (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is consensus?

Casliber caricatures my position. I do not insist that one objector should stymie a decision "we have to make." I have never said so; when others have said so, I have argued against them. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth used that method, calling it the liberum veto; it was a disaster.

But when 15 editors want to require something, and 14 want to make it optional, going with the 15 is not the way of consensus; it is reasonably likely that most of both sides would agree on "preferring" it, for example.

Furthermore, very little on the Manual of Style is a decision we have to make. We could live without any rule on compounding dashes; we did for years, and the Simple English Wikipedia still does. When a page has 125 archives, and pages on pages of them are spent disagreeing about some point, like "logical" quotation, we can be silent on that point, or say that editors disagree; they do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might not have said so (stymying a decision), but have acted like it. The vast majority of wikipedians ignoring MOS?^{[citation needed]} please. Much is so esoteric that folks are just unaware more than wilfully ignoring it. You are again generalising your opposition to give it legitimacy. It is ironic that you are complaining about the size of the page archives having participated in it (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: For others, the 15/14 split he's talking about refers to item 5b. "When prefixing an element containing a space" at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting. The 14 non-agree-ers are heterogeneous, and PMA is insisting on an artificial homogeneity to it. Some were opposing to avoid the construction altogether when the vote was actually on what we do if it is unavoidable (some supporters were keen to see it used as little as possible too). This pattern of his interpreting data this way makes it difficult if he doesn't agree with the direction you're going with something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter Casliber: If an editor opposes using a construction, or opposes using it whenever it is possible not to, he is part of the consensus to require that everybody use it.

This is a novel definition of consensus indeed; if it is not what Casliber means to say, he should reword. He seems surprised that it is difficult to swallow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The gist of that section was that it was an ungainly construction and should be avoided, but if unavoidable then endash. I thought that was a fairly obvious foundation to work on. By rounding up the opposers and just interpreting it as a straight-out oppose does more injustice to the whole wikipedia-is-not-a-vote ethos than my vote counting ever could. Furthermore, digging your heels in like that displays a battleground mentality. These situations require negotiation and compromise, and you're going in the opposite direction. This is what I mean by a net negative when it drowns out other folks' attempts at working together and moving forward, and it's happening often enough to be a real net negative. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Negiotation and compromise would certainly have been preferable. But what happened? One side drafted a decision; they refused to compromise; Casliber then inserted their version without change, as far as I can see.

For example, on the issue mentioned, several of the 14 suggested that MOS say "when unavoidable, prefer to use a dash"; I doubt any of the 14 would have objected; how many of the 15 would have objected we shall never know. But Casliber did not propose this, or any change whatever.

Move together and go forward to the yawning heights of progress by all means; I will not stand in the way, whatever this conclave does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever this "conclave" does, PMAnderson's asides on consensus are yet more mirrors among the smoke. He regularly inserts surreptitious edits into guidelines, policies, guideline templates and the like without anything resembling consensus. See hard evidence in this discussion, from me and others. See this edit two full years ago, by which he alone decided the present wording at the head of WP:MOS, and of all other style guidelines. The effect? In removing "it should be followed" from the text, he sought unilaterally to weaken the Manual of Style. The edit summary to inform the community of this change? Just one word: "Shorter". The discussion for this change? Don't ask.

PMAnderson holds himself exempt from the stringent requirements of dialogue toward consensus, yet is one of its noisiest advocates for everyone else.

Noetica^Tea? 22:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed alternate community sanction

1. Pmanderson aka Septentrionalis is indefinitely topic banned from style and naming related pages and discussions on Wikipedia, interpreted broadly. This may be appealed to the community one year after enactment.

2. Pmanderson is restricted to editing articles, article talk pages, his talk page, and responding to cases or charges brought against him on noticeboards or other community venues for three months.

3. Pmanderson is banned from Wikipedia for 2 weeks for ongoing disruption.

• Support as proposer. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose How long has this been going on? This remedy works for the vast majority of editors frequently surrounded in discord. Not here. His serial string of recent blocks (the last of which was for a solid week) betrays that this proposal is probably dipping the water bucket too deep down into the “well of wishful thinking”. Now…

  PMA’s “What is consensus”-response, above, illustrates what we are facing here. It shows he still doesn’t “get it.” There was a lengthy RfC on a variety of ways to handle an en dash and one of the issues was a 14-15 split. After that, a number of editors rolled up their sleeves and for days on end, hammered out a compromise solution that also adopted the wishes of the “15” side on a particular detail. A detail. That was a long time ago. And yet it appears PMA will have this chiseled into his tombstone bracketed with two herald angels: “14/15 SPLIT”. Tendentiousness in combination with a deep conviction that a minority side’s opinion should be addressed to their satisfaction is the root problem and that is just not a fit for a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. (And yes, it is interesting to see Greg as the spokesman of civility.) I'd support point 1 on its own. Note that Pmanderson says above that he has decided to join the vast majority of Wikipedians in ignoring the Manual of Style, and cheerfully invites a topic ban on it. I see no need for fussing with 2 and 3; Georgewilliamherbert means well, no doubt, but such a nightmarishly detailed and ample scheme seems more humiliating than functional. However, I'd invite Pmanderson to take a voluntary wikibreak of a week or two. PM, I think you're showing signs of burnout. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• You hurt my feelings just now. Greg L (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh dear, did I bite you? At least I did post on your page just now! Bishonen | talk 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Just joking. I’ll live. Greg L (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not for long. darwinbish ^BITE 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You would summon 'zilla to ANI? For my subsection? *blink*

I'm touched. And about to be flattened. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that if Bishzilla is a genus name it should be Bishzilla... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the first two points. This is essentially what I proposed above. I don't think we need to institute any punitive block yet, however, unless he goes off the rails again. --Jayron32 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I struck my “oppose” vote. I could support this too. Greg L (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per reasons given in the other poll above. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To other editors and closing admins, please see my 22:55, 19 August post here regarding this particular editor. Greg L (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry Greg; the lay of the land is clearly visible to all with eyes. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm happy with GWH's recommendations here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in the absence of other measures passing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposal in current form. Would support a MOS and TITLE topic ban of some length (most likely a year). Still oppose to a block or ban, and also opposed to complicated restrictions - keep it simple. Carcharoth (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Many or most of those who edit MOS seem to be quite stubborn and vexatious and it would be unfair to victimise this particular example. Warden (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose He has many times before agreed to not edit on certain topics. He just takes his incivility and edit warring to other topics. A topic ban is useless. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I support point 3. But an indef topic ban is still to much at this point. And I'm not sure that point 2 would help. -Atmoz (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in the case of an indefinite ban or a four month ban not passing. Per evidence given above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: 4-month block, followed by topic-ban

It’s clear that it is very unlikely a consensus will develop in support for any of the above proposals. Perhaps something like a four-month-long Wikipedia-wide ban ought to be the last intermediate remedy before a semi-permanent solution is (ever) resorted to. Someone please take my “four month” thing, dress it up with the appropriate shade of wikipedia lipstick, and post it here so we can all gather around something capable of achieving a general consensus and be done with this. Greg L (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 4-month block, followed by topic-ban from all MOS-related and titling issues. Topic-ban could be reconsidered after a subsequent 4 months of collegial editing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a temporary block followed by a topic ban from MOS-related and titling issues, open to reconsideration after some period. Mathsci (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per GTBacchus: 4-month block, followed by topic-ban from all MOS-related and titling issues. Topic-ban could be reconsidered after a subsequent 4 months of collegial editing. Greg L (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't you just propose this at the top of this section? I this a "I agree with myself" post? Or you logged in with the wrong sock account? FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was previously removed by Guarddog2 per this diff. I've added it back in. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Guarddog2 was right to have removed FuFoFuEd’s baiting. To FuFoFuEd: No one is going to confuse the lede paragraph containing my general suggestion as being yet another vote comparable to my bulleted !vote, which adopts GTBacchus’s more detailed idea. And what’s with this “sock” stuff of yours? If you want to level a formal accusation, be my guest. If you just want to troll because you like wiki-drama, it would be nice if you helped out somewhere else. Greg L (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, FuFoFuEd needn't worry about any apparent redundancy. Nobody's fooled by anything, especially now thanks to you, Fu, and nobody's going to make a decision based on a vote-count anyway. Greg asked for someone to put lipstick on the pig, I chose a shade, and now Greg is signing the piece of paper I stuck next to the pig. Ultimately, we're talking about the pig, not the signatures. This has been a good thread for metaphors. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for all the reasons already given.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons already given. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To other editors and closing admins, please see my 22:55, 19 August post here regarding this particular editor. Greg L (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. (Greg, do you realise it's impossible to post without getting edit-conflicted by you?) I'm (still) against any block, though I'd (again) be OK with a MOS topic ban, and I will not pen yet another rationale for these things. Enough with the proposal-shopping, please. I think the "other parent" has got tired of being asked. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Please dismount from your high horse since you blocketh the sunlight for the minions below. What you refer to as “proposal shopping” is nothing more than trying to identify and craft a consensus remedy. The exact form of this one is based on details provided by an admin, GTBacchus, in response to a very general idea on what I thought was closest to the mood of the community. I revised the title of this sub-thread after GTBacchus weighed in with his specific idea.

  And it would be nice if the caption in that Godzilla picture you added at least made it clear that you are responsible for the silly thing. It is right alongside posts from Locke and me and neither are responsible for editorializing like that. Greg L (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Mystified ]. The onions below? "Godzilla"? Silly? Tsk tsk. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've been wondering if there's a process by which an AN/I item like this can be led to a conclusion. It's like we need a reconciliation committee to hammer out a version that both houses will accept (oh, wait, that's a metaphor for a known disfunctional approach, never mind). Should we just vote yes on all the proposals that we think will help? Or just the one we like best? Or write a new one? Or can someone manage a process that will converge, like you did in the POVTITLE rewrite? Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To heck with admin paralysis. And there is certainly no need for high-brow, powdered-wig crafting of remedies on this issue, all memorialized with quill pens on parchment. There is clearly a clear desire to do something to cool PMA’s jets. But reaching a clear consensus will undoubtedly prove elusive because it has dragged on for so long, is complex, many who weighed in won’t be re-visiting, and all-around fatigue. When this whole thread gets to the top, it is time for the admins to go knock heads and do their backchannel thing and come back with their best distillation of what the community wants and what the admins think is appropriate this time around. Greg L (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I must disagree regarding proposal-shopping. A community ban was proposed, and there was just as much opposition as support. Most opposing editors however, including yourself, recommended a longish block, following on and exceeding recent ones. Then GWH proposed a topic-ban with a 2 week block, and there was immediate opposition, from you. GWH's suggestion might end up being what we settle on, but when Greg L posted his suggestion, both proposals so far looked dead-in-the-water despite a strong majority of people, including yourself, saying he needs an enforced break. Greg offered something that seemed to be in line with what many editors were calling for, without the extremity of the community ban, nor the detailed bits of GWH's proposal that you yourself had complained about.

What are we here for, if not to figure out some action that's consistent with the wishes of most editors expressing opinions? They've mostly all said "block". So how long? What's the consensus? If we can't all agree on a length, do we default to doing nothing?

You yourself said in your opposition to the indef-ban "I propose a time-limited ban from editing, perhaps six months, plus perhaps an indef ban from anything MOS-related. However, please take this Oppose as a support of any time-limited ban that may be put forward."

Then GWH puts a time-limited ban on the table, you oppose it, and suggest a voluntary break of two weeks. Then Greg L puts a time-limited ban on the table, and you oppose it, and accuse him of proposal shopping? Why did you say you would support a time-limited ban, and then oppose each specific one that's offered? What changed between 13:16 and 20:37 UTC with you, that caused you to switch from advocating a six-month ban to opposing a two-week one? Has your account been compromised? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are possibly less offensive ways of pointing out inconsistencies in someone's position than suggesting that their account has been compromised. What you appear to be saying is "that's so silly that the only thing I can think of is that your account has been compromised". If you think Bishonen's position is logically inconsistent, then just say that. No need for presenting it in a reductio ad absurdum manner. Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fair. I genuinely wondered about that, it being in my mind from the thread about that elsewhere on this page. I'm unaccustomed to a 180 like that, and I don't really know Bishonen. I'll address that stuff after I sleep; I'll be better then. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I should explain. I've put the reply on your page, GTBacchus, hope you don't mind. I just don't want to lengthen the Pmanderson ANI thread further, especially not with a dull OT screed about my own boring mental processes. For those who would nevertheless like to wallow in my unlikely explanations, here is a link to them. Bishonen | talk 13:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

All sorted out, and I understand that Bish supports a time-limited topic-ban, but no block of the account. Thank you, Bishonen. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 4-month block, followed by topic-ban from all MOS-related and titling issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for a few reasons. Firstly, because 4 months is an absurd figure. Make it one of the standard block or ban lengths, but don't just pluck a number out of thin air. Secondly, because it conflates a block for disruption with a topic ban. one of the first rules of setting up discussions like this is not to have numerous variants on a theme mashed together into a single proposal, and to instead separate out the different aspects and !vote on them separately. If four proposals had been made initially, an indefinite editing ban, a time-limited editing ban, an indefinite topic ban, and a time-limited topic ban (could even be formatted as two proposals, asking people to indicate the lengths themselves), this discussion wouldn't have degenerated the way it has. I suspect if Casliber had set up those proposals at the beginning, that might have worked out better. But what appears to have happened is that Casliber jumped in with a ban proposal far too early in the discussion (after only 4 hours and 11 minutes), and also failed to notify Pmanderson that the ANI discussion had turned into a ban discussion. If discussion had been allowed to progress for a bit longer before the ban discussion was started, it might have been clearer what other proposals might have been better supported. Which is ironic, given that Casliber is now suggesting that more time be allowed for people to comment on the later proposals. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Many or most of those who edit MOS seem to be quite stubborn and vexatious and it would be unfair to victimise this particular example. Warden (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 4 Months seem very arbitrary, and topic bans for Pmanderson are pointless ass he'll just move to another topic. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I would support a 6 month block with no topic ban attached. Previous 1 month block had no effect. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in case of indefinite ban not passing. As per above evidence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments re: indef ban

