Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zhumengmeng (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 27 April 2012 (→Possible class project creating essay-like articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion


    Seamus (dog) article & User:Arzel

    A user named Arzel has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing. When new information is added to article, he routinely removes it, irrespective of the legitimacy of the material. Since this article was created three months ago, Arzel has removed material at least twenty-five times (see list below). On the Talk page for the Seamus article, multiple editors has warned him not to remove material without cause. This week (on April 17, 2012), Arzel decided to remove all eight of the article's external links. I think some editors are becoming reluctant to add material to this article because Arzel arbitrarily tears it down. Debbie W. 05:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Instances where Arzel inappropriately removed material

    22:43, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,360 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (This political ad is already included in the source in the corresponding section. Violation of WP:EL) (undo)
    22:41, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,661 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (This article is not about the political advocacy against Romney. This EL is not about the dog. This EL violates WP:EL) (undo)
    12:39, April 20, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,505 bytes) (-192)‎ . . (Improper EL. Not an official site for this article.) (undo)
    22:39, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,611 bytes) (-237)‎ . . (This add nothing to the article that is not already in the main space) (undo)
    22:37, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,848 bytes) (-260)‎ . . (This adds nothing that is not already in the article.) (undo)
    22:36, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,108 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (Not wothy of main article, no reason to include a special EL. Undue Weight.) (undo)
    22:35, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,362 bytes) (-275)‎ . . (Adds nothing that is not already in the article WP:EL Unneccessary links.) (undo)
    22:33, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,637 bytes) (-301)‎ . . (WP:EL Pushing a point of view, not worthy of the main article not worthy of an EL) (undo)
    22:24, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,850 bytes) (-149)‎ . . (Mitt made no such statement in the interview. Sawyer made the statement, but there was no indication of a response to the statement in the interview.) (undo)
    21:56, April 17, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (16,999 bytes) (-196)‎ . . (Sneaky addition which is not notable.) (undo)
    20:01, April 13, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,996 bytes) (-376)‎ . . (Non notable) (undo)
    13:32, April 6, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,869 bytes) (-530)‎ . . (No evidence that either of these organizations are notable. One of them is simple a bunch of volunteers and is not a reliable source. WP:UNDUE) (undo)
    10:49, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,374 bytes) (-292)‎ . . (non - notable trivia) (undo)
    10:38, March 27, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,541 bytes) (-455)‎ . . (Anonymous second hand information is not what I would call very reliable information for a factual statement.) (undo)
    10:26, February 19, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,449 bytes) (-445)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: POV Forking and Pushing. Debbie, you cannot use this artice as a WP:COAT for attacking Romney.) (undo)
    13:54, February 15, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,310 bytes) (-549)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Undue weight. This article has NOTHING to do with him or his movement.) (undo)
    22:15, February 14, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,533 bytes) (-553)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: WP is not a newspaper. It was 25,000 "likes" the "protest" that caused this political article had more reporters than protesters (10). Undue weight.) (undo)
    10:32, February 11, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,841 bytes) (-46)‎ . . (Non rs blog) (undo)
    09:38, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,725 bytes) (-508)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove POV push, unprovable conjecture.) (undo)
    09:37, February 2, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,233 bytes) (-424)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove merchandise plug. WP:ADVERT) (undo)
    09:27, February 1, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,358 bytes) (-494)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Remove NPOV conjecture and opinion.) (undo)
    09:51, January 31, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,963 bytes) (-326)‎ . . (→‎Political and legal response: Original research. That source only talks about one site. Promotional for site as well.) (undo)
    23:20, January 30, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,772 bytes) (-641)‎ . . (Undid revision 474156894 by JamesMLane (talk)Give me a break. Is this not politicized enough already?) (undo)
    20:27, January 29, 2012‎ Arzel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (6,424 bytes) (-97)‎ . . (Undid revision 473955439 by Dwainwr123 (talk)I didn't say the picture was biased, only that it is not possible to verify it was Seamus from that source.) (undo)
    • Thoughts as an observer (just checked the article; I'm definitely not a Republican, I'm a far-left liberal; didn't know about the dog; no previous opinion on the matter): (1) I don't see that Arzel "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article", nor that his editing is "abusive", nor that he is removing material "without cause". And apparently editing "inappropriately" means editing you don't like. (2) In my opinion, the article is an extremely overblown political soapbox as it is, hardly deserves to exist (it should be a couple of paragraphs in the Romney article), and without the presence of editors such as Arzel would be even more egregious. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be a content dispute. Arzel has engaged on the talk page, and seems to be acting in good faith. As an example, one the the links removed was http://www.dogsagainstromney.com... In my opinion, this should proceed along the normal Dispute Resolution process and no administrative actions are justified at this time. Monty845 06:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that this is a content dispute. On April 17, Arzel removed all 8 externals links (ELs), including one that was an 8-page transcript of a Diane Sawyer interview with Mitt and Ann Romney. Transcripts are the type of material that normally are in external links. The final reason I posted on the board was yesterday's actions by Arzel. I added two ELs on April 20 -- ones for 'Dogs Against Romney', a site that has been in the news a lot for its criticism of Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', a site that defends Romney's treatment of the dog. Arzel removed the Dogs Against Romney link, but left the About Mitt Romney link. That's highly biased editing. Debbie W. 13:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to remove both, but you accidentally incorporated an EL that was actually about Seamus. I also find it highly uncivil that you labeled all my edits as inappropriate when I clearly gave reasons and discussed these issues on the talk page. You returned the vilation of WP:EL twice without even discussing it. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have moved the AN/I notice you misplaced at the top of the page where it was not included in the table of contents, with a brief explanation. Dru of Id (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you've made exactly one edit on Wikipedia (deleting an External Link), and you are on ANI censuring an experienced and prolific and trackable editor who actually contributes to the encyclopedia and whose only "crime" seems to be right-leaning politics? Something doesn't smell right here. And you didn't even look at the article in question. Softlavender (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We are all supposed to contribute neutrally regardless of our personal politics. Arzel isn't doing that, in my opinion. 64.160.39.210 (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is "we"? You've never contributed a single thing to Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 09:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they have. This is a highly knowledgeable editor who prefers to remain anonymous. Doc talk 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah right. Anyone who had a neutral opinion on the subject would not remain anonymous. Anyone remaining anonymous has something to hide and is indulging in de facto IP sockpuppetry. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then either file your SPI or cut it out; now. And remember that SPI is not a fishing expedition. Your attitude towards anonymous editors is both wrong, and unwelcome (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I used to think the same thing about this editor, but many people know who this is, and it does not seem to be the case that he is a banned or blocked user. They choose to remain anonymous, and it's not against policy to do that. Doc talk 09:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, IP editors are people, too! There is no "shame" or "inferiority" to editing from an IP address. Pesky (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Pesky, look at the posting history. This is someone in hiding. Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Softlavender, you haven't made an edit to your talk page since July of last year, so I can appreciate that maybe you don't read it too often. I suggest you read it now and abandon this aspect of this thread. Doc talk 11:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What political bent Arzel is of is irrelevant. His point is that this article is being used as a coatrack for general anti-Romney sentiment and five seconds of research would reveal that: the entire article is based on twelve hours of a dog's life spent sitting in the Romneys' roof rack. Debbie W's aim with this article is, per the talk page, absolutely clear: to use it to advertise the alleged animal cruelty of a current Presidential candidate. I'm astounded that the AfD which closed as a merge was reconsidered. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is not a coatrack. A coatrack is an article which 'ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject'. It is very clear from the first paragraph of the article that the article is about the dog, the 1983 road trip, and the subsequent media coverage: Seamus was a pet dog owned by Mitt Romney and his family. Seamus, an Irish setter, was a subject of media attention for Mitt Romney in both the 2008 presidential election and the 2012 presidential election because of a 1983 family vacation where Romney transported Seamus on the roof of an automobile for twelve hours. To be a coatrack, the topics in the article would have to only be tangentially related (e.g., a long discussion about the Methodist religion in an article about George W. Bush, who happens to be Methodist). That's not the case here. The dog, the 1983 trip, and any media attention are inherently linked together. Debbie W. 01:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about one incident. It is not about a dog. Any editor remotely familiar with how we cover single incidents in a subject's life should know that we do not title articles about one incident by the name of the subject without further commentary. In the remarkably unlikely case that this article survives as a standalone incident in the long run (for now it appears that most are simply unaware of it, though seeing as the goal of the article is to use Wikipedia to attack Romney I imagine that will change) it should at least be titled 1983 Romney family roof rack incident or the like. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Partly because what you seem to be dismissing as a mere 12 hours is actually one important example of the man's character issues. And I think User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. In this case he has actually claimed that the article is only about the dog: [2]. In fact the dog is notable because of Romney so let's not pretend otherwise. El duderino (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Duderino is correct. Bill Clinton's time with Monica in the oval office took less than 12 hours, yet a lot of people would have thought that was an "important example of the man's character issues" even if he hadn't subsequently lied about it. In other words, Chris, how long the ride was is totally irrelevant. And I agree that editors who participate in the project in this way are a tremendous problem for Wikipedia: In the words of wp:coi, "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." It seems very clear to me that Arzel fits that description.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that our coverage of that subject is titled Lewinsky scandal and not Monica Lewinsky. As for the continued assertion that editors with a particular political bent shouldn't be editing articles on politics, I suspect if that rule were applied evenly then some of those calling for Arzel's head would be none too pleased themselves. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    El duderino hit the nail on the head: User:Arzel's point is to use any and every article (and policy) he can to push a conservative activist agenda. He has a very clear history of doing so for better than half a decade. (Another Anonymous - 24.98.87.175) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My hunch is that for the next seven or eight months, there's going to be quite a bit of this: [3], so be warned. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, a user posts a lot on talk pages of articles on "conservative" topics, so therefore they are a right-wing editor, so therefore their edits to Seamus are destroying the article? That's some high-falutin logic here which in reality is not even at the level of a Freshman class in political science. I looked at a couple of the edits Arzel made, and I agree with the completely. Now guess where I stand on politics (keeping in mind that I wrote big chunks of .22 Cheetah). Drmies (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's more than a couple of edits. And due respect, I find your summary of the logical chain to be incomplete -- the issue we're discussing is more than his presence at conservative topics. As IP64/anon editor said above, it's about a pattern of selective inclusion and/or exclusion when those actions suits his purposes. I've seen and worked with other conservative editors who contribute more constructively and with much less battleground mentality than User:Arzel. The funny thing here and now is, sometimes I think he genuinely believes that he is helping the project by fighting against an endemic (liberal) bias. El duderino (abides) 00:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Totally agree. It doesn't matter what articles Arzel edits. But it does matter if he edits them in a manner which shows bias. Arzel repeated removed material from the Seamus article, including material which is non-controversial. He deleted an external link to a transcript of Diane Sawyer interview with the Romneys, on the grounds that it 'adds nothing' to the article. He deleted a photo of the dog where copyright permission had been granted, on the absurd grounds that it could not be proven that the picture was of Seamus. To make matters worse, he selectively chooses what to remove. On April 19, I added external links to 'Dogs Against Romney', which is very critical of the Seamus incident, and 'About Mitt Romney', which defends Romney's treatment of the dog. The next day, Arzel removed the first link, but kept the second. That biased editing. Debbie W. 01:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Whatever. Ohiostandard has (re-)added both links; as far as I'm concerned they should all be removed, but I respect their choice. There's little more to say here but this: your high-handed approach to this conflict failed to gain you traction for the proposition that this user "has been doing everything in his power to destroy the article Seamus (dog) through abusive editing." Next time, please tone down the rhetoric. It only antagonizes. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed (as an editor who helped get Al Gore to GA). At least bringing this to ANI has highlighted the numerous editors involved with this article who shouldn't be editing in this area. Probably worth keeping this open until a further investigation into these editors' actions has been completed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, believe me Drmies, we know where your allegiances lie :) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it is a little silly to pretend this article is the biography of a dog when it's really about a political meme, though I'm not sure how to fix this. I did attempt to balance it somewhat by adding a mention of the conservative counter-meme ("Obama Eats Dogs") - my first attempt was summarily deleted by User:El duderino but I added back an expanded version and opened a discussion on the talk page. Perhaps some other title could be found to make clear it's about a political topic - some media outlets are calling this "Doggy Wars" but I'm not sure if that would work, really. Kelly hi! 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps the content should be merged to some subarticle of United States presidential election, 2012? Kelly hi! 17:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we should rename it along the lines of Santorum (neologism), which I'm guessing is a redirect right now and I have no idea where it goes. But the dog story isn't necessarily a story concocted to tarnish Romney's reputation, though it is undoubtedly repeated with that intent. I'm sitting at the table with some liberals and just made the most priceless Santorum joke, but repeating it here would be a BLP violation. Ah, sometimes I crack myself up. Happy editing in this minefield, Drmies (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think this forum is being asked to consider a persistent bias in Arzel's editing patterns, not to make a content decision (which should have a much wider population for discussion). -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I must admit I was a little suprised to see this section after signing on tonight. It seems to be largely driven by my romoval of the EL's which are clearly being used to support a point of view. In particular, the self-claimed official website of "dogs against romney", which by clear definition of WP:EL is in violation. The article is not about dogs against Romney and the website is not about Seamus. The website is nothing more than a political attack page against Romney. Debbie's insistance on including the website simply shows that she is trying to use WP to promote a political point of view. There have been some allegations that I am simply editing WP from a conservative biased point of view, and while I am more likely to remove POV material from conservative articles, I have also defended liberal articles as well. The primary difference is that there are far more liberal defenders on WP resulting in observation bias. No one can honestly claim that "Dog's against Romney" is an official website of Seamus and therefore not a violation of WP:EL In fact, none of the EL's, save for the Romney Seamus page is really about the actual title of the article. To say that I am an agenda driven editor when I am simply trying to uphold WP core policies is...well quite insulting. Arzel (talk) 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahh, I see also that Debbie has a conflict of interest with the Dogs against Romney website and has been in direct contact with the site creator. I think it is quite clear that she has a specific agenda regarding this issue. Arzel (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's policy on confict of interest requires disclosing any financial or personal relationships to the subject matter being discussed. I am not a member of Dogs Against Romney, and I have never met or talked to Scott Crider, the founder of Dogs Against Romney. I e-mailed Dogs Against Romney several times to obtain permission to use a picture of the dog that was posted on their website. I hardly see that as a conflict of interest. Debbie W. 04:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Call it what you want. You have been in direct contact with the website owner since you could not have been granted rights by Scott Cider under any other circumstances, and you filed this report after my removal of the site from the EL's. Call it what you will, but I think you are a little too close to the issue to have an objective view. Arzel (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia permissions department (permissions-en@wikimedia.org) has copies of my e-mails from Dogs Against Romney that were used to grant permission to use the photo. It consists of an e-mail from me asking for consent, an e-mail from them granting consent, a later e-mail from me asking for Creative Commons CC0 1.0 level of permission, and an e-mail from them granting it. If you want, contact the permissions office. Debbie W. 04:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dog's Against Romney Since we are at it could we please gets some input from Admins regarding the Blog Dogs Against Romney regarding its use as an EL. I propose that it fails WP:EL#11 because it is a Blog and while it claims to be the offical site of dogs against romney, it is not the official site of Seamus. Its purpose is to complain about Mitt Romney and sell related merchandise to promote this view. It is also a work of Satire written from the point of view of a fictional dog called "Rusty". It may also violate WP:BLP since much of the content attacks a living person(s). Arzel (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is nothing but election year horseshit. Bring the article about the unelected candidate's dog from the 1980s to AfD and see if it is judged to be an encyclopedic topic. If it passes there, which is shouldn't, THEN start topic-banning the POV warriors by the fistful. Carrite (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already gone through AFD. SÆdontalk 20:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been TO AfD but not THROUGH AfD — a NO CONSENSUS close. Somebody should bring it again and this thing should be shipped away in a honey bucket. Letting Democratic POV crap in only provokes Republican POV crap. Carrite (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, all caps is just pointless and annoying. Cut it out.