For those resisting the indef ban, here are some things to consider:

• The remedy was suggested by one of the most respected Wikipedians (someone thought fit to hold the position of arbitrator). Someone in that position does not take decisions like this lightly.
• Pmanderson's ability to assume bad faith stretches back a long way. For example, here are some examples where he accuses other editors of lying (or his favorite: "falsehood"): [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Note that those are only going back to the middle of last year, and I'm sure that I didn't get them all. Also note that 18 of those 20 were on discussion pages not associated with MOS pages (demonstrating that he has trouble working collaboratively anywhere). I mean seriously, how many of the editors reading this have felt the need to make so many (or any) allegations of lying over the previous year or so? Why is it that all of us manage to discuss and debate issues, but when editors dissent from Pmanderson's view of the world they automatically revert to lying?
• When is enough, enough? Ten unblocked blocks obviously isn't the limit (and this ANI will no doubt result in eleven). Twelve, thirteen, twenty, ...? It's all very well to sit here and hope for the best with temporary remedies, but please keep in mind the damage that will result as this editor continues with his disruptive agenda. How many other editors will be discouraged in the time between this block's expiry and the inevitable next block?
• Pmanderson knows very well how to play the game of remedy-avoidance at WP. Pmanderson's most recent block was for poor behavior at the MOS (three stomping MOS edits while talk page discussion was occurring), and part of his unblock request was the statement "I do not intend to edit the page again; I believe I said so". Since returning from the block, he has made no less than 27 edits on MOS and other policy pages. Sure, most are talk pages, but that's where he continues his unabashed campaign of disruption (e.g. with edits like "...Leave well enough alone, and go find something useful to do"). Pmanderson has made many statements and suggestions about staying away from style-type pages, but none of that seems to stick. The bottom line is that he just can't help but get involved in style-type issues, however given his demonstrated inability to work in a collaborative environment, that's very difficult for the project.
• Pmanderson's recent block of one week resulted in a period of remarkable cooperation and consensus-based editing at the MOS. In the week he was absent, there was a feeling of teamwork in a constructive environment that resulted in 109 edits by 13 editors (and note that not all of those editors are part of the "cabal" that Pmanderson is so happy to accuse people of being part). I am quite convinced that many other (non-MOS) areas breathed an equal sigh of relief in that week.

Please consider that this editor is a very special case—lending much greater strength to the remedy proposed by Casliber.
GFHandel ♬  00:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The need for a serious and enduring solution

[Please comment after this post, not within it. –Noetica]

After long reflection, I am more persuaded than I was before: PMAnderson has had all the chances to change his ways that he deserves – and more. The latest episode over RMs at Crêpe merges seamlessly with a sustained history of unconscionable behaviour. Earlier this year WP:MOS was protected for four months over a provision that he inserted without anything remotely like consensus. I was not involved in that issue; but I started a section aimed at a consensual solution (and I proffer the whole section in evidence, rather than diffs): Follow the sources: a compromise proposal. Editors responded well, and there was useful discussion. But here is the text of PMAnderson's oppose vote (which was the only oppose vote):

Very strongly oppose It is next to impossible to amend this page to reflect anything other than the opinions of the latest handful of Language Reformers, so Art's argument is no reason to support. This would be acceptable with the admission of its purpose: This Manual of Style has nothing to do with the English language. [Emphasis in original.]

Before long there were threats, when I attempted to move comments so that the discussion would remain readable:

Note: anybody who refactors this comment may expect to explain themselves to an admin. [This threat occurs twice.]

And aspersions against MOS, and MOS editors:

Then are you disputing the standing of this page as a guideline? Making it an essay would permit our dogmatists to say whatever they wanted, and persuade whomever they could persuade.

...

The last proposal is misguided; it is MOS which deviates (often without any tinge of utility) from standard English, not the other way around.

...

English does not "deviate" from the MOS; the MOS deviates from English.

This last post from PMAnderson (quoted in full) is followed by his subsection headed "A modest proposal". His first post there:

OK, let's take Headbomb at his word. Let's tell the truth about this page and its writers:

This Manual of Style is the opinion of less than a dozen Wikipedians. They want something they can enforce. They don't want editors going to the trouble of consulting dictionaries and style manuals; they are horrified at the concept of considering English usage on any point of style; they know better. That will produce a strong Manual of Style, which will control 3,713,271 articles; appealing to any other policy is subversion. Discussion is useless; all editors must follow their opinion, because they say so.

Most of this is not a parody; it is what Noetica, Tony1, Dicklyon, Kwamikagami and Headbomb say and want. Until they are topio-banned. this page will be useless, unsupported, and non-consesnsus; it should be protected until they get bored with it.

And later:

[...] If the clique which claims ownership of this page is removed from it, I'm sure the rest of the audience here - those not ihterested in "strength" or the imposition of obsolete grammatical chimaeras - will respond to the slow but perpetual rain of protest this page gets, by, as policy requires, attempting to achieve consensus. [...]

And later:

But our dogmaticists oppose even: "Follow Method A only and always; and this is why." Is it because the merits of their Sacred Writ exist largely in their sacred imaginations?

The sequel makes interesting reading: attempting a humorous de-escalation, I pressed PMAnderson to issue an RFC on my conduct, since I was clearly a reprobate of the first order. But I'll quote no more, for now at least. What I show above is a sustained recent example of PMAnderson's standard behaviour, in his perennial campaign against MOS and MOS editors. I have been one of the most constantly abused; yet PMAnderson has no evidence to support his slanders: certainly nothing that would withstand unbiased scrutiny, when shown in context. Of particular interest:

• The recent hard-won resolution to the dash-and-hyphen struggle (a resolution resisted at every step by PMAnderson) was a model of consensus-building such as we rarely see on the Project: conducted by MOS editors, and concluded at WT:MOS under ArbCom scrutiny and with ArbCom endorsement of the result.
• The recent RM at Crêpe demonstrates the accuracy of my work and the work of other serious MOS editors, along with our respect for "real English" and for truly reliable sources.

Enough is enough. PMAnderson has prevailed on the good nature of his peers for too long, and has shown himself incapable of responding to suggestions for compromise and for respectful discussion. With reluctance, I suggest that the community now apply its strongest remedies to one of its most recalcitrant problems.

Noetica^Tea? 02:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it totally hilarious you want to ban someone for opposing a circumflex accent in a title, especially when N vs. 1 consensus over much more important (to me) WP:V content issue goes unsanctioned on this very noticeboard. Nice WP:TLDR post, by the way. Take your evidence to ARBCOM, they specialize in that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure nobody is proposing banning someone for opposing a circumflex. They're proposing banning him for treating other people like complete shit, over and over and over and over and over again. I think of those two things as pretty distinct; I've seen people oppose circumflexes without behaving in an aggressive and vituperative manner, and vice versa. Pmanderson does both; it's like multi-tasking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Gee golly whiz. I’m with GTBacchus on this one. Where did Noetica write that he wanted to ban PMA for opposing a circumflex? I think it couldn’t be clearer that the issue with PMA is the manner in which he opposes things, which is to complain forcefully to such an extent, those who constitute a general consensus feel helpless to do anything about it, and PMA seems prepared to argue his pet issues until the heat death of the universe. Greg L (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Persistent battleground mentality". That's the phrase I was looking for. That's in the face of widespread calls for change and increasing blocks for battleground behavior. That's the issue. Nobody cares about circumflexes in this discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly; in the same vein, nobody cared very much about hyphen versus en dash in Mexican-American War; but PMA managed to get a small victory there in his campaign against the MOS, by a sneak attack, and was starting to launch further offensives against related content styling; sometimes you can't just let the bullies keep winning. Yes, a lot of noise was made in fighting back on that one, but in the end we have a clear consensus, a better MOS, and working relationship that is good when he's not part of it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look at the metaphors here; to Dicklyon and his friends, Wikipedia is a battleground, full of "sneak attacks," "offensives," and subversion. In this case, the "sneak attack" is this Requested Move, in which 8 editors supported spelling an article as the sources do. The two opposers are MOS regulars; they made no substantive case; and the move was mentioned at WT:MOS at the time.
      • This entire section is one battlefield in their war; I'm tired of it. Those who want Wikipedia to be a battleground will indulge these self-appointed warriors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pma, if you're "tired of it", then you should drop your own battlefield mentality. That's the only reason this thread was opened in the first place. After I've bent over backward to explain all the detailed reasons behind my close to you, is it still your opinion that I'm not a useful admin, and that I've been "duped" by a "cabal"? Apparently that's how you see the lay of the land - all cloak-and-dagger and intrigue are your metaphors. This is getting silly, Pma. When I look around, I see volunteers working on an awesome project. I see that some of us get bogged down in grudges, and then become much less productive. It's worth thinking about.

          Getting "tired of it" is nothing to be ashamed of. The best way to handle that isn't to fight, however, but to go work on some area of the Wiki that doesn't get your back up so much. If you can't do that, the next best way is to take a long break and get some perspective. I mean... hyphens? Circumflexes? Worth getting bent out of shape over? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • When I said that, you had not discussed your reasoning in any detail. More of my present opinion of your reasoning will, if I have the energy, appear on your talk page, where it belongs.
    • But, most importantly, I have been editing other things; my only discussion of MOS has been here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • • Yeah. I had well-supported reasons. That's the point. You can trust that I'm going to have well-supported reasons, and that I'll explain them to an arbitrary level of detail if you just ask. Why throw in all the shit about my uselessness and other people's dishonesty if what you really wanted was to hear my detailed reasons? Why not just ask?

          What you did created this ANI thread. Just asking would have been awesome. Why not be awesome, and don't get banned? That is the only point of this whole ANI tread. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • By the way, having just shat on the talk page of someone who is perfectly willing to hear your concerns in good faith, you really shouldn't be "editing other things". You should be cleaning up the mess you made. I'd do it for you, so why not be cool to me? Why not give it a try at least? That's the point. Being cool = no ANI thread. Why not? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• PMA, you actually surprise me. The only reason so many perceive their dealings with you as a “persistent battleground” is not because you had the misfortune of somehow magically becoming a lightning rod that accumulated an astronomically improbable mix of “disruptive”, “dishonest” editors who refuse to oblige a minority view. These other editors are using metaphors like “persistent battleground mentality” because your tendentiousness and aggressiveness stands out far beyond the norm. Now…

  The community has tired of your disruption and no longer wants you playing in the sandbox with us so long as you insist upon doing business as usual, which most here consider to be disruptive. The only question at hand is how to make contributing to Wikipedia a fun and enjoyable hobby again for the community that frequents the same pages you do. The decision to be made is how long to block you (to see if you will finally change your ways) or to just lock you out with an indefinite ban of some sort, which is the Wikipedia-equivalent of leaving you alongside a long road in Texas and keep driving because the community has given up on you. That would be pretty unfortunate but your arguments here show a severe lack of contrition and an unwillingness to conform to the conduct the community expects of you.

  I recognized that your energies might be able to be channeled to good effect. Some of your positions (like not trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote change in the world of diacriticals commonly accepted for use with the English language) are ones I agreed with. So I e-mailed you after your most recent block and suggested that you and I work constructively on diacriticals; you would figure out the most active and productive venues where it ought to be discussed and we would team up. I thought we would have made a good team. You had your reasons to ignore that offer from me; perhaps you perceive me as a chronic poopy-head. For whatever reason, you instead elected to go harangue GTBacchus over his (proper) closure of an RfC. And it seems you’ll never let up on the “14/15 split” issue. I can tell you this much: collaborating on ensuring Wikipedia properly follows English-language RSs on the common use of diacriticals in the English-language would have been much more useful to the project than the paths you seem intent on motoring down no matter what. Greg L (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What MOS could be

Review summary

We have community support but not consensus (short of the 80%-ish mark usually used for determining community actions) for all 3 proposals - currently standing (from a raw !votes standpoint) at 12-10 on the indef community ban, 6-2 on each of the alternate proposals. While this is not in need of immediate closing and one of these proposals might gain consensus, it does not appear likely to me at this time.

Our usual response to a situation with significant community upset but short of a consensus for community action is to file a community patience exhaustion behavioral arbcom case.

The proper procedure for that is to gather evidence diffs and so forth, not argue back and forth with the person in question. So I would like to request that those who are fed up with PMA stop arguing with him here (not constructive, nor civil, nor helpful) and put together a case skeleton and start diffs.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A chunk of that opposition two the two-week block and the four-month block came from an editor who had previously proposed a six-month block, so I'm not sure how you're counting that editor's opinion. It's strange, anyway.

Most people just said yes to a long block, including people who also opposed any kind of block(?), and you're saying that means go to ArbCom? Why doesn't someone uninvolved just read this and press the block button? There's clearly strong support for something, and the oppose votes are almost entirely content-free. How are you reading that as not a likely consensus?

Bishonen said she'd support any time-limited block. Take her at her word, and those alternate proposals are actually 7-1, with Locke Cole opposing.

I could spend time working on moves, or stub-sorting, or mediating over at Talk:China, and you want me to spend days of my life on a Request for arbitration when 87.5 percent have agreed to a four-month block already? What's up with that? Is it because only an ArbCom backed sanction will stick? Is that what's going on here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should have reread more closely; Bish says she opposes both full alternate sanction sets but supported the indef topic ban (item 1 in mine). That one then specifically has 7-1 support and would pass "normal muster"

I think you misread her comments on the other stuff, she's against any block.

I'm not trying to waste your time (or mine or anyone elses). I am trying to get this past the "everyone yelling at each other on ANI" stage, which if there aren't consensus agreed proposals up gets old quickly. If there's an uninvolved admin willing to enact (1) above then it's on; if there's not then we should really shut this down and anyone willing to see it through move on to an arbcom case. Getting abusively rude on ANI about someone who's been rude everywhere enough to run out of community patience may be classic normal behavior, but that doesn't mean it's desirable. I'd like to see it stop, and the next actual constructive step be taken if none of the ones here will work. If one does, then it does. If not...

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen writes, "I propose a time-limited ban from editing, perhaps six months, plus perhaps an indef ban from anything MOS-related. However, please take this Oppose as a support of any time-limited ban that may be put forward." I interpret that as support for a six-month block, and I'm misreading? Bizarre, GWH.

I think a lot of chatter in this thread should shut down as well, but I see almost full consensus for at least a month-long block. Bishonen's directly contradictory "votes" cancel each other out. Locke Cole presents no content.

Have I been abusively rude? If so, will you point it out, so I can apologize? I got a little short when I pointed out that all he had to do was ask, but that's in the face of his pretending this has all been about something other than extremely abusive behavior. I've said all I've got to say here to Pmanderson, and I'm done, and I've asked Greg L to let it drop too. None of that changes the near 100% agreement to a block of at least one month.

I'm reading this accurately, aren't I? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the idea of a block of any kind is not so clear. The indefinite topic ban from style/move/titling issues as already described does seem to have majority support. Although it does not require an ArbCom case to enact such a ban, is there a prescribed mechanism like WP:AE where uninvolved administrators can determine whether a "community" topic ban of that kind is being respected? Mathsci (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read stuff, and while I'm still puzzled by Bish's remarks, I agree that the effective remedy is probably going to end up being ArbCom. I guess I'll start collecting diffs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a note below, I invite full review of all my conduct in this situation. I like constructive criticism. A detailed explanation of the RM close can be found on my talk page. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GWH, there is no hurry - many here are already familiar with the situation and some more eyes would be interesting. A few more days will be fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my summary (a couple of !votes have come in since GWH's summary above) would be as follows: (1) The raw numbers on the indef ban are 13-12. But two of the supports are in fact only supporting an indefinite topic ban, and make no indication that they are supporting an indefinite block (I'm referring to Tony1's and Agathoclea's supports). So that makes the tally more like 11-12, which is clearly not support for an indefinite block. (2) I would discount GWH's proposal as not having enough input (only 8 people bothered to !vote there, compared to 25 on the main proposal). At the least, that would need modifying and relisting. (3) Similar reasoning for Greg L/GTBacchus proposal (where 4 months came from, I have no idea, it seems to have been plucked out of thin air). Only 8 people have !voted there so far. My summary would be that the current discussion has become so long that people are not following it any more and are not !voting on the later proposals (I'll add my !votes momentarily). I agree that Bishonen's comments look contradictory, but rather than try and work it out (and possibly get it wrong), simply ask her to clarify what she has said. Ditto with trying to divine consensus for other alternatives from the comments made. Those comments should be used to craft a new proposal, which would then be put forth for consideration. But unless someone gets a handle on the discussion, it will likely degenerate into the usual chaos. My recommendation would be to propose a time-limited (one-year) topic ban on its own (without the extra conditions GWH proposed, which made it too complicated) and see if that has support. Requiring an appeal after one year is just a waste of time. Much better to let these things expire naturally and see what happens at that point. However, I'm reluctant to add to the proposals already being looked at. I would suggest that GWH close down his proposal (as the closest one to what I'm proposing) and replace it with a proposal for a MOS and TITLE topic ban, asking people to state whether it should be indefinite, or limited to 1 year. Carcharoth (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 4 months, yes. The air was thin, and we plucked it. Something concrete.

Also, I did ask Bish, above. I guess I could go to her talk page, too. It's getting quite late though, now, and it's not urgent. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The raw numbers for a full ban or block are one thing, but does anyone else see a reason why we couldn't institute the topic ban? I seems to have a fair bit of agreement between many of the opposes of the full ban, and is sort-of-not-really implicitly supported by those who are supporting a complete ban. NW (Talk) 14:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "sort-of-really implicitly supported"? Mathsci (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom, oh boy

I think I'm going to start putting a filing together for ArbCom. I've never done this before, so it may take a little while, and I may need help. If this thread comes to a solution before I'm done, awesome, but I'm not going to put all my eggs in that basket. There seems to be broad agreement here that there's an issue that needs addressing, and other forms of dispute resolution have apparently been tried.

Anyone wishing to be a party to the case, please let me know, either here or on my talk page. I'll start with Pma, myself, and the people he accused on my talk page of being in a cabal of some kind. Thanks to all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working in my sandbox, if anyone wishes to follow along. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I too think an ArbCom request may be necessary. I'd be happy to help you file one, and even file one jointly with you if that would help. FWIW, my views are that the problems are wider than just Pmanderson, and I largely agree with what Enric Naval says here. I know you are active on move discussions, GTBacchus, but how active are you at the Manual of Style pages? That is really the root of all this, in my view. Essentially, my view is that there are groupings of editors that argue at WT:TITLE and WT:MOS (and subpages) that tend to dominate the discussions and (sometimes) shut out minority views, and, as a side-effect, chill the discussions for other editors arriving there. Pmanderson's approach to discussions is part of the problem, but other editors also contribute to that problem. I think this is why you see a reluctance on the part of some editors here to go for an arbitration case, because they know they would be under scrutiny as well. I still need to finish reviewing this whole discussion and respond on a few points (and respond to some points made on my talk page), and the collapsed bits should probably be hatted rather than collapsed, and I would also like to double-check GWH's numbers on the !votes (at least two should be discounted or were in the wrong section), and make a comment about how it has been difficult here to distinguish the involved editors from the uninvolved ones, but after all that I should have time to consider how best to present a request, and that is key at this stage as getting a request accepted is the difficult bit. You have to concentrate on showing why other dispute resolution methods are likely to, or have, failed, and what the core of the problem is, and what scope you want for a case. Carcharoth (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, Carcharoth. I appreciate that there's a lot to comb through; I know that when I sneeze, it's like three paragraphs. I'll keep working on conciseness. Also, I'm not going to file anything yesterday, or even tomorrow. No deadline, etc.

To your question: You can't work in moves for long without running into MOS. Mostly I've dealt with WP:MOSTM and I guess WP:MOSCAPS. There are sometimes issues about WP:MOSJP. More it's naming conventions, and I participate at WT:AT. I think I wrote a chunk of WP:AT. It gets hard to tell. Alphabet soup.

I recognize the names of everyone involved - they all comment in move discussions - but I haven't studied any of them, or know their MOS-related allegiances. Is that the kind of scene we're working with here? None of them has raised flags for me before this current episode, at least none that I remember. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MoS issues might be better addressed in an RfC. What I see is a fundamental philosophical divide between those who want MoS to be a rulebook and an ever-increasing mass of pages going into great detail about how to do things around here, and those who want to return the MoS to something simpler and less bureaucratic. Other issues include my general thoughts on how individual editors becoming entrenched and overly established in any particular area (whether that be MOS, TITLE, ARBCOM, category discussions, AfD, ANI, spam blacklists, FAC, main page sections, in fact any area of the backroom discussion and meta-production parts of the encyclopedia) is ultimately a long-term detriment. I think it is healthy for anyone who has been involved in an area for years and years to take periodic breaks of many months (if not longer) and allow fresh input to be obtained, and allow others to step up to the plate (the usual argument advanced against this is that the particular area can't do without them, which in itself tends to show a loss of perspective). The other aspect of this (and this is a subtly different argument from the one about vested contributors) is that you get a general trend of editors showing excessive deference to those who have been around in a particular area for ages, and sometimes that deference is not warranted. What is needed is healthy and open debate, as opposed to low-volume participation and the same old voices again and again. Sometimes a low amount of participation is due to an area not being of interest to many, and sometimes it is due to the nature of discussion putting off new participants. The final point is that established editors can point out long-ago discussions (institutional memory), but can also be a roadblock to change (consensus can change) by remaining entrenched in their positions against the incoming tide (and to be fair, if changes would undo years of work by an editor, I can't blame them for resisting those changes). As you can see from the wall of text above, I've been thinking about these issues a fair bit, which is why I mentioned an RfC, or maybe a village pump discussion, or an essay on the topic. And I haven't even touched on the issue of majority and minority opinions, yet. Nothing at all to do with an ArbCom case, though. That would look at conduct issues, of which there are plenty. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. I'm very interested in those issues. You seem to betray a preference in the MOS debate, the way you describe the two sides. If we get more healthy debate surrounding naming issues, I'll be happy to see that. It does get a bit lonely sometimes, you know, though I've been learning about the Ottoman Empire lately. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I had a quick look a the Crêpe discussion, it struck me that the derogatory tone was present on both sides [22], and that was not a reply to Pmaderson. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. Good thing that's not what this thread was about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My view would be that there are three issues.

• What MOS is to be?
• Whether it, or any page, should be decided by majority vote; especially one which ignores a large minority. The post quoted above, claiming that If more people support it than oppose it, of course we should ignore the opposition, seems apposite, although I would not sanction Mclay1 except to require that he mention this view in any future RfA. If ArbCom wishes to declare or change policy here, it should do expressly and publicly.

• The behavioral issues. Fundamentally, a few editors have fun inventing a version of English, excluding what they don't happen to like or use, which is fine; they then impose it on the rest of Wikipedia, which is less acceptable. They react to opposition, including opposition by each other, with the language Carcharoth has quoted, none of it directed at or provoked by me. This is a long-standing problem (Tony was talking about vomit two years ago), but I doubt sanctions will help much; those who want an "authoritarian" MOS really think opposition to it is subversion, to be dealt with by abuse.
• I have been contaminated by this mind-set, and will go work on article space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So...

You're funny, making a personal attack while complaining about an alleged personal attack. You want proof? Here's my favorite gem from GTB:[23] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close

As this conversation has continued it seems to me consensus has become less clear, not more. After reviewing this further it seems clear that although Pmanderson has not acted appropriately they are not the only one. How a group of seemingly intelligent editors manage to get so twisted into knots about thigs that,, let's face it, 99% of Wikipedia doesn't care about is a bit hard to fathom, but it does indeed seem like the type of multi-faceted problem that is appropriate for ArbCom to handle. I can't see any action arising out of this thread, or any purpose to continuing it and move that it be closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I see it has gotten to "Why not be awesome, and don't get banned? That is the only point of this whole ANI tread. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)" (emphasis in original) A stunning argument indeed. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I thought it was pithy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A selective, provocative, distracting, and ultimately dismissible characterisation of these proceedings. You might actually read and understand more soberly if your time and patience had been consumed, as others' time has been, by the editor at the centre of all this. Noetica^Tea? 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awêsômê. Keep at it. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Admins here should direct discussion back to the point of the AN/I: the behavior of Pmanderson. This is not the thread to discuss MOS issues, and the behavior of other editors is not a mitigating factor for the reason this case was raised: the ongoing disruption to the project caused by the documented behavior of Pmanderson. Perhaps someone would care to address the 20 instances I linked above where Pmanderson accuses other editors of lying? Note that none of those cases are related to the other editors involved in this debate, and 95% of those cases are in areas unrelated to MOS or policy pages. GFHandel ♬  20:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. PMAnderson has once again raised controversy over MOS as a shield against scrutiny of his appalling behaviour; but MOS is indeed not the topic. Friction accompanies every manual of style. That's in their nature; but they reduce far more friction than they cause, as they quietly assist in resolving disputes. Wikipedia is uniquely open, so the friction is uniquely visible. But WP:MOS gives workable guidelines on, for example, the thorniest issues of punctuation. These accord with best practice in current publishing, and have wide but normally unspoken assent in the community, as the recent huge consultation concerning dashes and hyphens amply shows. Unargued denials of these facts are irrelevant, and distractions from the present business. There is solid evidence that WP:MOS, WP:TITLE, and related pages serve the community better when PMAnderson's campaign against WP:MOS is interrupted. Above the noise in this discussion, the call is heard for him to be removed once again. Yes, close this case: but with PMAnderson banned from areas where he is a perennial hindrance to the dedicated work of his fellow editors. Noetica^Tea? 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Friction accompanies every manual of style" - that's, interesting... Rather than distract here, I'll take this to your talk page. For the record, regarding Pmanderson, I've been waiting for someone to propose the topic ban on its own that has not so far been proposed, but which I suspect would gain near-unanimous support. I did suggest that he apologise to GTBacchus, and there has been an exchange at User talk:GTBacchus, but I'm not entirely sure it has helped (though maybe it has). Carcharoth (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine, Carcharoth. Anyone interested can now see the useful resulting dialogue at my talkpage. Noetica^Tea? 01:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all this is going to lead to is yet another Arbitration case to go with the four cases already open. If other editors are behaving disruptively here they should be blocked for doing so if needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not trying to defend P or their tactics, but the fact this discussion has gotten so huge and no uninvolved admin has seen fit to take any action would seem to indicate this is beyond what ANI can deal with, and an ArbCom case is being drafted anyway. What's the point of dragging this out now if it's already on it's way to ArbCom? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is not beyond what ANI can deal with. Are Wikimedia’s servers powered off of wikidrama generated at ANIs and ArbCom? What’s with the action paralysis around here? There are plenty of good people who inhabit this cyber-sandbox but the ANI system has become dysfunctional to the point that it is no longer serving a any purpose for the editors who come here other than to have wasted several hundred man-hours of everyone’s time just to deal with PMA. That’s a scandalous outcome and is absolutely unacceptable. A two-week-long block didn’t work so someone dish out a four or eight-week-long one and be done with this. Let’s not have editors tripping up such a simple remedy just because they’re holding out for pie-in-the-sky additional restrictions that others obviously have no stomach for. Greg L (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative N: 1 month block for civility with exponential penalty