    Second, it has been through AFD, and No Consensus is a valid close. If you want to take it to AFD again, by all means. It might be a good idea to let this ANI finish though, or it gives the appearance of forum shopping. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer all caps to using bold text or italics for emphasis because it is easier to type. I am sorry that it offends your sensibilities, but I will most assuredly not adapt my preferences to yours in this matter. Happily, the article on Seamus the Dog is being put to sleep by consensus at AfD, so MELLOW is the word for the day... xoxo, Carrite (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's your prerogative. Expect to get chewed out for "shouting" when you use all caps, though. It's your problem. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I know of many articles which are locked down in a junk or POV state by POV wiki-lawyers. In the few where I've seen Arzel , Arzel was the one trying to FIX the problem. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be a very subjective opinion not born out with facts. We could easily provide (literally) hundreds of examples of bias in editing, double standards, and outright misrepresentation by Arzel spanning half a decade. He has outwardly declared his belief that Wikipedia is full of "liberals" and "liberal bias", so I have no doubt he feels justified in his edits. I don't believe that is true (after all, facts have a well known liberal bias), but even if Arzel's claim of "defending liberal articles" were true, the statistics don't add up... one or two instances of "defending liberal articles" doesn't overcome the thousands of examples of conservative bias. At the end of the day, any thorough examination of his edits clearly demonstrates tendentious editing. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that wikipedia has any mechanism (or constitution) to deal with a tendentious editor who is careful to play by the rules. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous complaints have little value, why not show your WP face, rather than hide behind your obvious multitude of IP's so we can judge your edit hisotry as well. At least I am not hiding anything...unlike yourself. Arzel (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Anonymous editing is just as welcome here as non-anonymous editing and there is nothing even close to a requirement that anyone register an account. This is a long standing WP tradition dictated by the WMF. It is not true that anonymous complaints have little value and the arguments of any person can be judged on the merits of the argument itself and not who is making them. Note that I am not commenting on the substance of the edit, only that it is perfectly fine to edit as an IP SÆdontalk 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Bullshit! Calling out somebody for alleged POV behind the screen of an IP address isn't "anonymous editing," it is anonymous denunciation. Come out and identify yourself or shut your fucking defamatory mouth, Mr. 24.98.7235480924350=92345. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Editing anonymously is my right, and is intended to force you to deal with the substance of the issue brought to ANI instead of attacking those who seek assistance. Thank you for the assistance in demonstrating my point. -A2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are a coward, go troll somewhere else. Arzel (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell? This is not an elementary school playground, you are not (or should not, in any event, be) the class bully, and playground taunting is screamingly inappropriate. The anon IP is exactly freaking right that he is allowed to comment - as any editor might - and allowed to participate in ANI discussions - as any editor does. May I ask what you would possibly do with the editor's real identity, if indeed he has a registered name? WP:NPA doesn't have an escape clause where anon IPs are concerned. Ravenswing 05:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is seriously unacceptable behavior from both Carrite and Arzel. And using terms like "defamatory" is getting close to legal threat language. You two may not like that WP policy - fully backed by the WMF to the point where they rejected a community call to require registration - but it's a huge part of WP. You both need to calm down or an admin is going to bring down the ban hammer. SÆdontalk 05:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Better? Carrite (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Very, very slightly better, yes, thanks. SÆdontalk 05:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    NB: "Editing anonymously is my right..." Four career edits, all to this thread. See: Poison pen letter. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't appear to be a proxy account which means that it's likely a dynamic IP. Either way it doesn't matter; one edit or a million, the IP has as much right as you do to comment. Please cease this line of reasoning. SÆdontalk 05:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not have my history be judged by someone who refuses to show his history. That person is a coward, and if they have a problem with being called a coward they should go troll somewhere else. User names are already pretty anonymous, to be afraid of even having an anonymous user name says quite a lot. Arzel (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Both you and Carrite need to drop this line of bullying. Argue the substance of the edits, not the editor. It makes no difference, in terms of the piling NPA violations, whether the editor is registered or not. If you continue, you're going to get blocked for this without consideration to the original accusations. Stop it. Note that I am not commenting on the specific complaints, but reserve the right to in the future. Dave Dial (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to get blocked because an anonymous IP jumper is leveling accusations against me from several different IP's and I call him out on it? Seriously, this is what has become of WP? Arzel (talk) 14:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if you are blocked then it would be because you continue to personally attack another editor even when having been repeatedly told not to do so. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But an IP jumper is free to attack me, where is the justice in that? Arzel (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    First, "justice" isn't something Wikipedia is after. Demanding justice isn't going to earn you any points.
    Second, the IP voiced an opinion that you are editing in a POV manner. Your response was direct insults and to repeat those insults after being warned. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck, if I had the mop, I'd block you myself for your repeated insults in this ANI alone, Arzel, because it's plain that you don't get it. Anon IPs are protected by WP:NPA just the same as any other editor, and their statements are evaluated on the merits, the same as any other editor. If the IP fears retaliation ... well, gosh, how could he possibly have come to that conclusion, eh? Ravenswing 18:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Good god, I just stepped through a random sample of the last 1,000 mainspace edits of Arzel. Based on that alone, it is obvious that the concerns stated above are completely valid and need to be addressed. Since Arzel and his pal Carrite viciously attack responding editors, I wish to remain anonymous. just becaus we are anonymous does not mean our points arent valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Provide a point and we can see if it has any value. A single edit to come here and attack me is simply the sign of a coward. Arzel (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think NPA is limited to launching them at named accounts? You would be wrong if you thought that. Stop calling this user a "coward". You are wrong about anonymous users. Doc talk 14:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you defending any anonymous IP jumper using several different IP's to attack my character? Arzel (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm only pointing out that we have allowed, and always will allow, IP jumpers to exist here. Some are good, some are bad. Some use it for gnomish edits that undeniably improve the encyclopedia, and some abuse it for nefarious reasons. We can't class a group of editors so easily. If you think they are evading scrutiny, and you know who they are, you can file a SPI. Doc talk 14:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominally have little problem with IP's, however, this anon is judging me while hiding behind a cloak of multiple IP's. It is the same person trying to give the illusion of many. You are defending that? Arzel (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that we even have Wikipedia article about a dog riding on the roof of a car for a few hours shows how easily the system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ummm... didn't you just say the exact same thing in a thread below here? Maybe it's me... Doc talk 12:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ummm, don't we have two threads going on this same article? The answer to both is yes. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    calling me (and the other anons) "cowards" only shows the strong desire to attack others instead of dealing with the issue. i am not very familiar with ANI, but somebody should really look into Arzel. his bias is systemic and long running, and the examples of it are pretty self evident. i can gladly give TONS of examples, but it seems to me that any random reading of a few hundred pages of his contributions through february (and a random few pages from a few years ago that i looked at) shows pretty obviously the problem. his edits are very clearly ALWAYS pushing a conservative agenda, and he bullies other users and lawyers rules to always benefit his point of view. if you want specific examples, what would help move this along the most? article edits? talk pages? tell me what to do to get someone to get serious about dealing with this, and i will do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.37.214.254 (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Because you are One Anon, not many. The probabilistic pattern of the Anon's editing here strongly suggests that they are from one person, or a couple of persons working together offline. The odds that the Anon's attacking my character here would all have almost no other edit history is extremely unlikely. You did not all just come here by chance and have the same thing to say. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Then file an SPI, don't keep poking the hornet's nest. Look, I know the natural instinct is to defend yourself, but each reply you make is digging the hole deeper. Just ignore them or file an SPI. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of Arzel's contributions to articles consist of deletions of other editors' work. In very few, if any (I've never seen any) cases does s/he add complete references or contribute sourced statements to articles. Most contributions are statements are unsourced, POV opinions, personal attacks, and largely inaccurate wiki-lawyering on talk pages. The destruction of content and senseless and endless criticism of other editors is very offputting and discourages people from spending their time building content. Other editors have tried to educate, mentor, coach, and educate Arzel, but s/he has not been responsive to this. Some responding to this ANI may be choosing to remain anonymous due to Arzel (and perhaps his friends') retaliatory editing behavior. This is my only contribution to this particular thread. I'll use the same IP if I make additional contributions to this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.135 (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When there are enough people adding shit to articles, it becomes a full time job to be a pooper scooper removing the same. A job unfortunately that somehow ends up tainting the person doing the dreadful work with a foul smell by which people seem to judge rather than the actual quality and necessity of the work itself. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The obverse is also true: crafty POV-pushers find ways to veil their editing under the NPOV flag. To use your imagery, ..donning the janitor's cap when it suits their purposes. El duderino (abides) 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complaints from IP editors at ANI or related pages have zero merit or value. They should be hatted, reverted or ignored, and the drama will be cut in half around here. The "destruction of content" rhetoric by this one is reminiscent of some of our dearly departed Article Rescue Squad indef blockees. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As pointed out above, this is not correct. IPs have the right to voice their opinion here, which admins can consider. Now, if they're trolling, socking or conducting meatpuppetry, they can be blocked and comments struck. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And as I will point out to you now, that is exactly what they are doing; trolling. The comment by the one below readily admits to editing via IP to avoid identity detection. That's underhanded, deceptive, and renders its comments irrelevant. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • from SOCK " the use of multiple accounts" yep "to deceive or mislead" seems like what this is "other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, or otherwise violate community standards and policies is called sock puppetry (often abbreviated in discussion as socking) and is not allowed. Sock puppetry can take on several different forms: Creating new accounts to avoid detection" very clearly YES. "Editors who use unlinked alternative accounts, or who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases " potentially yes "and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse." and again, yes."Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" umm yes. And under Legitimate uses I am not seeing anything that applies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's walk through that, point by point:
    • " the use of multiple accounts" - Not exactly. This is the use of an IP to obscure identity due to the rabid attacks often leveled against those who seek help. I think the responses within this thread clearly underline why this is necessary.
    • "Creating new accounts to avoid detection" - Wrong on two counts: one, I doubt any of the IP editors have created additional accounts beyond the single account I use (I can't technically speak for the others, but it appears at least one or both of them are well known already and appear on the up-and-up). Two, there is no attempt to avoid detection -- I have very clearly stated that I am a named account and why I'm anonymous. I can only assume the same is for the others.
    • "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions" -- "ummm, no". There is no legitimate reason to review the complaintant's contributions here. This thread is about Arzel, and no one else. If your logic is to base evaluation on the contribution history of those who ask for help, you are doing it wrong (see ad hominem). If what we say is incorrect or inaccurate, then ignore it; otherwise, stop hiding behind the absurd logic of "what you say isn't legitimate because i don't know who you are". You only want to know who we are so you can attack us (and, I'll posit, protect someone with a similar POV).
    There is no crossover or attempt to votestack here. I've been directly forthcoming about why I'm posting anonymously, and I've even offered to identify to a trusted admin. The Foundation has made it very clear that IP anon's comments are both welcome and legitimate on their face; I would appreciate it if you'd address the issues raised herein instead of trying to delegitimize the complaints because you can't successfully attack those with a grievance. -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Once again Arzel, with a little assistance, has turned this into an attack on others instead of addressing the issue. Personally, I am a well-known editor (with many more edits than arzel) who wishes to avoid the unfortunately successful trick of avoidance ad hominem. I have edited from this singular IP only; responses above from other IPs are presumably other editors with similar reasons. If our statements are read as trolling or inaccurate, simply ignore us, however I believe the record speaks for itself - Arzel's blatant focus on conservative advocacy (of which there are multiple ANI filings in the past) should be compelling enough reason to justify the discussion. I am willing to verify my identity to a trusted admin who understands my wish to avoid attack whilst keeping this discussion focused on the issue. -anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Completely uninvolved and impartial observer chiming in: The initial concern over one article seems to have morphed into a review of a particular editor's editing. An administration action may be necessary. What is the next step? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]

    To be quite clear, the initial complaint is against one particular editors's conduct at that article, which has brought about a wider discussion of that editor's behavior due to his repeated, easily discernible pattern of the same behavior writ large. -Anon2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.87.175 (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This whole massive thread by the Mr. Anonymous IP Poison Pen Tag Team strikes me as much ado about nothing, soon to be rendered moot at AfD. ANI at its very worst... Carrite (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Question for Dwainwr123|Debbie W. -- You make the claim that Arzel is "doing everything in his power to destroy the article through abusive editing". Question is this... has he been edit warring? And, if so, why did you not take this to that venue? Has he been operating with consensus or have you been working with consensus? If you can't answer these two things, I think you might have arrived at AN/I too early. If however, he has been edit warring... take this to the edit warring page. IF you have actually been following the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle and he's been removing things in that vein, then so be it. AN/I is not here to take a position on content and whether an article is good or not. It is here to take care of things that need administrative tools to solve. My impression is that your conflict here is not one that can be solved by administrative tools, but by simply following the policies found on WP:CONSENSUS. -- Avanu (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Avanu, The issue is not edit warring, but disruptive editing and tendentious editing. Edit warring is fairly strictly defined as more than three reverts to a given page in a 24-hour hour period. Disruptive editing and tendentious editing are more complicated issues, but they defined as a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia, and editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view. I'm not going to rehash what I stated at the beginning of this discussion, but I believe that Wikipedia is fundamentally about creation, and that unless an article is deleted by AfD, editors should work together to improve articles. Debbie W. 13:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Infobox classical composer TfD closure