The problem is not with his argument, but rather with his civility and acceptance of an adverse decision. The situation is chronic: there have been many blocks. The longest block has been 1 month. There seems to be support for a block, but division on an indefinite or extended topic ban. The remedy should encourage civility. Consequently,

1. User:Pmanderson blocked 1 month for civility.
2. Subsequent civility blocks to be at least doubled from the previous civility block (i.e, 2, 4, 8, 16, ...).
3. No WP:MOS related topic ban

Doubling the blocks allows him to return quickly, but it also limits the number of subsequent civility episodes. With four more episodes, he would be blocked for an addition 2.5 years. Glrx (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Glrx (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose I don't support any proposal that does not include an interaction ban between Pmanderson and the other users with whom they are in perpetual conflict. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible support I figure there’s been, what… several hundred man-hours expended on this? Let’s not be holding up such a simple and obvious remedy by holding out for additional restrictions that too many have no stomach for. Greg L (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Civility remedies just result in baiting and disagreements among admins and editors about where the line is drawn. A topic ban would work here. I note that Greg is insisting that things are 'obvious'. Well, it seems things are not as obvious as he thinks (despite his multiple posts to that effect). Part of the reason the thread has grown so long is the multiple posts by Greg and others (including me). What is needed is for us to post less and for uninvolved editors to either post their opinion or say that this has grown too complex and they think it should go to ArbCom (rather than just staying silent or ignoring the thread). The other reason this has dragged on is that the initial proposal (indefinite community ban) was set too high (I maintain that if the initial proposal had been a topic ban, which I still support, this would all be done and dusted by now). There is also a distinct atmosphere of the supporters of the ban proposal trying to obtain the next-best thing, rather than achieve an objective result. i.e. punitive rather than preventative. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Carcharoth on this occasion. Tony (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, isn’t that interesting. You’ve voted “oppose” on every single suggested remedy here. And I note your first vote reasoning: While I can't condone Pmanderson's conduct here, I think that on balance his contributions still outweigh the negative aspects. Then you used sly verbiage to try to blame me for PMA’s behavior. Shame on you. Greg L (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was always going to be difficult. Let's all keep calm, and not be provoked – even where we are "right", OK? [Added for clarity, later: I meant all of us on this page, when any one of us feels irrefutably "right". –N] Noetica^Tea? 01:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am exceedingly calm. He’s also using my name in vain and I’ll have none of it. I am in no mood here to have crap sandwiches offered up and resort to wikipleasantries to describe them as “nearly delicious.” Carcharoth should be more *candid* with his reasoning for opposing every proposed sanction that has come up here and not try to lay blame on others for failure to come up with a suitable remedy. That sort of excuse to mask one’s chronic support for PMA is a metric ton of Iranian-centrifuged bullonium. His voting against the most mild remedy (a four-week block, upped from the two-week-long one that obviously wasn’t sufficient) and then citing how the initial proposal (indefinite community ban) was set too high as the reason for the failure to get anything done here is, in wiki-parlance, utterly fallacious. Well, let’s see if we can flush some quail out of the bush here with this: Carcharoth wrote above, if the initial proposal had been a topic ban, which I still support… Is that so? That option hadn’t been offered up here. Why didn’t he create a sub-thread with that as a proposal? So all we have is “opposes” out of Carcharoth hiding behind the apron strings of while I can't condone. That has the ultimate effect of rewarding the community with hundreds of man-hours of wasted effort on something that should be a no-brainer, all the while trying to deflect blame on others. Greg L (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask editors—particularly Carcharoth—to take Greg L's posts here at a distance: he's the kind of editor who will see things differently when he calms down. I believe he's become too emotionally involved and doesn't see the wood for the trees. He doesn't seem to realise that other editors actually take negative, emotional language at face value. Tony (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as per proposer, although I think starting at one month is too little, as he already had a one month civility block that didn't help. So it should start at two instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I support a topic ban instead. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative N+1: Indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style and any related discussion, construed broadly

Let's put it to the test, and have each strand of sanction done separately. The proposal before us here is that Pmanderson be subject to an indefinite topic ban from Manual of Style and any related discussion, construed broadly.

• Support --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ah… A proposal predicated on Carcharoth’s sentiments. I agree. Greg L (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. My sentiments also. And before you burst into tears at seeing the self-contradictory Bishonen creating further chaos, please see my post on GTB's page. Bishonen | talk 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Support. The last time one of these proposals splintered into a thousand new ones due to lack of consensus, I said to myself: "you had better support the next reasonable proposal, because this is getting ridiculous." So here it is, and so here I am. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It is only causing continual disruption having PMAnderson editing in this area. --John (talk) 02:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - How broad in this case? Given the track record here, are we talking edits to the MoS and MoS-like pages, edits to talk pages, MoS and other wise, that argue with, comment on, praise, condemn, etc the content of the MoSes and the discussions of the MoSes, and RfCs on the MoSes. Or does it include things like using the MoSes as justification for edits, vocally editing in defiance of the MoSes, indirect baiting about MoS focused editing, and so on? - J Greb (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm borrowing standard Admin/Arbcom terminology here. As I understand it, it is usually all-embracing, and means all the above. I believe that editing in defiance of the MoSes might still be permissible, but doing so 'vocally' would cross the line. This would mean in practice that he cannot be in violation because he would not be able to argue his case or justify himself if challenged. I'm sure that with this in place, battles like that which took place at Talk:Mexican-American War would be avoided in future. It would be great if any Sysop or Arb would confirm or otherwise correct me if I am wrong. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• hrm... that is rub I was seeing. Leaving the editor free to add content but possibly causing them grief if that content removed if if it isn't "up to" MoS. I'd rather they have the latitude to note along the lines of "The content is relevant, sourced, and legible. Copy edit to MoS if you feel the need, but this is how I write." without getting smacked silly. That said, I can see the reasoning to not have them fight to keep a particular formatting. - J Greb (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is required to respect MOS when adding content; but if he fights attempts of others to adjust toward the style described by MOS, that would be a transgression of the "broadly construed", I think. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed I don’t profess to be a wiki-expert, but I was wondering what “construed broadly” meant. Certainly it would mean WP:MOS and WT:MOS. I should think it would also be any WP and WT-space to which WP:MOS refers. So if WP:MOS refers to another style guide page where an particular issue is fleshed out in greater detail, then I should think that would be included. To Ohconfucius: Is that what it means? Is there a policy page or general understanding in existence amongst admins as to what “construed broadly” means? Greg L (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see response immediately above. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Topic bans in this case is useless. He has for example already promised to stay away from Roman–Persian Wars and style guidelines. Did that help? No. He'll just find a new topic to be uncivil on, and most likely the whole thing will start again, but involving new people. A topic ban is more hurtful than helpful in this case.--OpenFuture (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, of course. Read my lips: since I support the strongest proposal (see way up top), and it includes this sanction, I support this one as well. Others who support earlier proposals presumably support this one also. Let them now say so explicitly. If people aren't explicit about this, let their implied support be added here anyway. And let the ban include all MOS pages, naming pages including WP:TITLE, associated templates, and RMs involving any matter of style. And all the associated talkpages. Be definite about the detail, people. Noetica^Tea? 03:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—To the closing admin: I don't want to see Mr Anderson site-banned, so my stance differs from that of Noetica (e.c.). WP is a central part of Mr Anderson's life, and personal part of me says a site-ban is overkill; and the legalist in me says that a two-week or month-long site ban = punishment alone, and would solve nothing. We care about the project, and we try to treat each other with kindness, even through gritted teeth, yes? The topic-ban should encompass wp:title, which he has used in the past as a power base against the style guides. It's simple, easy to enforce, and stands a good chance of ending the toxic disruption and funnelling him into areas that will benefit both the project and him. (Noetica's "extras" might be considered, but lack the simplicity of enforcement). The idealist in me hopes that an indef topic-ban will allow him to make valuable contributions to the project; but he needs to be on notice that further topic-bans will be applied if he pursues anti-social methods with editors at pages such as mentioned by OpenFuture. Tony (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Whatever else we decide, this sounds like a proper subset of an appropriate response to the PMA disruption problems. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because I don't find it plausible for ArbCom to have the balls to pass any sanctions on anyone in opposition to PMA here, regardless how uncivil they might have been, because of the very lopsided headcounts. So, this is the only plausible outcome of any further escalation of this dispute. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A note to new readers: There are users who have commented inside of other user's comments. I have tried to indent them to avoid confusion, but may not have succeeded. lifebaka++ 16:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In May 2010, User:Harmonia1 was identified by Checkuser as the master account associated with four sockpuppet accounts: User:Critias6, User:Elkoholic, User:Tailertoo, and User:Ellieherring, after this SPI was conducted. The defense was that the alternate accounts were all associated individuals involved with M2 Technologies, a company owned/operated by Janet Morris. All of the accounts edited exclusively subjects associated with Morris and her business, which involved "nonlethal technology". The SPI was opened after coordinated editing became apparent in disputes over articles dealing with the "nonlethal technology" area. "Tailertoo" and "Harmonia1" reported close personal association, and "Tailertoo" turns out to be the Twitter handle of Janet Morris's husband, also a central figure in the M2 Technology business. All of the accounts were blocked, with five unblock requests rejected for the master. The accounts edited in tandem, votestacked, and typically participated in discussions without ever citing any external sources of authorities in support of the positions they held.

For some time this year, there has been extensive coordinated editing on subjects related to Janet Morris, with many new accounts and SPAs appearing, particularly in editing disputes. The accounts involved edit subjects related to Janet Morris principally or exclusively, participate in discussions at length without citing any external sources or authorities in support of their positions, and otherwise parallel the behavior of the accounts in last year's disputes. There has been a great deal of canvassing off-wiki. Virtually all of the accounts involved self-identify as associates of Janet Morris, or use names that correspond to those used off-wiki as associates of Janet Morris. Many of them are names of authors published in the book Lawyers in Hell, which was the subject of a contentious AFD where several of the accounts first surfaced.

The accounts involved are:

• User:Guarddog2. This user self-identifies as Janet Morris. Comments by this users and other accounts suggest that Morris has operated other accounts.
• User:UrbanTerrorist. This user-self-identifies as Wayne Borean, a friend or associate of Morris who promotes her most recent book project on his blog.
  • Right... Please notice that I have a longer and more productive record as an editor here than Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Any article that I edit is improved by the edit. Any article that he/she/it edits looks like it has been attacked with a chainsaw. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You have, as of a moment ago, 547 edits. I have over 43,000. That's sure an interesting definition you have of "longer". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Bluewillow991967, who self-identifies as Julie Crawford Cochrane, a writer who is negotiating the sale of a story to a book Morris is editing.

That's Julie Cochrane -- I have 3 novels out (co-authored). I am submitting a story to an anthology as one of a collection of people who have been solicited to submit stories. Submitting stories to open anthologies on series or subjects we like or find interesting---it's what professional authors do. I disclosed my association up front, and I note that instead of assuming my good faith, Wolfowitz is using the disclosure to imply bad faith on my part. My disclosure was not on my own talk page. I'm very new to Wikipedia, I put it on Jethrobot's talk page and mentioned in the Hell talk page that it was there. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notice is on my talk page now. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Hulcys930, who self-identifies as being involved in the genre Morris writes and publishes in. "Hulcys" is also the screen name used by a writer published in Morris's Lawyers in Hell anthology, and who has used her Twitter feed to canvass Wikipedia disputes.
• User:Knihi, an account created to participate in the Lawyers in Hell AFD, and used only to participate in disputes involving Janet Morris-related articles.