    {{Infobox classical composer}} was deleted as "…redundant to {{Infobox person}}. Unused…" last December, after a short but unanimous discussion which was open for eight days. It was recently recreated, out of process (e.g. no deletion review), and my speedy nomination (under {{db-g4}}) was contested, so I raised another TfD discussion. SarekOfVulcan has now speedily closed that, after less than 24 hours, alleging bad faith (and perhaps believing the false claims including that "a week ago, [I] deleted it almost without discussion" and that "the deleting admin agreed that the deletion procedure was improper"). I refute the "bad faith" accusation (there are and will be unfounded ad hominem comments from those with opposing views), and suggest that the community should be allowed to discuss the matter properly. (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I didn't believe any false claims - I reviewed the history and previous discussions before closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which makes your action and comment all the more inappropriate Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the template was deleted in the past in a TfD decision and then randomly recreated, you are fully allowed to start another TfD on it, per past consensus. Sarek, you are completely out of line here. SilverserenC 22:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind. SilverserenC 22:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't lie about closures, Andy. The current discussion was very obviously a speedy keep. SilverserenC 22:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first comment was the sensible and correct one. With only nine comments, mostly from members of the canvassed projects, in around 21 hours, it's hardly a speedy keep, and that was not the disputed reason given for closure, as I point out above. I have not lied. What makes you suppose otherwise? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Andy -- please -- this was exactly the sort of behavior that got you banned for a year here. Let's not do this again; it's time-wasting drama and completely unnecessary. We actually have a workable compromise infobox! How about working with us in the Composers and Classical music Wikiprojects as colleagues rather than enemies? Honestly, it's possible. Antandrus (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was not. Why don't you address the issue I raise, rather than attempting to smear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    History summary since close of template RFC--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for evidence which confirms the veracity of my initial report here. An additional diff of relevance shows that {{Infobox musical artist}} has been the Terry Riley article since 2 December 2006 (yes, 2006!). It has caused no reported issues in that time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It may confirm what you reported, but what you didn't report is highly relevant as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing the evidence, I believe Sarek's close of the TfD was absolutely proper. I would not necessarily say it was a "bad faith" nomination, but reverting a template's use after that template has received extensive discussion and then immediately nominating for deletion on the basis of the template not being used can give that impression. That said, there was adequate consensus to keep the template regardless of whether the nomination was in good or bad faith. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ITYM "reverting a template's use when that template has been improperly recreated after a TfD decision to delete it…". Since when do we close TfDs with only nine comments, mostly from members of canvassed projects, in under 24 hours? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    ANI timing

    Collapsing irrelevant sideshow Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    [from the above] (As a courtesy, I should mention that I shall not be able to post here again for around 24 hours from now.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We will wait for you to return and discuss it then. - Youreallycan 21:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, pelase don't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He does raise a point, however, that starting an ANI when you aren't prepared to participate isn't the best way to go about it. Not sure about any guideline requiring this, but it seems common courtesy would. Dennis Brown ® © 22:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you suppose I said I was "not prepared to participate"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to get into a sophomoric debate with you about something that is obvious to everyone else. Feel free to simply think me a fool. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 22:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Closing 'hit and run' ANI. Since you said you won't be here, wait until you can be if you are going to stir the pot. Dennis Brown ® © 22:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reopened. I'm not aware of any requirement of 24/7 participation at ANI, nor of a prohibition on ANI participants from sleeping or fulfilling prior social commitments. If I've missed something like that, please feel free to point it out, so that it can be added to ANI's boilerplate. Otherwise, why the hostile response? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The closing wasn't meant as hostile. The act of opening an ANI then leaving for 24 hours, however, felt unnecessarily rude. Like calling a friend then instantly putting them on hold for an hour, instead of telling them that you will just call them back. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a recommendation: Anyone who thinks this matter should be dropped would do well to simply not reply to it, and don't close it either. Offering a wall for which to volley against will not help the matter. Equazcion (talk) 18:59, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    Pigsonthewing proposed topic ban