Really? Are you kidding me? The very first thing I ever said was "I'm a total newbie." I happen to be a SF/Fantasy reader and fan, and I like to look at wikipedia articles. When I saw the dispute on this author, a book of whose I once read and liked, it intrigued me -- enough to pull me in to contribute as an editor for the first time. Given that my interest in WP has led to me being called some sort of unethical sockpuppet, I'm really having a hard time believing that the principal of good faith means anything around here. I certainly have not seen Hullabaloo Woolfowitz exercise ANY in my direction. I have to say this newbie's experience of WP has been a real turn off. I doubt I'll contribute or be an editor any more if this is the sort of treatment newbies receive. Let me state this concisely: I've only participated in disputes involving Janet Morris, because I'm brand-spanking new and that's the first thing I EVER spent time on. Jeesh. Do I need to have somehow magically contributed to articles before I opened a WP account in order to get treated with a little good faith around here? I regret the snark, but I have to confess I'm really steamed at this treatment. By the way Cthu-Lou is my account also, but only continues to exist because I couldn't figure out how to delete it. This is something I announced the very first time I posted with Knihi. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • user:Knihi has made a number of false statements here; most conspicuously, he did not "announce" his prior editing as Cthu-Lou in his first edit as Knihi [24], or anywhere else that I can find, until this posting, after the possibility of an SPI was raised. His first edit as Knihi did, however, toss barbs in Orangemike's direction. It's really remarkable how many people with grievances against OrangeMike showed up to argue over these articles, all claiming no coordination, canvassing, etc., especially when the central player has announced she's "keeping a file" on OM and his "cronies". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud. You're being very literal -- I didn't mean my very first post, I meant up front. I'm pretty darn sure I mentioned it early on, and no, I'm not going to go hunting through all the conversations to find it. I can't even find some of the conversations. I just figured out how to find post history, but there were a lot of times I posted without being logged in. Once again, you are just assuming bad faith. As for these so called "barbs" can you link to them please, because I don't recall anything but trying to be polite and/or add some levity. I never even heard of OrangeMike until I got involved in these discussions. And is that what this is about? You think I somehow tossed 'barbs' at someone you know, so you wind up listing me as part of some sort of pernicious conspiracy. I'm really starting to feel like you're trolling me. Also I don't appreciate you using the rhetorical tactic of baldly claiming I made a number of false statements but then only listing one. If you want to go making claims about my truthfulness, I'd appreciate it if you enumerated them, giving me something specific to which I can respond.Knihi (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Dokzap, who self-identifies as a science fiction writer. The credentials claimed by Dokzap match those of a science fiction writer who has sold stories to anthologies edited by Janet Morris, and who uses the Twitter handle Dokzap
• User:Dburkhead, who has edited only subjects related to Janet Morris, and who made multiple promotional edits involving "With Enemies Like These", a story published in Lawyers in Hell and written by David L. Burkhead. User:Dburkhead

Interesting word choice. A brief, factual synopsis of the story in question, listing major characters and settings in order to link to Wikipedia articles on those characters and settings, is not "promotional." The term for what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is doing is called "loaded language."user:Dburkhead

• User:Luke Jaywalker, an editor who made a handful of edits in 2008, returned early this year, and since then edited principally subjects related to Janet Morris or to Baen Books, Morris's principal publisher

I can assure you, and I invite IPs to be checked by any means available in order to prove this, that I'm nobody's sockpuppet. I've been primarily (about 75%, I estimate) editing those subjects because they happen to be of interest to me at this time, the same reason (aside from fixing typos I happen to spot) I make edits in general. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Mzmadmike, who self-identifies as Michael Z. Williamson, a writer with a story published in Lawyers in Hell, and several novels, mostly published by Baen Books. Williamson operates a discussion board under the Baen's Bar site, and used that board to canvass on Wikipedia disputes related to Janet Morris Mike's Madhouse

Please do look at the thread directly, as it refutes the allegation of "canvassing" and is instead a request for users familiar with WP and/or Morris's work to contribute information to improving the articles if they can. I would note that this also substantially refutes allegations of attempts to WP:OWN the articles in question. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Cthu-Lou, an account which participates exclusively in discussions relating to the notability of books by Janet Morris.

For real? Participates? I used this account to post a few times then lost my password and got snarled in the lost password process. So I created the knihi account and my very first act was to announce this in the AFD we were having. I'd as soon see this account deleted. If it has more than a few posts to its name then someone other than me has been using it. And even if it were not me, Good Faith anyone? Why does contributing to only one article make you suspicious? Everyone starts with some article sometime. Forgive the redundancy but I really feel like being new is the same as being suspicious and good faith is out the window. Talk about a turn-off. Sheesh. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• User:ColdServings, an account which participated only in an AFD regarding one of Morris's novels.

I created this account earlier using one of my various "screen names" (http://coldservings.livejournal.com, http://www.coldservings.com) and had forgotten about it when creating the account I use now however user:ColdServingsonly participated in one discussion and never an any discussion in which user:Dburkhead participates thus the usual complaint of using "sock puppets" to create the illusion of more support for a position than truly exists does not apply in this case. As for whether either of these accounts is a "sock puppet" of Ms. Morris, you are welcome to contact me via one of my sites (both of which have been around a lot longer than this particular wikipedia controversy).user:Dburkhead

• User:Cordova829, who self-identifies as Jason Cordova, a writer published in Lawyers in Hell. Cordova edits almost exclusively on articles related to Morris or, to a lesser degree, Michael Z. Williamson (Mzmadmike).

Principal pages involved:

• Lawyers in Hell AFD
• Talk:Heroes in Hell
• Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback
• Dispute Resolution Noticeboard#Gilgamesh in the Outback

There may be other accounts involved; there are problem edits and many articles and AFDs involving subjects related to Janet Morris. This is very messy. Since the current disputes coalesced following the Lawyers in Hell AFD began, several users (principally UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2) have posted extensive personal attacks on User:OrangeMike and myself, with helpings of general incivility. Guarddog2 made a round of not-quite-actionable, borderline NLT violations, reported and discussed here [25], then last night declared she was taking her dispute with me to the SFWA Grievance Committee, which seemed to me a peculiar attempt at intimidation, since that group only involves itself in disputes between writers and publishers. Guarddog2 also declared she is "keeping a file" on Orangemike and his "cronies", another crudely ineffective mode of intimidation.

You know and not for nothing, but as an outside observer more interested in fair treatment of the original articles than these disputes, my opinion is that you have been pretty darned uncivil and hostile yourself. You also seem to take everything in the worst possible light. For example, Guarddog2 never said she was taking her dispute with you to the SFWA Grievance Committee. She said words to the effect that she was going to ask someone from their to weigh in. I took that to mean, because they would have expert knowledge on the topic (ie the difference between firs serial, reprint, etc. and how all that is handled in the industry), and since you'd been invoking the SFWA as an authority, it seemed that would be someone you'd actually believe. Your interpretation that this was a threat is...well, it's your interpretation and you're entitled to it. But it wasn't how it read to me. For whatever that's worth. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Spartaz commented in closing the Lawyers in Hell AFD, the set of Janet Morris-related disputes, has become dominated by a clique of users, mostly with professional connections to Morris, who "have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility." It is extremely difficult to find good faith in the extended discussions. For example, when I cited the well-regarded reference work Contemporary Authors, Urban Terrorist compared it to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion [26]. Guarddog2 posts lengthy commentary on copyright law, unsupported by any sources and often contradicted by what's available, then she and her associated authors post insinuations that editors who disagree with her are ignorant, etc.

Wow. I guess can see how you took it that way, but I recall Urban Terrorist -- whom I agree should tone it down -- as saying, essentially, if one were willing to accept any source uncritically, one might as well trust the Protocols... He did not compare that particular reference to the Protocols. I think you may be way to close to this and hearing everything as hostile. Additionally, I responded to that very comment about incomprehensibility, that I for one didn't find it incomprehensible, nor did I have trouble finding good faith. Until accusations flew and everyone seemed to get angry at which point all I could find was bad faith directed indiscriminately. Admittedly, this is just my opinion, but what you just wrote is merely your opinion of events as well. Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

l

The specific dispute I'm engaged in with the Morris clique is fundamentally bizarre: multiple reliable sources support a simple factual statement; but they repeatedly try to exclude it from the relevant article without citing any contrary sources. Underneath it is an effort to WP:OWN a class of articles and use them to promote the interests of various writers. Some editors are trying to reopen ancient disputes; UrbanTerrorist and Guarddog2 are targeting Orangemike for abuse over a book review he wrote when Jimmy Wales wasn't old enough to drink legally. Janet Morris (assuming it's her) is still complaining about differences she had with Robert Silverberg back when Michael Dukakis was running for US President.

Now hold on here. Seems to me you're just asserting this stuff about "promoting the interests". It also seems to me someone else could have written what you just did, swapping the sides. Once these two groups are having editing wars, accusations like this are inherently one-sided. It could be equally flipped around and directed at you. And you'd both be being biased and unfair. For example, it's not a "simple factual statement" You make it sound like arguing about 2+2=4. Of course its nothing so simple. How could it be? You're claiming one thing, and the other side claims you're using a term incorrectly and oversimplifying matters. The use of the term has real impact and meaning and accuracy in all articles on collections, anthologies, and shared-universe fiction -- all of which are different art forms. I don't mean to start a debate here but I just can't let that kind of one-sided oversimplification stand. YOU see it as "bizarre" and about a "simple factual statement," but they don't. Also using terms like 'clique' or mentioning your belief she's "complaining about Silverberg" in a disparaging fashion are irrelevant and hardly civil.Knihi (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously coordinated editing and canvassing going on. The same thing was done on related articles last year, and the central player appears to have returned, even though her unblock requests have been rejected, with a more effective approach toward the puppetry involved. This kind of behavior needs to be stopped and strongly deterred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you classify and describe the conflict of interest that the writers collectively believe you have with the work(s) and writer(s)?

COI works both ways. I am not saying you actually have one, but they're asserting something along those lines a lot, and it's not clear from reading all that (once) what exactly it is.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations of COI against Hullaballoo are not grounded in anything mentioned at WP:COI. One user said that they "had no idea" why he would have a COI. The argument, by another editor, is that "Hullaballoo is committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories." But he hasn't violated the three reversion rule or even tried to find ways around it (because there hasn't been an edit war). The arguments basically demonstrate ignorance of Wikipedia policies, which I am somewhat sympathetic to because there are many. However, they seem to have an inability to accept Wikipedia policies that have been explained, such as the need for verifiability of claims and the fact that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It has also been intensely frustrating since many users (myself included, perhaps) have responded with wall-of-text-type responses that are long, winding, and include too many issues. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tactics of this group of editors has been to assert, over and over again, that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has a conflict of interest in this matter, without offering a single shred of evidence in support of those charges. Then, they go on to demand that he recuse himself from this matter, since he has such a flagrant conflict of interest. The evidence that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz has presented above seems to show that it is his accusers instead who have a genuine conflict of interest. In several cases, they admit it openly but claim some sort of special expertise as an exemption from Wikipedia's normal standards of behavior. Acting in concert, they try to own this group of articles. This conduct ought not be allowed to stand. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, the commenter immediately above say what I'm trying to say better than I can tonight, and I thank them) I have not a clue what the editors making the COI claims are talking about. It strikes me that they are simply throwing ad hominem attacks because they can't really contest the substantive points I've made. As I recall, the COI claims began with this comment by Hulcys930: "The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz."[27] That's not a real COI claim, of course, and the facts don't bear it out -- the first Morris-related editing I'd done was on the Lawyers in Hell AFD; I believe Dravecky's involvement began only with AFD comments earlier this year; and these folks seem willing to accuse Orangemike of high crimes over a review he wrote many years ago. Full disclosure: I had a brief, pleasant conversation with Robert Silverberg, the author of the story at the center of much of this dispute, about 30 years ago, at an sf convention. I also met Jim Baen, Morris's one-time publisher, at a party even longer ago. I have no less tenuous connection to anyone else involved in the dispute. I consider myself moderately knowledgeable in the field because, 15-30 years ago I did some "management consulting" (loosely described) for some specialty booksellers, two or three of whom dabbled in small press publishing, but never had any contact with any of the people involved here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to try and answer Georgewilliamherbert's question with something other than "He doesn't! Their crazy!" (not that those words were literally used, of course). Before I do let me say first that I'm not an editor claiming Hullaballoo has a COI, but I can see why others might. For one he, like other editors in these discussions, has not stuck to a neutral tone, leading to the conclusion that he doesn't have a WP:NPOV. Hullabaloo has also, in my view, gone ahead and done the very thing WP:COI suggests not doing (from WP:COI): "When someone voluntarily discloses a conflict of interest, other editors should always assume the editor is trying to do the right thing. Do not use a voluntarily disclosed conflict of interest as a weapon against the editor." And yet this very discussion feels like just such a weapon (and as I've said elsewhere, I feel caught in the crossfire). His intensity and the mutual hostility have likely led opposing editors to feel that (from WP:COI) "he's got interests...more important to [to him] than advancing the aims of Wikipedia" even if they don't have proof of such. Additionally the newbie's (like myself) may have confused prohibitions against "citing oneself" -- which Hullabaloo has not done -- with those against "original research" -- which he may very well have done. Finally, since WP:COI mentions that "...when editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view...accounts may be blocked..." They might have concluded, perhaps erroneously, that Hullabaloo has a COI. My point in writing this is to balance what appears to me to be a sort of witch-hunt-like/conspiracy theory vilification of everyone who opposes Hullabaloo in this discussion. Just a way to support Good Faith and show these editors (myself included) can be wrong without being crazy or antagonistic. Knihi (talk)

This above statement seems to support Cullens summation of the COI-interest accusations against Hullaballoo. There is nothing that substantiates the accusation, only some vagueness about him not having "stuck to a neutral tone" (seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The COI is clearly on the other side of this conflict, not Hullaballos. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely said User:Cullen328, but totally inaccurate.

The problems come from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, whose tactics have included a wide variety of wild accusations and attacks, for which he/she/it has refused to provide any proof, even when asked repeatedly for it. I gather that the necessity to actually have to come up with proof is so terrifying that it has now decided to move the argument to another level.

The point that I'm making is that I've been here a long time. I've never had any problems with anyone before this. Sure, there have been disagreements about how articles should look, and what should be included, but I've always been able to work them out with the other editors before this episode started.

It started when I decided to set up a page for the new book in the Heroes in Hell series, Lawyers in Hell. I did what I usually do, which is set up a junk page to get the layout right. Life intervened, and I didn't get back to it for a couple of days. When I say live intervened, my dog Sam had been hit by a bus. Beagles are tough little dogs, but they don't win against a bus. I did all of my writing with Sam curled up against me, and loosing him totally messed up my mind. When I came back, the page been deleted.

I wasn't in the best mood before I logged on. This put me over the edge. I found out who was responsible, and proceeded to tear a strip off him. Probably not the best thing to do, but I wasn't feeling at all good, and Orangemike caught the fallout. I later learned that Orangemike wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules when he deleted the article. I didn't know that at the time, accepted his explanation, and apologized.

I was in the process of reading up on the rule that he had told me I wasn't in compliance with (it isn't something that we have to worry about in Canada, we have rational online copyright laws) when someone else set up a page. I explained to that person the copyright issue, and they got it fixed. I then went back to Orangemike and asked for his help to make the page deletion proof. His way of helping was to tag the page with an Articles for Deletion. This wasn't exactly the sort of help I had asked for. It also wasn't in compliance with Wikipedia rules, but I didn't know that at the time either.

The Article for Deletion Discussion is fascinating reading, and yes, I'm including it in the book. If you haven't read it, I suggest that you do. At one point someone said, "The discussion is open to any Wikipedia editor," but when I made an effort to let some editors who I thought would have an interest in the AfD know about it, I was accused of canvassing. Meanwhile a series of editors who could have known nothing about it, unless they were told by someone who knew about the AfD kept showing up, and voting Delete. I found that rather curious.

At the end of the AfD it was decided that no consensus was reached. But all of a sudden there's discussion of a merge. Now unlike certain people who appear to live online at Wikipedia, I have a life. I've got several books in various stages - shameless plug - buy The Joy of IRig from the ITunes Book and Kobo book stores for $0.99 in September! So I missed the merge discussion which was carried out with unseemly haste.

I did however have an argument with Orangemike about his setting up a Wikipedia article for a mutual friend, who while he is a nice guy, isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. I didn't AfD the page even though I would have been justified in doing so. I've known this guy longer than I've known my wife, and we are celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary this weekend. But as I said, he's a friend, and I'm not an ass. I left the page. I do think that its curious that there are two standards. One for the insiders. One for everyone else.

OK, so the merge happens. Then I notice something curious. One page is left. So I decided to merge that one page (note that this probably isn't in the correct order). I merged the Gilgamesh in the Outback page into the Heroes in Hell page, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz freaks out. He claims that he's got solid evidence that Gilgamesh in the Outback is notable and that it would have existed without Heroes in Hell. I look at his evidence, and to me it looks like he's doing original research, and I say so.

This lead to the Dispute Resolution. Based on the comments there, it appears that the only person who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.

I'll admit having little patience for idiots. I have less patience for chainsaw editors like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've made tons of corrections over the years on Wikipedia. A lot of them have been no more than minor grammatical fixes. Others have in some cases been fairly extensive. In no cases have I walked away from an article without improving it.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz works on an article the damage is incredible. He should be blocked from editing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On first impression - Everyone here is behaving badly and should stop it. On second impression, everyone here is operating in good faith, has disclosed enough to know what's at stake with COI - and are still behaving badly, particularly including operating in bad faith regarding the other participants, and should stop it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide solid evidence of where I have been behaving badly Georgewilliamherbert other than the short period where I have admitted to being short tempered for a very valid reason, I would love to see it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a specific example of my operating in bad faith regarding other participants, please bring it forward. I've made every effort to remain civil and stick to the issue(s) at hand. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to a comment by Knihi above: I've gone ahead and tagged User:Cthu-Lou as a former account for you. If you still have the password for it, you should log on and change the password to something random (bang randomly on the keyboard for a bit) so that you won't have access to it any more. You shouldn't have any more problems from it, though. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't have the password, and your help is a relief to me. Knihi (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated when I created guarddog2 that it was a single purpose page and that as Janet Morris I could be perceived as having a COI, and that I am unskilled in WP rules, regulations, and procedures, and don't have time to become expert. There was a previous discussion on many issues now raised anew here, which appeared on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, of which I was informed by: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC> In relation to current issues primarily surrounding the HIH series, I have repeatedly been accused of not being me, and others have been accused of being me. In relation to previous issues in previous years: The issues surrounding my connection to Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid) and the WP NLW page are discussed in a WP review and WP has that documentation, which can be reviewed by WP authorities at any time. I believe that the people named in this current review (some authors, some not) have all been forthcoming about their COI where they perceive it. All of these people trying to help with the HIH series issues, as far as I know, really exist. None are my sockpuppets, if I understand the term. All have their own computers and their own volition: I am not controlling any of them now,and have never controlled any group of WP editors. Some people have or may write for my series; some may never write or submit a story for HIH. I was trying to help in good faith, as I said on my talk page,to clarify a contentious situation, initially in a review that was called out as a "copyright" issue review, though that was later changed and broadened. It is worthy of note that if all of these new editors were treated with respect, they might become WP resources. It is also worthy of note that if all these young editors are disbarred, Mr. Wolfowitz will have much more control over the fate of the HIH page. My interrest in talking to the SFWA Grievance committee member I know was to find out what the process was in SFWA for attributing award-nominated works on ballots, and whether that process could have been compromised or was as simple as "first alphabetical listing when more than one publication" exists for the same year, or was, as I have previously assumed, the author's choice -- and if this were so, was that documentable. We discussed potential remedies for such confusions or confutations, given the increasing power of aggregators to correctly state or misstate history based on a small amount of information that becomes proliferate, whether correct or incorrect, and then is taken for true based on the number of times that information can be found on the internet. Guarddog2 (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Guarddog2 has acknowledged here that she is in fact the editor behind the Harmonia1 account ("my connection to Harmonia et al"), and has therefore been editing in violation of the indefinite block imposed on her last year. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing? Wasn't she just replying to you in an administrative forum? Is that "editing"? The term gets used a lot. I'd be interested in its WP definition *runs off to search WP*. Anyway, there weren't any guarddog2 edits to WP articles that I recall, before they all got merged. Can anyone check the record on that? But lets be real here, she could have easily said "my connection to Harmonia et al or lack thereof" as that's the tenor of the comment. Changing "the proper authorities know about this so I'm not going to speak about it" -- effectively 'no comment' -- into "Ah ha! Guilt has been admitted!" seems a bit of stretch, no? Knihi (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knihi, precisely what I thought I said: this Harmonia issue was discussed and decided by WP years ago and interested parties can look at it, where I'm sure my connection or lack of same to everyone involved was decided by WP's rules to WP's satisfaction and is a matter of record. Also, when I said "new" (wherever that was) I meant it in the Webster's sense of "recently created," with no other connotation. Guarddog2 (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BLOCK: A blocked user can continue to access Wikipedia, but is not able to edit any page', except (in most cases) their own user talk page. The block is not limited to articlespace edits. Even if it were, Morris's contribution history as Guarddog2 began with articlespace edits. Your interpretation of her comment makes no sense, the "review" she refers to was conducted more than a year ago, well before the Guarddog2 account was opened; there's no way her statement here could be true, or even make sense, otherwise. (And she's referred to Guarddog2 as her "new" account, indicating she had an old one.) The phrase "Harmonia et al WP activities (all unpaid)" refers to her defense last year that the supposed socks were actually her colleagues at M2 Technologies, editing via the company servers, but not as part of their jobs (that's why "unpaid" is mentioned, and how would Guarddog2 have known that otherwise?) She deserves some credit for owning up to it, although she would have done better to make full disclosure before beginning to edit again. And think about this: if you were Janet Morris, owner of M2 Technologies, and discovered that somebody had been impersonating you on Wikipedia, including creating an account under your husband's Twitter handle, making edits relating to your business, etc., wouldn't you have entered ballistic mode very quickly? The silence here would be remarkable. Besides, as I recall, several of the alternate accounts last year occasionally edited via IPs by mistake, making it possible to associate them with Guarddog2's IP if she denied the connection and a full investigation was done. (But even I'm not cynical enough to assume that motivated her rather than a good faith disclosure.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my interpretation of her comment makes perfect sense, given my knowledge of things, it just doesn't make sense to YOU. You have a different interpretation. I'm afraid you lost me with your speculations on what I might or might not do if I owned M2 Technologies as well as speculating on other people's motivations to be remarkably silent or not, but I do know that you can have a 100 people behind the right kind of firewall, and they'll all show the same IP. Who knows, while we are speculating on people's motivations maybe she fired whoever was impersonating her and got fed up with WP. What do I know? But whatever, dude - I probably shouldn't have engaged this as much as I did. You saying I made no sense just irked me. So. You caught Guarddog2 admitting outright she's Janet Morris (I'm assuming you accept that now and are no longer disputing it?) and editing a page you think she shouldn't have, before limiting herself to administrative issues. *shrug* Ok. Knihi (talk) 05:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just reread the Guarddog2 comment. She didn't say she was the editor harmonia1. She said she has a connection, nature unspecified to 'Harmonia et al' (and to go look it up if we wanted to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knihi (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The connection and the possibility that they may share the same IP may not constitute sockpuppetry, but there may be a concern about editors engaging in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose or about editors who are closely connected (in the IP sense of the word) and edit with the same objectives. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't going to take administrative action that one-sidedly decides anything here. There are several issues in play, which need reasonable and rational discussion (which has not been forthcoming from either side so far, for the most part).

The particulars of the credit and listing and so forth for the story are simply not worth fighting over this badly. Hullabaloo Wolfowitz should know this already; the relative newcomers here who are writers cannot be expected to know what Wikipedia norms and standards are, but they're not that different from other normal society, and the behavior here wouldn't be good in any other normal civilized arena.

There is a significant problem here that Wikipedia is really not even the right venue to resolve those. Wikipedia isn't a primary source. We're not a secondary source. We're supposed to be a tertiary source, relying on secondary (and to some extent, primary and tertiary) sources we believe are reliable and which we can verify. The totality of the argument over credit and timing is exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be getting into resolving here.

As I said, everyone calming down will help this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with George, above)Okay, I just finished reading through all of this, and I only have a few things to say. First, Hullaballoo, you are failing to assume good faith for many of these users, especially those who have announced their conflicts of interest. Please stop, try to maintain a softer tone (and yeah, I understand why you are getting frustrated), and try to avoid silly disputes.

Second, UrbanTerrorist, you are continuously using veiled personal attacks and derogatory language directed towards those of us who care enough about Wikipedia to spend a lot of time here. You will stop if you expect us to want to help you, or you're likely to find your time here stressful, aggravating, and short.

Third, to all of those asserting that Hullaballoo has a conflict of interest, stop. He doesn't.

Fourth, to all of those asserting things about OrangeMike's intentions or interests, stop. You're throwing what he said hugely out of proportion.

Fifth, as is suggested in the dispute resolution noticeboard thread, all this arguing over who owns what rights and such needs to stop. To be frank, while such points might be important to all of you, no one who reads the article is going to care. Discuss what should actually be said, but avoid getting mired in minutiae.

Sixth, keep in mind that discussions on Wikipedia can, and often do, get heated. If any of you, for any reason, can't calm yourself down, please take several hours, days, or even weeks away before coming back. There is no time limit on anything that we're doing here, and typing out of anger can do far more harm than any resolution to this dispute will do good. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks lifebaka for summarizing that and stepping in so firmly. There are however two things I'd like to point out related to your 5th and 6th points. Caveat first: newbie here, not sure how things usually go. So that said:

6th point - I'm totally with you on anger doing no good (how could it?) and a great deal of harm; however, I've often felt in these discussions like there really is a time limit. I've walked away for a few days only to come back and hear that pages were deleted or merged. Maybe this is just me not understanding AFDs, but I entered the AFD on the Lawyers in Hell book expecting that it would run its course and reach consensus and then interested editors would get a chance to update the entry. Instead by the time the AFD on that one book was done, multiple pages on multiple books were called into question, deletes and merges took place like wild-fire on more volumes than I could keep up on, and I found myself feeling, "Wow. If you want to participate as an editor you'd better move darn fast around here or the thing you want to edit might vanish." I was also loathe to create new pages when I couldn't, in my opinion, get a direct response to the ideas I was putting out (the original discussion was around notability). Maybe its just a newbie error, but I had the distinct impression if I updated the articles they'd just get deleted anyway. Sort of like saying to someone who wants them deleted, "Well I'd update them like such and such? Would you accept that?" And not getting a yes or a no -- so why bother?

5th point - the rights argument is a boondoggle, no doubt. However IIRC it came about because if you decouple the short story from the book by calling the short story a mere reprint, you get to say the book isn't notable. A claim of non-notability for the book (with which I disagree strongly) may have been just one of the reasons that Rebels in Hell was merged (can't say from direct experience because I turned away from the discussion for what felt like a few days and boomf it was merged, but I trust jethrobot on that), but the whole discussion definitely felt to me like a mere strategy aimed at weakening the case for the book to have its own page. It is this fight over "the story is not a reprint in the sense that you get to take away that the book won a major award, because the shared universe is as much a part of that story as not" vs. "the story is a mere reprint developed independently, and the award goes with the story and not the shared universe book/world construct..." that is at the heart of this discussion. Rights and copyright and such are just the rathole that discussion ran down. So while WP is not a venue to dispute legal matters, legal matters were not really at issue until the arguing got out of hand and the "you don't understand what reprint means moron--yes I do, you a-hole" kind of arguments started flying (not that anyone said that stuff literally). A literary and a notability question was at issue, which does strike me as a WP issue. That's from where I'm sitting anyway.Knihi (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On my sixth point, I was referring specifically to this philosophy, and I forgot that some people might not understand the reference. Sorry. Yes, things tend to happen quickly, probably as a product of how quickly things can happen (compare to the process of writing a paper encyclopedia), but you can always revive an old discussion if you have new points, new sources, or something similar. It's often difficult to keep track of, especially if you can't be on often.

As for being worried about doing things when you can't get an answer to a question, we suggest that users be nice and bold in editing. We're extremely forgiving of honest mistakes, and we're perfectly aware that our policies and other rules provide a near-vertical learning curve. Since most of them are (supposed to be) intuitive, we don't require that new users read anything before they start editing. Go ahead, do what you think needs to be done, use common sense, and don't worry if you make some mistakes. We can correct anything.