    It appears that Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has issues mischaracterizing matters that he brings to AN or comments on here and this can mislead editors reviewing his requests. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and above. It has also been found by Arbcom in the past that Pigsonthewing is unwilling to follow the Wiki way of doing things 1 and mischaracterizes matters 2. What would the community think of either banning PoTW from commenting at AN/ANI or banning his participation in TFD/MicroFormat discussions (those appear to be the source of most of his disputes)? MBisanz talk 19:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose banning PotW from Microformat discussions, as that's where he's done some of his best work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you feel about the AN/ANI ban if it turns out that his problem is in discussing his project with the wider wiki community? MBisanz talk 19:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain, since this is a subthread of an ANI he's raised about me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I quite agree PotW needs to be banned from something, possibly from the whole project, and I definitely don't think the problem can be localized simply by banning him from some forms of AN participation. His problems are far more general and spread far more widely. The general issue here is that PotW seems to be fundamentally unable to let go of a matter. Once he's become fixated on something – be it the birth date of some semi-notable radio moderator, or the question of what infobox to put into classical composer articles – he will continue keeping that dispute alive across any number of pages, literally for years, confronting any number of other editors about it, fighting out spin-offs of spin-off conflicts through one venue after another, and just never let go, no matter how obvious it is that there is no consensus for his position. Right now, he's at another spin-off dispute at Template talk:Infobox classical composer, and is again accusing some other guy of "dishonesty" [4] over yet another side issue. Since all these disputes somehow indirectly appear to be related to his great project of infoboxes and "microforms", and since this pattern of conflict-seeking seems to be a very very deeply entrenched personality matter, I am afraid we will have little choice but to either put up with it and let him continue everywhere, or ban him from the project completely. My choice would be the second. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My choice unfortunately is also the second. This is a collaborative project, and his attitude is profoundly anti-collaborative, at least every time I've run into him. I wish I could grant him an "a-ha!" moment where he sees that he's actually the cause of his own problems, by making war on people rather than collaborating with them, but my hopes are slim. I'm open to other ideas on how to proceed. It's a shame because he's so talented at what he does. Antandrus (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I have read much of the previous controversies, I didn't participate. While I have no simple solution, I have to say that I have reservations about this one. I'm afraid we would just exporting the drama to another venue where the pattern would start all over again. Unless there is something particular about this board that causes all the problems, banning him from here isn't likely to solve the problem. A bit strong, but this is akin to the police giving a homeless person a one way bus ticket to another city. You move the problem to a different place but it doesn't go away. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this seems like that awkward situation where instead of a topic ban, the community believes a site ban is the only way to end the disruption. Should I just copy this over to WP:AN or can I find an uninvolved admin to close it here on ANI? MBisanz talk 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Hang on a minute; this is starting to take on the appearance of a witch-hunt. Have you actually looked at the diffs Matthew presented? They are from years ago - the ArbCom links are from 2007 and 2005! The more recent ones seem to be cataloguing Andy's attempts to raise problems that he perceives here, and getting short shrift from editors who don't understand a technical issue. Now I'll admit that I've "crossed swords" with Andy on technical issues, but that has never gone beyond robust discourse. On the other hand I've also found him most amenable to collaborative work - see how WP:HLIST was developed for an example. His technical skills and understanding are valuable to the project, and we need to be looking for ways of helping established editors overcome problems and concentrate on constructive work, not crude bans and blocks in these circumstances. I see that WP:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing dates from 2005. Has any other RFC occurred in the intervening 7 years? --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if you insist. I've already commented at Template_talk:Infobox_classical_composer#Dishonest_comment_in_TfD_summary_box that Andy is expressing himself too forcefully for my taste, but you have to admit that he was right that the {{tfd end}} comment "delete, but decision was later reversed by deleting admin because of lack of notification of interested parties and discussion" simply did not accurately characterise the closing admin's subsequent comments: "Reviewing the debate, it looks like the main issue was that it wasn't being used. I actually moved it to "Wikipedia:Infobox composer/draft" to allow for further discussion, and to preserve the page history. It was subsequently deleted there by another admin. I will restore it to User:Ravpapa/Infobox composer. I will leave it up to you to decide what to do with it after that". I think Antandrus ought also to bear some responsibility for the unnecessary warring going on there.
    • I'm sorry, but given that Future Perfect at Sunrise made a controversial block of Andy quite recently, he really isn't the best person to be issuing warnings and threats of ArbCom on Andy's talk page. Are there really no other uninvolved admins around to talk to Andy in a less confrontational manner? Nobody is going to condone Andy going over the top in response, but do you seriously believe that "I strongly recommend you stop issuing warnings over content disputes in which you are involved, especially while discussion is ongoing on talk pages; and stop ignoring the findings of the RfC which found that systematic removal of infoboxes would be disruptive. Your unwarranted and out-of-process block of me regarding Hawkins resulted in you being criticised and subsequently undoing it; and the topic ban proposal which it led to twice found no consensus." is so far out of court as to warrant a ban?
    • Are you seriously putting forward this: ""If this is the reason for your insistence…" - It isn't. Also, your proposal is both technically and logistically unworkable. Any local consensus in the classical music project is, as has been pointed out many times, not least in the outcome of that project's RfC, and core Wikipedia policy, unenforceable in articles. Matters regarding claims of optimal human readability are best determined through measurement such as those as carried out by our accessibility and usability projects, not the asserted aesthetic preferences of individual editors." as evidence of a breach of the Wiki editing method of civil community discussions?
    • You've always struck me as being a very fair and responsible editor, and I'm willing to give way if I'm proven wrong, but are you sure that an insistence on banning a productive editor is the best course right now? --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first interaction with POTW was over three years ago here. Since then, I've seen him crop up time and time again pushing his POV on microformat codes by mischaracterizing other people's words when they disagree with them or curtly insulting them for not understanding him. I've seen him at protected template requests declaring something is horribly broken and needs to be changed, when it is just his opinion that a certain format should be used. I've seen him here announcing that someone is grievously violating policy, when they simply disagree with his technical opinion. Looking back further before my first interaction with him, I see a nearly decade long track record of an inability to communicate with people and accept that consensus of the Wiki community is what matters for decision-making, not experts (as he claims in the third diff) or other people with particular agendas that they wish to import into the Project. The acerbic tone he does it with and his inability to temper it over such a long period of time of feedback is what has convinced me a ban is appropriate. MBisanz talk 19:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had forgotten about this conversation where he kept insisting on getting a bot approved while refusing to link to consensus for the bot task. MBisanz talk 23:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – all the sanctions suggested are completely ludicrous. The vast majority of Andy's edits since his return years and years ago from a 1-year block have been positive and uncontroversial. And the fuss about composer infoboxes is a storm in a teacup as the classical music project seem to insist on (a) no infoboxes; (b) the retention of a specific infobox not to use. Oculi (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion. I think a site ban is too harsh a punishment. I do think a topic ban from all info box related discussions is warranted.4meter4 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Ridiculous proposal. Show us something recent and relevant. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support any sanctions that prevent the disruption caused by PotW. Since he is right, it follows that the silly people who actually write the articles but who disagree with him are wrong, and must be opposed, literally for years. More evidence would probably be needed to achieve a sanction, but I am recording my opinion in hope that PotW will take the hint and leave content creators alone. Johnuniq (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not make this a "content creation" battle, not least because that would be as fallacious (and damaging to the community) as it always is. Interaction problems here have nothing to do with what namespace one chooses to work in most often. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you seen the underlying issues? Some content builders have chosen to not decorate articles on classical composers in a manner that complies with PotW's standard. The content builders are then harrangued literally for years. Of course it's done with all the CIVIL boxes ticked, and there are plenty of helpful links to WP:OWN and other pages intended to poke the content builders. It's totally unnecessary, and it drives content builders away. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I'm saying is that it isn't healthy to frame it as "Andy versus content builders" as if a) he doesn't build content and b) his interaction with "content builders" is universally negative. "Andy versus the composers project on infoboxes" is a far more accurate frame for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm finding it a little extreme to be suggesting this. Ok, so I haven't had a lot of interaction with the user in question, but from my perspective, it seems that some people now want to persecute (I do not intend any insult with this word... it may be a bit strong, but I'm tired and can't think of a better word at the moment) a user who is perhaps trying to push his own point to forcefully (it seems, with regularity), or maybe someone who takes WP:BOLD or WP:IAR a little too far. But banning him, either from topics or the project, doesn't really help, seeing as the user has also demonstrated very helpful abilities. A ban seems to me to be simply a way of saying "go away, I don't like you," which doesn't seem to me to be an appropriate way of resolving issues like this. This isn't to say I endorse the manner in which PotW tends to pursue his opposers, but rather that I feel the proposed actions are not the right sort of action to take. Brambleclawx 03:57, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It disturbs me that so many admins seem to be willing to sweep the problems created by PotW under the carpet simply because he is highly productive in other places. I hope that this discussion will not result in no action being taken to curtail PotW's actions. It would be akin to endorsing his negative behavior from the admin board. Do we want to send the mesaage that as long as you are valuable in some places we'll tolerate disruptive behavior in other places? Further, as far as I can tell PotW sees nothing wrong with any of his tactics, and they show no signs of stopping. This pattern of disruptive behavior has been going on for years, and is only likely to continue. If nothing is done here and now, then ANI is only likely to get more future complaints.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, I re-emerge from inactivity today because I'm about to get auto-demopped, and lo and behold, POTW is back on ANI again. Why am I not surprised? For heaven's sake, people, I took this guy to ArbCom many years ago over the classical music infobox debacle, and here he is again, causing trouble over the exact same topic because he thinks he can get away with trolling the exact same people because time has passed. Last time he got banned for a year over this. Can we please, for the love of god, topic-ban him at least this time? If not from micro-formats and his beloved boxen, then at least from anything classical music related. I think I speak for everyone who edits these articles when I say that we are sick to our back teeth of POTW, who has caused no end of grief. He is not doing this in good faith; he is doing this to provoke and because he is simply incapable of giving up on a fight. This is the very definition of tendentious editing. It's beyond farcical that a year-long ban from ArbCom was not enough to keep him away from this area. Moreschi (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The year-long ban was beyond farcical. Andy is robustly arguing for conventions commonplace, uncontroversial and commonplace across the majority of wikipedia but opposed by a segment of "everyone who edits these articles"; think owners. I'm absolutely convinced he is acting in the very best of faith and deplore your assertion otherwise. I know that Andy sees the connection between regular data elements embodied in infoboxen and metadata / semantic web uses of wikipedia content. It's more than depressing that the reaction to a person who continues to argue against a point favoured by a small group is to seek to exclude that person. Actually, bluntly, it's chilling. Am I to expect that if I support Andy's arguments I will find myself labelled tendentious and a candidate for a site or topic ban? Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is defined in terms of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; this just does not apply here. Neither do I see "frustrate[d] proper editorial processes and discussions", although I'm sure that you're personally a bit frustrated that he just won't let it drop. That's not the same thing, at all. Oppose. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]