I'd also like to point out that the current status of an article shouldn't have anything to do with its deletion.

On the fifth point, the suggestion currently being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard seems entirely workable as a shortcut around the problem. I understand how the dispute started, and why it started, but neither of those things change that it needs to stop. As long as it does, everything's kosher.

I should also mention that it's best to never attribute any sorts of intentions to other editors. You can't know what's going through my head any better than I can know what's going through yours, and all too often users attribute intentions to each other in the nastiest parts of disputes. Stick to commenting on the strict facts; that is, something that can be objectively pointed to in a diff. lifebaka++ 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me lifebaka, but a quick perusal of my account would show that I've been here since 2005, and that I've made a lot of high quality edits. I will probably outlast Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on Wikipedia. I also spend a lot of time here, and I try to make sure that the articles I'm interested in (mostly scientific and industrial in nature) are of the highest quality, in spite of the errors made by people who don't bother to check the sources.

As to Item Three, if that isn't the case, you need to consider what the problem might be then, because by his actions there is a problem.

As to Item Four, I am still talking to OrangeMike about this.

As to Item Five, in that case we should go ahead and merge the Gilgamesh article with the Heroes in Hell article.

As to Item Six, have you ever known a case on the net when discussions didn't get heated? I'm one of the old timers who thought SLIP was high technology. It was high technology back in 1991. If discussions didn't get heated, we wouldn't be online. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Item three: I'd suggest that we assume that Hullaballoo's problem isn't ours.

Item four: I've seen. He seems bemused, to put it mildly. Again, it was nothing and I suggest you drop it.

Item five: You could merge it, if users decide it's a good idea. Hullaballoo is right that it can be a standalone article, but that doesn't mean it needs to be, and that certainly doesn't mean it should be merged. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this...mass...and a lot of it seems problematic, but the following quote from Guarddog2 jumped out at me: "I've finding this totally fascinating, and I've been documenting the entire procedure, so that I can write a short non-fiction book about what it is like to work on Wikipedia. I am a writer after all, and writing is what I do. I'm also a publisher, so I won't have any problems placing the book. I should warn you that all of you will star in the book." Doesn't that appear to anyone else like a clear threat intended to intimidate editors into conforming to xyr preferred outcome in this dispute? Also, Guarddog2, could you please confirm what you meant about your connection to Harmonia? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that statement was not made by Guarddog2, but rather made by UrbanTerrorist per this diff. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That comment was made by UrbanTerrorist, who also uses his blog to disparage Wikipedians he's been in conflict with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And he's begun posting it on uset talk pages[28], not just here. If this were the NFL, he'd get flagged for taunting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I got the two editors confused. So, if I understand correctly, the two questions (I have) are, 1) is it appropriate to us to block UrbanTerrorist for attempting to use external pressure to influence the debate, and 2) Guarddog2, what exactly is your connection to the Harmonia1 account? Or, perhaps the second question should be rephrased and asked to the community: does Guarddog2's statement count as an admission of block evasion? I'm not entirely certain it does; the sentence seems ambiguous to me. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: let me clarify, if I saw UrbanTerrorist's comment outside of this larger discussion, I would consider it threatening enough to warrant an immediate, indefinite block while we await clarification and/or retraction. To me, I see the threat as very similar to a legal threat--it is an attempt to intimidate, well, all of us, into being extra careful because everything we say or do is going to be printed in a grand expose. I have no problem if UrbanTerrorist wants to write such a book (I gather UrbanTerrorist lives in a country protecting freedom of speech and right to engage in money-making affairs, so, you know, go for it), but I don't see how xe can do that will still continuing to edit--the goals seem incompatible to me. I decline to do so now as I feel like discussion is still ongoing (and there is still the fact that this seems to be a much larger issue than just one editor). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there other issues here besides UrbanTerrorist's conduct, but their comments have sometimes been disruptive and unhelpful, and the threat to "write about us" pushes it over the line to a personal attack per WP:NPA#WHATIS. I support a block on UrbanTerrorist. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The threat to remove my editing privileges because of my wish to document what is already public (Wikipedia does after all document everything that happens here) seems to me to be incompatible with freedom of speech rights. As to myself I don't see it as a threat, but rather as an attempt to tell people how the online encyclopedia that so many of them rely on works. It might in fact encourage more to become involved as editors, something which I believe we would all regard as a good result. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, are you really a published author? Because an author would know that "free speech rights" have absolutely nothing to do with having one's words published by private organization. Wikipedia is a privately held non-profit organization, and has the right to forbid anyone from publishing in their space any time they want. They have vested the ability to make such a decision to the community of users; one thing the community has decided is that anybody using threats to influence a content dispute may need to be blocked. You declaring that you have a freedom of speech right to speak here is exactly like me going to your publisher and saying "I have a 30,000 word book that I wrote and you must print it because I have freedom of speech!" Now, if you had just announced on your user page that you were writing a book about Wikipedia, I'd be willing to believe you did it in good faith. The fact that you announced it here, in the middle of concerns about your and a whole group of related editor's behavior, and then afterward you specifically went to the talk pages of people that you're involved in the dispute with speaks strongly to me that this is not an attempt to "encourage more to become involved as editors", but rather to threaten those people considering whether or not your editing violates our policies and should be sanctioned. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urban, the issue isn't that you threatened anything in particular, it's that you mentioned writing this book in some very... strange ways. First here, in the middle of a long and somewhat vitriolic comment, and then on the talk pages of users you've had disputes with. It's not exactly unreasonable for us to jump to the conclusion that you're using an implied threat of negative press in your book as a way to dissuade others from continuing the dispute. Regardless of whether or not this was your intention (and I assume it is not), you still are going to need to avoid talking about this book on Wikipedia, if only to prevent anyone from making the same mistake. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TO: MODERATOR Just for clarification: it is my understanding that a possible solution to the subjects discussed on this page, and on this page [29], and on this page [30] is being attempted by uninvolved, neutral editors/admins. Does this place these 3 pages "on hold" so that there is time for that possible resolution? A short break to restore calm and civility might not be a bad idea.

I would also like to personally thank lifebaka for the very reasoned approach taken to the tenor of this page. Neither side is blameless. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lifebaka, thank you for reducing the heat on this page and giving people time to think and restore composure. I do want to say that my comment on the sockpuppetry accusations page, mentioned here by Mr. Wolfowitz, was not an admission of anything: I said that whatever that WP investigation found and decided is a matter of WP record: those who want to can look it up. That Mr. Wolfowitz misconstrued what I said was pointed out by several people on the other page, so what I said was clear to most readers. I consider that issue unrelated to the HIH discussion and am here only to discuss HIH. As to how the RIH page and GITO should be discussed on WP, it seems to me that any decision that lists both publications, as Dozcap and others have suggested, would be a good decision. As for when books were available, books ship well before publication date, may be in different stores quite a bit earlier, and must ship to reviewers at least three months before publication; Lawyers in Hell was available at least a month or two before the publication date from different outlets: book availability is not a horserace where a gate opens and the publications come charging out together; books and magazines are available at different times from different outlets, including direct from the publisher in some cases. Trying to determine exactly when and in what publication the story could be bought is a fruitless exercise and may require original research, while both editions in question say clearly July, 1986. Simply stating that the story GITO was published in IASFM and RIH in July 1986 seems an elegant and equitable solution to this long debate. As you say, cheers. JEM Guarddog2 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection/Blocking of Related Pages to This/These Disputes

Er, why do I end up on this page when I attempt to access the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/I#NLT_violation.2C_possible_impersonation.2C_COI_combative_editing.2C_and_general_disruption_at_Heroes_in_Hell_and_related_articles Has it been rendered inaccessible and, if so, why? Why would the system redirect me to this "Harmonia" page from one having nothing to do with that old blocked account?

I was able to access the dispute page addressing the Gilgamesh in the Outback/Heroes in Hell, so why is the original complaint of "impersonation/COI/combative editing, etc." no longer available? Hulcys930 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has, since September 2010, insisted that an {{update}} tag go at the top of a section of an article. He states that there are sources that have been missed in the section, and has even specified which sources he thinks should be used. He has, however, refused to actually update the article himself, or state what specific material he thinks should be added. I've tried to remove the tag, but he insists that it must stay, despite the fact that he refuses to fix the problem which apparently only he sees. At this point I'm at a loss as to what to do, and the issue is behavioral, so I've brought it here. The article page discussion is here. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors (including at least one previously-uninvolved admin) have joined the conversation on the article Talk page. I don't think there's anything for an admin to do right now, other than maybe keep a weather eye on the discussion.. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest closing this ANI case. It is clear that the user who wants the tag there is a good-faith editor who engages in discussion. Therefore, no outside action is required, although more comments are welcome. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he was a "good-faith editor", he would have actually put in whatever he insists belongs there, rather than tagging the article for 10 months, while refusing to both remove the tag or add the material. This needs to be resolved one way or the other; or should we just leave the tag there for another 10 months? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say remove the tags - the article looks well-developed. If we had tags on an equivalent level elsewhere we'd be drowning in them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really about cleanup tags IMO. The issue is that ליאור apparently thinks that the section is light on opposing viewpoints. However, that's more of a dispute than a simple cleanup job, and dispute tags are only supposed to be kept in place while there's ongoing discussion. The onus is on ליאור to make his case for adding opposing viewpoints. If that doesn't happen, or there's no consensus to do so, then the tag should be removed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a case of one or two disruptive editors who have no intention of actually attempting to fix the alleged problem with the article. Their stated goal in using the tag is that of "warning our readers of its incorrect content." That has never been what we use temporary cleanup tags for, and continuing to edit war over it violates WP:POINT and WP:TE. I can’t take any action now because I’m “involved”, but other administrators need to take a look at the tagteam editing behavior of accounts ליאור (talk · contribs) and אדעולם (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 15:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's strange to be summoned to ANI merely two weeks after volunteering at Wikimania... As explained in the relevant talk page, the very existence of this section has been disputed by at least seven different editors since 2005, with Jayjg insisting on keeping it as is. We all agree that tags are temporary, but so is the incorrect content that they are meant to flag. Composing faulty sections and then enforcing others to clean up after you is an excellent way to keep Wikipedia with obsolete content, and grumpy editors.

Anyways, constructive suggestions on how to deal with this section have been made in the talk page, so I suggest we direct our efforts there. Shabbat Shalom, ליאור • Lior (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're hardly a newbie: You've been editing here since April, 2010. And I understand you would prefer to have this issue characterized as a content dispute that does not require admin attention, but your "constructive suggestions" are to either delete the section entirely or keep a permanent tag "warning our readers of its incorrect content." Neither of those two options are "constructive", nor are they "suggestions" since you keep edit warring over the latter. Much of the existing grumpiness here at English Wikipedia is caused by editors such as yourself who refuse to follow our guidelines and edit collaboratively. — Satori Son 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Lior may have a point that the section is contrary to WP:MEDRS. He's objecting to some genetic studies that failed to be replicated, according to him. I suggest posting at WT:MED about this. FuFoFuEd (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When are genetic studies ever "replicated"? These are genetic studies, not medical studies. Meanwhile, he's reverted in the tag again. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how Satori reached the strange conclusion that I'm an editor since April 2010. If it makes any difference, and I believe it shouldn't, I'm a registered editor since 2003 and my first contribution dates back to November 2004, a year and a half before his. Over the past 4.5 years, most of my contributions to Wikipedia revolved around Beta Israel Wikiproject, especially in Hebrew. I've made thousands of related edits, contributed hundreds of related images, and coordinated a successful writing competition that lead to the collaborative composition of eighty new articles on Beta Israeli Heritage and Ethiopian Culture. Moreover, I've detailed in the talk page how the genetic section could be rewritten to conform with our articles about other Jewish ethnic groups. I agree with FuFoFuEd that a professional eye on the subject could be helpful. I suggust either Jayjg or I leave a post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics and let the issue be settled down more calmly. ליאור • Lior (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't about a particular incident, per se, but rather a continued pattern of tendentious editing. I hope I'm in the right place.

In short, I believe that User:Jakew has a consistent pattern of bias in his editing (in favor of circumcision). His account borders on single-purpose; it seems to me that he is here to promote circumcision, not to build an encyclopedia.

To his credit, he is extremely civil (much more than many of his interlocutors, including myself), and does always operate within clear policies (like 3RR). He knows Wikipedia policy well, and cites it frequently. I believe it's because of this that he hasn't faced formal censure before.

Since I cannot point to any particular diff to show a history of tendentious editing, I must suggest broader places to look. For one, consider the 51 times he has been involved in conflict here on the administrators' noticeboard: [31]. Many of those times were him reporting other users, but it was not always clear-cut. If you search other Wikipedia dispute-resolution archives you'll find many more cases where he came into conflict with other editors. Being involved in many disputes isn't damning on its own, but it does suggest something wrong. Of course, you will also find him in many disputes in the archives of talk pages of circumcision and related articles. And by all means look through his edits to judge whether his account is single-purpose and/or engaging in advocacy. Also read the articles and see if they seem NPOV to you; Jakew is the single largest contributor to them by far. Finally, I hesitate to bring up this somewhat flimsy evidence, but Jakew has been exerting such a strong and seemingly-biased control over circumcision-related articles that people who have the opposite bias have actually created a page on their own wiki tracking him: [32].