    Proposed topic ban part 2

    From anything classical music related, as per my above post. [5]. Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support. This to me would be the bare minimum response that can and should be done. Otherwise we may need to bring PotW back before arbcom for going back to his old ways.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - I've been looking at the background to the classical music infobox dispute and it didn't take many minutes to find this sort of edit, where the date of birth, age, genre, and years active were removed by replacing the previously adequate infobox with inferior information. If this is typical of the problems Andy is complaining about, we should be encouraging him to do more in this area, not removing him from the topic so that those sort of damaging edits can be made unchallenged.
    • "Cherry picked"?? Well what about this one then? which removed genre, instruments, and labels - he is famous as a minimalist and yet that's gone from the infobox which is supposed to give an overview at a glance. Are you prepared to defend that as well as the previous one?
    • Or this one? where we lost Scott Joplin's place of birth, place of death, years active and the fact that he was known for ragtime? or are those the sort of things you think visitors to his page wouldn't be looking for?
    • Cherry picked, indeed. How about you strike that ad hominem garbage and start taking in an interest in the actual articles? Those two diffs above need reverting to restore the useful information, and you could do it as easily as I. --RexxS (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I might as well call you on your smear of Andy above. This is how the Marian Anderson looked after Andy replaced the picture with an infobox. Take a look at it. Just what is "factually inaccurate" there? I'm completely agnostic on whether to have an infobox or not, but even I can see that your claim is baseless. Wouldn't you also agree it is a little bit rum to be accusing Andy of "stripping of essential nuance" while you are defending others who replace one infobox with another containing even less information? Who's doing the stripping of essential nuance here? Or is Scott Joplin's association with ragtime an inessential nuance, perhaps. --RexxS (talk) 01:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My qualms over the infobox at the Anderson article involve the description of the voice as a musical instrument. An instrument by definition is something non-biological outside of the body which is used to make music. A singer is never refered to as an instrumentalist. A singer is called a vocalist. As for your other complaints, I am not here to defend others actions which I may or may not agree with. I have not edited the Joplin article or contributed to it in any significant way. I also don't have it on my watchlist. Those issues should be discussed at that article. 4meter4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That kind of attitude is exactly why I dislike infoboxes. You illustrated nicely how factually inaccurate content can be spread encyclopedia wide for the sake of uniformity. Who cares if it's wrong information as long as it can be shoved into a box? Go to any School of Music and you will find a clear division of performance tracks, one for instrumentalists and one for vocalists. Wikipedia should strive to mirror academic categorizations. Further, one could easily point out errors within other infoboxes to nitpick over. This is just one example of how the musical artist infobox has issues. 4meter4 (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "wrong information" is just your viewpoint. People are rarely that easily categorised. Was John Lennon a vocalist or an instrumentalist? Was Louis Armstrong a trumpeter or a vocalist? and so on. Take a look at the sleeve notes of most modern albums - the artists often contribute vocals as well as the instruments that fit your definition with no clear division of performance. Wikipedia has no need whatsoever to mirror academic categorisations when that gets in the way of presenting useful information. You are right that there are issues with the musical artist infobox, and there are similar issues with as the classical composer infobox as well. Why are you so keen to rid the area of someone who is intent on making the best presentation of information when an infobox is used? You still haven't replied to my question about whether you support the removal from infoboxes of vital statistics such as date of birth and age, as well as crucial information such as genre and years active. What's your answer? Yes or no? --RexxS (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What an odd response. If someone sings professionally they are a vocalist. If someone plays an instrument they are an instrumentalist. If someone does both than they are both a vocalist and an instrumentalist. Lennon and Armstrong would obviously be considered both, and the infoboxes on their articles should be designed to reflect that in a clear way. This can be done without placing "vocals" under the subheading of musical instrument as it currently is. On a side note, I agree that crucial information can and should remain in an infobox when an infobox is used. Reguardless, my opinions on that matter are not pertinent to this conversation. My problem with PotW is that whenever the classical music projects have expressed the difficulties the musical artist infobox often causes when utilized on classical musician articles he has repeatedly ignored our concerns. Rather than helping us design a more suitable infobox, he has insisted on continuing to use an infobox that has created factual inaccuracies across many articles. The result has been edit wars across many articles and unproductive conversations that repeat the same arguements over and over for literally years. It's frankly annoying as hell and a waste of everyone's time. I personally would like to see a more friendly infobox designer approach the composer/opera/classical/G&S/CCM/and Wagner projects to help us design some infoboxes which would address the concerns of the various projects. It would be most helpful. That said, I am not a proponent of every article having an infobox. If all the info in the box is the dob, dod, and occupation than it's a rather pointless redundancy in the article in my opinion. Infoboxes are useful when they contain summation of facts and details beyond what is obviously apparent in the very first sentence of the lead.4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification, and I suspect we may not be too far apart now. I certainly agree that not every bio needs an infobox. We also agree that an individual could be a vocalist and an instrumentalist, but how do you think that is best presented in an infobox (assuming that we might agree it is pertinent info)? The simplest way is to mimic album covers, and put something like "Instruments: vocals, guitar". I understand that you object to that as factually inaccurate, and yet almost all of our audience would understand perfectly what we intended it to mean. Sometimes we have to trade-off precision for précis when we try to cram information into a small space like an infobox. That is where I think you're having disagreements with Andy. Is it possible that there is no "good solution" to the problem we're discussing? Perhaps what you have is a simple disagreement about which imperfect infobox is least worse for the job? If you look back at the example diffs I adduced above, can you not concede that Andy is no more wrong than anybody else who is picking an infobox to use? I understand that you feel frustrated that Andy does not share your preferences in infoboxes, but the encyclopedia does not get improved by silencing everybody who disagrees with you, particularly where they may be at least partially right. I've spent some time looking at the discussions linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines #Biographical infoboxes and I'm not seeing your claims about Andy having any substance there. If I'm looking in the wrong place, then please produce the diffs on which your complaints about Andy rest. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppport Wikipedia is a big place and PotW's attention is not required everywhere. I see no suggestion that PotW has an interest in classical music apart from attending to infoboxes, and if there is a pressing need for any change in that area, another editor will be available to take up the challenge. I have not been monitoring the situation, but have unintentionally noticed the wasted time and the ill feelings caused when PotW interacts with article developers who disagree with him—it serves no useful purpose and drives away good editors. The long block record and previous cases (like from 2005) show that nothing short of a formal topic ban will be effective in protecting the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A topic ban isn't necessary and in many cases would be counterproductive per RexxS's examples. Talk:Terry Riley#Infobox is instructive indeed, but certainly not in a way which casts a more negative picture on Andy than the other parties present. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help in straightening out a mess

    Would greatly appreciate an uninvolved admin with a little spare time to help straighten out a move/delete/merge discussion mess that has cropped up (everyone involved was acting in good faith).