I will provide one concrete example of his bias-pushing. There was a long dispute in early July over what to say about the position of medical organizations regarding circumcision. None of them recommends neonatal circumcision without some compelling abnormal medical cause, and I and some other editors wanted to insert language to that effect. Naturally, it is hard to prove such a negative. After much debate and gnashing of teeth about WP:MEDRS (we had a source that was "too old") and undue weight (if listing the positions of several organizations), I finally found a recent source that made the same claim explicitly. And gradually over the next several days, he weakened the language: [33] [34]. I'm not saying those two edits are unreasonable in themselves, but they're part of a pattern of holding anti-circumcision claims up to the strictest scrutiny, attacking them with any policy available, and qualifying them as much as possible when they can't be kept out of the article entirely. Pro-circumcision edits receive no such scrutiny from him.

I don't expect this to be an easy dispute to resolve. There is no red flag to point to. To get a truly good understanding one has to look at 5 years of edit history, and that seems an unreasonable thing to ask anyone to do. But frankly I don't know where else to turn to report this sort of problem. Many people have tried lesser methods of dispute resolution in the past with him, without much luck.

I believe that Jakew comes to Wikipedia primarily to push his point of view, and that he has been remarkably successful, to the detriment of the articles involved. I suggest that he be banned, or if possible merely banned from editing articles related to circumcision. ^L_Wizard @ 07:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as totally uninvolved, and without looking at anything else, claiming this user is a SPA betrays a rather deep misunderstanding of what the term means. This user has helped bring another, entirely unrelated article to FA quality. So regardless of other issues, this is not an SPA and certainly doesn't border on being one. I suggest you strike that out.--Cerejota (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've interacted with the jakew several times. He seems to have strong opinions about circumcision (that are the opposite of User:LizardWizard's opinions), but he certainly spends a lot of energy improving articles, adding reliable sources, etc. In my experience he has shown himself to be civil and willing to compromise. It's one of the strengths of Wikipedia that different editors have different POVs, and hold sources up to close scrutiny for that reason. It may be annoying when an editor refuses to agree with you, but it's not a reason for sanction. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have interacted with Jake as an editor for over 5 years now. Jake, like many others here in Wikipedia, has personal opinions and points-of-view. Having a point-of-view usually goes hand-in-hand with being an intelligent, thinking individual—it is how it affects your editing which is key. In these 5 years, I am continually impressed at how despite Jakes's personal opinions, he continues to edit strictly in accord with Wikipedia principles and guidelines. He is rigorous with citations, both the need and the quality, and he writes from a very neutral perspective; his prose, unlike the vast majority of those who disagree with him (in my opinion) does not intend to color the reader, but solely to inform the reader. If anything, I would put Jake up as an example of how to edit Wikipedia in matters in which one holds a strong opinion—using up-to-date and pertinent neutral sources for everything and ensuring that prose is not colored in either direction. Furthermore, Jake has interests and edits widely in this project, more so than most of those who have now, and in years past, tried to silence him through improper allegations of Conflict of Interest. Jake is certainly not a single purpose account, and in my opinion, does not exhibit any evidence of editing with a conflict of interest. -- Avi (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least four editors have recently complained about Jake's edits and I agree with those concerns. Last year seperate editors also raised similar concerns, so i'd say there's definitely a problem. I personally think his edits violate WP:COI. In every topic in the circumcision debate Jake advocates a very strong pro-circumcision bias. In the lede of the circumcision article he exaggerates the benefits of circumcision. He amplifies the HIV prevention benefits of circumcision and defends these views with a WP:OWNERSHIP POV like anything you've seen. He starts a dispute whenever the disadvantages of circumcision are printed. He even gets into WP:LAYOUT revert wars such as this to ensure the pro-circumcision sentences dominate over anti-circumcision sentences. He rarely makes wiki-policy demands against people who share his view but tries his utmost against those who share a different opinion. Because of the lack of compromises with Jakew, I find his relentless POV unconstructive and unpleasant. He uses his strong knowledge of wikipedia policies to overwhelm WP:NEWBIES. Instead of an encyclopedia, with Jakew it seems that wikipedia is promoting circumcision. It is difficult to provide diffs because this problem has a systematic pattern lasting 5 years. I advocate a month-long topic-ban, so he can cool his seemingly polite but nonetheless aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND style. In conclusion he violates WP:NPOV, WP:OWN, WP:UNDUE and WP:COI. Pass a Method talk 16:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the WP:COI? That term doesn't cover simply having an opinion; what's his interest? Is he a spokesman for some pro-circumcision group or something? Similarly, I haven't seen any WP:OWNERSHIP issues; could you provide links to diffs where he has behaved that way? The one diff you give is one of two reverts about where a paragraph marker should be... that's hardly an OWNERSHIP issue, especially since he specifically requested more input about it on the talk page. This seems to be an attempt by a few editors here to disparage someone who simply disagrees with them. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Quadell says, taking the time to review Jake's edits, indicates an editor who often bends over backwards as to ensure the article remains neutral. Over the past 2-4 years, there has been an on-again-off-again attempt to silence Jake on the page. In my opinion, it borders on harassment, and perhaps some further investigation into the editors who continue to incorrectly disparage Jake should be started. Trying to remove another editor's ability to edit an article because his or her opinions are disagreed with would indicate someone who is more interested in advancing their outside interests than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 17:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of Jakew having a COI could be added to a "perennial proposals" page somewhere, I'm sure. The issue comes up again and again. And yet, that still doesn't lend any credence to the idea that a COI exists. Jakew is, in fact, affiliated with (actually is a founder of) an organization called CIRCS, and has also been published in academic journals writing about circumcision topics. All of that has been acknowledged multiple times. However, Jakew, to my knowledge, has never promoted that organization or its web site, or his own works. Having an opinion on a subject does not constitute a COI, and being an expert in the field does not either (see WP:COS). I was first acquainted with this issue 2 years ago and have seen it come up a number of times since, so none of this is new. Also, if being involved in many disputes shows that something is wrong, I should be site-banned from Wikipedia. My work over the years in mediation, helping out at the COI noticeboard, and trying to resolve dispute on the admin noticeboards would show that I'm constantly involved in disputes. -- Atama頭 19:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bold text on WP:COI reads "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." That makes it sound like an outside interest in promoting circumcision, for whatever reason, can constitute a conflict of interest. I doubt the policy is meant to be interpreted that way, but it does seem ambiguous. ^L_Wizard @ 23:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised by PassaMethod's assertion that I exaggerate and amplify the benefits of circumcision (esp. HIV prevention) in the lead of that article. Prior to early June, the lead was in a stable state for some time (eg., this version); a lengthy editing process took place over the following few weeks, such that this is the current version. As can be seen, the information about risks and benefits has been almost entirely rewritten, but having examined my edits in between, it's clear that (with only a few exceptions such as adding attribution to a sentence) almost all of that text in the present version (ie., the 2nd paragraph of the lead) was written by editors other than myself. All of the HIV information, for example, was added by Jmh649 (I hasten to add that I'm not passing judgement on it, just pointing out that I didn't write it). Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think I even participated in the edit war over that material. I'm also startled by the accusation that I defended it "with a WP:OWNERSHIP POV like anything you've seen" — the main discussions about that material seem to be Talk:Circumcision/Archive 67#Rewrite of introduction, as well as the sections "Representing the science in the lead" and "No consensus to change intro" on the same archive page. At a rough count, I contributed 0 of 21 comments in the first of those sections, 0/10 in the second, and 2/40 in the third. It seems accurate to say that I was barely even involved with that material or with defending it. To describe these accusations as unfair and unwarranted seems rather an understatement. Jakew (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt ANI can solve an issue like this, even if true. Try a RfCU. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I considered an RfCU instead, but frankly without "involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" I don't think the situation can be resolved. ^L_Wizard @ 07:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For ownership, it's less blatant as it involves some pro-Brit milah (jewish circumcision) proponents such as User:Jayjg and User:Avraham who also edit those articles, and naturally side with Jakew. Since circumcision is an essential part of Jewish doctrine i understand their POV. However, when the most notable contributors to a sensitive medical article are Brit milah proponents and founders of a Circumcision group, then there are bound to be issues. In mid-July after a series of edits in circumcision, the article lede at one point read as if circumcsising was a necessary surgery to prevent life-threatening disease! It still has some issues now. Note, the problem is not only content edits, but also reverts and talk pages. Pass a Method talk 19:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been a "proponent" of any sort of circumcision, and you "understand" nothing about me; stop asserting nonsense, stop talking about me, and start addressing the actual issues raised here, if there are any. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Imo there are two separate things to consider: (1) whether Jake Waskett does in fact have a bias on the topic of circumcision, which is of interest only to the extent to which it demonstrably influences his editing, and (2) whether edits performed through the Jakew account can establish incidents or even a pattern of tendentious editing.
  Mr. Waskett's fairly strong personal bias in favor of circumcision can be established as fact by looking at the forum links provided on the circleaks page (and by googling on). In between becoming a self-professed "amateur researcher" into circumcision (with papers co-written by him currently used as sources in Sexual effects of circumcision and Circumcision controversies), co-founding CIRCS, and being principal author and quite a bit of a self-appointed doorman on circumcision-related articles on Wikipedia, he has also posted on parenting and other internet forums, with the apparent intent (your mileage may vary) of convincing others of the benefits of circumcision. In my own humble opinion, his overall behavior shows clear signs of an obsession. That he hasn't faced severe sanctions before has a lot to do with smart behavior on his part, following policies to the letter (most of the time, anyway), as well as with a loosely affiliated group of admins who have been supporting him to varying extents over the years (nominating and supporting him for adminship at one point).
  Perhaps the most elusively obvious red flag is the fact that no attempt has even been made to get the main circumcision article to featured status. This in spite of the fact that Jakew is evidently capable of excellent contributions and of producing featured content, and in spite of the fact that he evidently cares deeply about the topic and about the article itself.
  Personally, I don't care as deeply as I used to about Jakew, specifically, but more about the systemic weaknesses that enable situations like these to go on for as long as the often do. However, as far as I can see, and also taking into account his well-demonstrated abilities as a contributor, Jakew is nevertheless a clear net-liability to the project due to his strong bias which does find its way into his Wikipedia contributions, too subtle to prompt sanctions but too much to lend credence to claims of true editorial neutrality. Imho, it is possible to assemble a convincing body of evidence, but reading and discussing it will require the utmost intellectual honesty with regard to the evidence. The question is rather where and in which format to discuss the issue, RfC/U or RfAr. Another (imo preferable) option is to simply ban Jakew from circumcision-related articles and talk pages. This could very well be proposed, discussed, decided upon and enforced by the community. At worst, it would only produce an overview of opinions which could be used as the starting point for an RfC/U. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Did you actually suggest that we ban someone because they are so devious as to carefully follow Wikipedia policy while secretly maintaining a harmful bias (one too subtle to see)? Or that he should be banned for not getting an article to FA, even though he has "well-demonstrated abilities as a contributor"? I'm not a friend of Jakew's, I don't even know him outside of the few times I've commented on the applicability of COI against him. Show me some actual disruptive edits and I might support some kind of sanction. Also, you say you don't know whether to use RfC or ArbCom for evidence; considering that ArbCom almost never takes a case without at least an RfC/U, the answer to that should be clear. -- Atama頭 22:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Atama, yes he really suggested all of those things. 213.196.208.244, do you have any actual evidence supporting that lengthy statement, or is it just another biased opinion? Also, when you say "don't care as deeply as I used to about Jakew", could you say which account you were using when you interacted with Jakew in the past? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh look, you found your way here to defend Jake Waskett. What a surprise. I won't stoop to trying to enter a discussion with you though, I'm sure you understand. Your opinions regarding circumcision and Jake Waskett are about the most biased things in the world and you show zero effort to participate in an intellectually honest manner. Should this ever proceed to ArbCom, you will most definitely be named a party to the case, and you know that quite well, Mr. I-lost-my-CheckUser-and-oversight-privileges-due-to-behavior-inconsistent-with-holding-a-position-of-high-trust. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that ad hominem attack just destroyed any credibility you might have had here. One more attack like that and you'll be taking a break from Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 23:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please point out any personal attack in my comment. Also, my credibility is completely irrelevant here. The facts about Jakew's editing speak volumes for themselves. You have to be trying not to see it in order not to see it. Plain and simple. --213.196.208.244 (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling someone Mr. I-lost-my-CheckUser-and-oversight-privileges-due-to-behavior-inconsistent-with-holding-a-position-of-high-trust is a personal attack. It undermines your entire position here, since it shows a motivation to smear others, rather than legitimately raise concern over any actual issues. -- Atama頭 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reminding someone that he has lost his CheckUser and oversight privileges due to behavior inconsistent with holding a position of high trust is a personal attack?
  "smear others"? Was I telling a lie?
  "rather than legitimately raise concern over any actual issues" -- Issues like Jayjg's involvment on circumcision, talk:circumcision and related places? Issues like his repeating patterns of behavior against which he was specifically and repeatedly warned by the ArbCom, leading the revocation of his CheckUser and oversight privileges? --213.196.208.244 (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As my mother always used to tell me "It's not what you said, it how you said it." Mentioning that someone had their privileges removed is OK, as long as it's pertinent to the discussion (and this was a borderline case), but saying "Mr. blah-blah-blah" is sarcasm directed to someone's personal misfortune, and it's not civil. I'm not sure it's a personal attack, but it's hardly being civil and collegial. (And you almost certainly knew it was sarcasm, because there's no other reason to choose to express it that way.) Play nice, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – user blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

:IF YOU CLICKED ON THE VANDALIZED PAGE. If you have, especially if you are running Idiotically Exploding and your AV software did not go crazy, I strongly suggest you kill your browser sessions and do a full scan of your computer. I tried right clicking for source... then left clicking to get focus... and before I could right click again, my AV software got very upset.