    Yesterday, I proposed a move of Seamus (dog) to Mitt Romney dog controversy here and several people commented on the proposal. Sometime later, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obama Eats Dogs, another editor proposed merging Seamus (dog) and Obama Eats Dogs into Dogs in the 2012 United States presidential election, which I actually liked better than my original idea - I posted a pointer to the AfD merge discussion here. After that, yet another editor created yet another merge discussion at Talk:Seamus (dog) here.

    So basically, there are now three discussions regarding slightly different variants of the same idea. Does anyone have any ideas for perhaps deciding which one place is the best venue, and perhaps hatting/closing the others? I would give it a shot myself but I am an involved editor. Any help welcome. Kelly hi! 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly's take is pretty much spot on. It is messy. I am the editor that created the last mentioned thread on the talk page, and I did so because I think an AFD for a different article is not the correct venue for the discussion, but I'm ok with what ever consensus arises obviously. I'm not 100% sure ANI is the right venue for this, but it's not really much of a "dispute" as much as a procedural problem, so admin help would be quite welcome. SÆdontalk 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To thus of us who remember the relentless edit-warring from 2008 and 2009 over politicians' articles (liberal and conservative both), it's unfortunate that there seems to be no improvement since then. This kind of garbage does not belong in a "real" encyclopedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look on the bright side - I don't anything can ever be as bad as Sarah Palin in late 2008, with hundreds of edits per minute and wheel-warring involved admins. I think I still have PTSD from that article. Kelly hi! 23:39, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think things are that bad tbh. In a couple months it'll all be worked out and might be a GA, all just part of the process. SÆdontalk 23:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeh, sure. Just you wait, 'Enry 'Iggins. And I missed the obvious-as-the-nose-on-my-face comment that wikipedia is "going to the dogs". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's just hope the dogs are Keeshonds :). SÆdontalk 05:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe WP:RECENT needs to be a speedy criterion.WTucker (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually I'd like to take issue with something in the first line of this thread. User:Kelly says "everyone involved was acting in good faith" but I think there is a possibility that this is not true in her case. Judging by her involvement with the Seamus article, creating the new Obama article, and her responses at the various talk pages, as well as her pattern of disruptive editing in the past, I think she may be gaming the system and/or treating it all like a game. Or at the least, looking to take advantage of the mess to wear others out. El duderino (abides) 05:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      What else did I do? I have to admit, so far it sounds like I am a Very Bad Person and should be investigated immediately. Kelly hi! 06:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the mess would have been completely prevented had you not created the Obama Eats Dogs article. The mess stems from that. The Seamus article is fine where it is or under 'Mitt Romney dog controversy'. The Obama non-issue can be added as a tiny mention on the Seamus article, as a reaction to it. Softlavender (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's really a content issue, we were just looking for some help with the procedural stuff. Kelly hi! 06:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure thing. I propose a topic ban on Kelly relating to all articles, images, and templates concerning the 2012 election, its candidates, and any related issues, such as memes. How's that? Viriditas (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with Viriditas. Kelly, you obviously have to wait for your Obama Eats Dogs article to be deleted. Then the discussion can occur in one place: on the Talk page of the Seamus article, where it should. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Topic Ban Given Kelly's conduct in this instance, and reviewing last years Sarah Palin fiasco, I agree that Kelly should not be involved with anything related to the 2012 elections. There are other users who should also get said topic bans, but none of them had the temerity to blatantly violate WP:POINT, and none of them to my knowledge did it last time as well. Hipocrite (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Heh - perhaps someone should first submit some evidence of my poor conduct? Kelly hi! 12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure thing. You started an article named Obama Eats Dogs, which was created by this unreliable source, based on this gossip blog which does not meet the reliable source guidelines established on Wikipedia. Anything else? Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's the only source? Kelly hi! 13:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Care to tell me how a so-called "meme" started by a partisan gossip blog is an acceptable source? You wouldn't be trying to use Wikipedia to push a political POV now, would you? Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope - actually the whole intent is to balance the POV in Seamus (dog) by including the other camp's response< which is why I would personally like to see a merge of the two. I think the article is sourced to acceptably reliable sources like the Washington Post and ABC News. Is there a problem with neutrality in the wording of the article? (We're veering into content issues here.) Kelly hi! 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That sounds like POV pushing. One could write an entire article about Seamus without ever mentioning "Obama Eats Dogs". The only one linking the two issues is an unreliable partisan gossip blog, who you appear to be representing. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It sounds like the Grundle Method of NPOV, honestly. The belief that a Good Fact(tm) placed near a Bad Fact(tm) results in NPOV is a common error seen in partisan editors. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, Kelly, but I have to endorse a topic ban from articles related to the 2012 election as well. It's nothing personal, I just think that it's pretty clear you're trying to push a POV here. Based on your comment above, you seem to unintentionally confirm the gaming accusation against you by saying that the reason you created the Obama eats dog article was to get a POV in, hoping that the content would be merged (against consensus on the Seamus talk page). Even after I explained very logically why what Obama did as a 6 year old is a red herring in respect to the Romney dog issue, you pressed the point without any sort of logical argument as to how the issues are related. You had to know that Obama eats dog would have gone to AFD immediately, it's just so obviously a POV fork, and that tells me that you're not able to edit in this are dispassionately. SÆdontalk 20:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that we even have a Wikipedia article on a dog spending a few hours riding on a roof of a car shows how easily the Wikipedia system is gamed. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's an election year. This crap always pops up when the US Presidency is up for grabs. It's only going to get worse once the GOP convention is over, and the full campaigning starts. There's a reason I stay away from politics articles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Which reminds me, it is probably about time to look at candidate bios for senate and house races, as this is the point in the election cycle where we see puff pieces arise. Hopefully there will be less hissy fits when articles are pruned as oppose dto the last time around. Tarc (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So first, is, or has there been, an RFC/U for Kelly? If not, I suggest the those asking for a topic ban get busy. Second, think you guys could move your Topic ban comments to a different subsection? I barely even noticed that it had been proposed, and I doubt I'm the only one. Oh, and Oppose. Arkon (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    An RFCU has never been a prerequisite for a topic ban. SÆdontalk 00:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but it is a step in dispute resolution, specifically user conduct issues. If that is your goal anyway. Which it doesn't appear to be. Arkon (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My goal is a neutral article specifically and a well built encyclopedia in general. I am apolitical and I don't vote. If I was forced to choose between Romney and Obama I would flip a coin. I supported a topic ban because I believe it is best for the encyclopedia and for no other reason. SÆdontalk 04:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This general subject seems to be crying out for a home. Many presidents have had interactions with dogs, one way or another. There was the Bushes' dog, for example, a pint-sized pup that attacked reporters. And there was the case of LBJ, who took a lot of heat for lifting his beagles by their ears. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That's actually a pretty damn decent idea, Bugs. First dogs anyone? SÆdontalk 00:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FDR had a dog named Fala. And then there was the infamous Nixon speech about a family dog named Checkers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more than just dogs, though (Socks the Cat during Clinton's administration.) Pets of the United States Presidents is a bit clunky, but would be an accurate starting point. We'd just want to keep it narrowed down to the notable ones. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note though that Checkers speech, certainly highly notable, is the article; Checkers (dog) redirects there. And Checkers was only a vice presidential dog anyway, she died in 1964.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Here's what needs to happen. First Obama eats dogs will rightfully be deleted as an unencylopedic POV endeavor at AfD. The next day Seamus (dog) will rightfully be deleted as an unencyclopedic POV endeavor at AfD. Then some POV warrior, bitterly unhappy that their new favorite distractions have been eliminated from WP will start a Dogs In Politics 2012 piece attempting to synthesize the two competing deleted POV essays into a new unencyclopedic POV endeavor and THAT will be rightfully deleted at AfD. Then the POV warriors will move along to something else. Start taking names for the inevitable topic bans to follow... Carrite (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion

    AfD speedy NC'd to let things cool off. WP:TEA for everyone. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Regarding Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire

    I feel that a number of editors are ganging up on anyone who proposes keeping this article. The tone is uncivil, biting the newbies and nonconstructive. Editors have asked for explanation, help, evidence, guidance and clarification - but have instead been shot down in flames. Looking at the edit history of some of those involved, I honestly believe looking at the contributions of User:Salimfadhley ; User talk:Fmph and User:Dominus Vobisdu that there seems to be a cabal with a single interest of deleting such pages. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I fixed your link. 28bytes (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    People disagree. That's what's happening there - people are disagreeing with you on whether the article meets guidelines for inclusion, that's all. I think you threw out the accusations of bullying quite early. Those are completely unhelpful. If you can provide some diffs of people being uncivil or non-constructive then that's a different matter. If you can't, then I think you'll just have to deal with the fact that most of the editors there just happen to believe the article is not suitable. (Also, a cabal with the single interest of deleting pages about schools? That would be the most boring, pointless cabal in the world...) OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your humour and reply. I can deal with disagreements. I'm happy to accept it if an admin wants to throw the article out - I just want to know why, and how I can edit better to avoid this kind of thing happening. I think the abuse and dismissive tone of the editors is unfair. I want to do the right thing, produce a good article, one which meets the notability standard. Will someone please tell me clearly, what is wrong with the article, so I can try and do the positive and constructive thing, which would be to try and fix it. That's all I'm asking. I don't expect to be crapped on for asking that. Every time I've (and others) asked them to explain what the issue is, they quote policies, avoid answering, put up some patronising comment and refuse to give a clear reason which I can look at, and work out a way of improving the article from. That kind of offhanded and uncivil behaviour gives this place a bad name - in my view. As for the 'diffs' I'm sorry but I don't know how to do those - but if you look at the users' talk pages and their edit history you will see that the same behaviour is evident on many other pages and with many other editors. I really want to do the right thing here - but if noone is prepared to be reasonable then it really is too much stress and hassle to waste my evenings on - I have a family that's more important than all this. 213.246.90.36 (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A diff is like this, showing an edit to a page. I have looked at the article talk and the AFD discussion and I really don't see why you think this was done out of spite. The other users are quoting policies, yes, the notability policies that they think the article fails. If their tone is unpleasant it's probably because they've been accused of bullying and witch-hunting because they are examining the notability of the article in question. I haven't the time to examine the sources of the article in-depth to see if I think it's adequately meeting WP:RS or WP:GNG, but from the discussion on the AFD, the other users feel that the sources are inadequate. I appreciate that you don't want the article to be deleted, but can't you see that your own behaviour is highly imperfect? Accusing others of bullying never helps. Remember to comment on content, not the editors themselves. OohBunnies! Leave a message 00:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    These edits appear nonconstructive at the very least: [6] [7] [8] [9] 10:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinman (talk • contribs)

    • It would help to have some adminstrative eyes on this AfD and the associated article. The discussion is becoming quite heated and uncivil (especially in recent edit summaries, e.g. [10], [11]) and there is some potentially ducky behaviour going on. Voceditenore (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin Attention on MMA

    I think it is time for me to post here about MMA and the off-wiki activity going on, following on from Some goon on Wikipedia is trying to get all of the UFC Event pages removed(I particularly like the bit about how WP update[s] with results before they announce the decision in the cage) , I think some independent and more experienced (admin) eyes are needed at the UFC articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts, I have not notified any one editor about this as there are far too many to select out individually, and though I suspect I know the wiki account of the author of that article my understanding naming it could be WP:OUTING.Mtking (edits) 01:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This is all about the war between the online MMA community and the Wikipedia community. Previously, I have nominated Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning for deletion (here), but everyone seems to want to turn their ears off to the fact that Wikipedia is all about winning and losing and who comes out on top – just like all the MMA competitors. --MuZemike 05:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there need to be more eyes on that issue. I've seen some questionable arguments on both sides, and we had a recent ANI about an experienced admin calling scores BLP material... probably needs more attention. I'm not involved enough to have formed an opinion. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In the end we have a lot of editors using Wikipedia as their own personal MMA wiki (which already exists elsewhere). The individual articles on fights are purely results services and nearly all of them fail WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOT#STATS etc. To give a parallel elsewhere, it would be like creating an article for every regular season NFL or Premier League fixture (indeed, one could probably find better sources for those). The amount of cluelessness at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts is stunning; "These people must be violating some Wikipedia policy for nominating pages they clearly know are not going to be deleted. Even if they aren't MMA fans, they should know trying to remove a UFC event page is like trying to delete any year's NFL Super Bowl Finals page, it simply won't happen." or worse, threats of puppetry "I can go to Sherdog or The Underground right now and bring back hundreds of people, if not more, and we can take that straw poll again. I guarantee you that your opinion will be in the extreme minority." Take a look at UFC 140, and then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 140 (2nd nomination), and weep ... Black Kite (talk) 06:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example is of last weeks UFC 145 and the discussion at Talk:UFC 145#Notability? over the {{notability|event}} template, the article still is only sourced to MMA websites, there is zero prose on the event it's self, no claim made (sourced or otherwise) to how this event is of historical significance. Would be it any other sporting event likely be merged/redirected or deleted with no fuss. Mtking (edits) 07:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    At this stage, I personally would not count it a great loss if the entire wikiproject for MMA was vaped. Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe someone would like to have a chat with User:Beansy about his bulk removals of {{notability|event}} templates and his edit summaries. Mtking (edits) 11:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering you've admitted you clearly do not "understand or care about" MMA, perhaps someone should have a chat with you, User:Mtking, about your massive single-person campaign to remove dozens of significant MMA event pages. This is not a sport like baseball where MLB has over 2000 games in a regular season, or like the NFL which as over 250 not including post-season or pre-season. There are about 45 major MMA events (most of them being the UFC and Strikeforce events) and about 100 second-tier events each year in the entire sport. Trying to remove something like UFC 144 which is a truly historical event that sent shockwaves through the scandal-ridden kakoutougi industry in Japan (general term for all combat sports) by its mere existence and success, not to mention the fact that a World Title changed hands (and there are a lot fewer world champions in MMA than in say, boxing) is particularly galling and demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about the subject, yet you have been crusading non-stop for several weeks now to try and delete as many articles as possible. It's strongly indicative of malice on your part at this point. As for KSW, it specifically is indeed second-tier, but they are the largest promotion in Europe and routinely watched by millions of people in Europe, and the face of the organization is one Mariusz Pudzianowski who is one of the most famous people in all of Poland. KSW results are still fair game for an omnibus compression I suppose, but you don't seem to know a thing about this subject and you've been rebutted numerous times on meeting wiki guidelines, yet you've maintained a fanatical crusade specifically against MMA for completely unclear reasons. Perhaps you could re-direct your efforts towards a cleaning up entries on a sport or subject matter you actually care about, instead of specifically on something you hate. Beansy (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been participating in these sorts of deletion procedures since last summer. I've seen hundreds of SPAs in these processes. Hundreds. There's such a coordinated pattern of socking and meatpuppetting here, I'm beginning to wonder if something more serious than mere votestacking is going on. With the enormous amount of betting which surrounds these events, I'm wondering whether the side money community is involved. Scottywong's recent closure of UFC142 points out the need for an RFC. I agree. BusterD (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I did not know about this until a little over an hour ago, but considering that this is a sport with a huge online community (because, well, it's a somewhat major sport), and now that word of what is going on in wikipedia is happening, it wouldn't surprise me in the least that you're getting flooded with resistance to this sort of fanatical campaign. Imagine if someone tried deleting Miami Dolphins pages. There would be a tidal wave of resistance (and rightly so) and that's just one NFL team. Oh, and as for how wikipedia pages affect betting, if someone is going to make a patently ridiculous accusation like that, they really ought to explain how on earth wikipedia pages affect gambling or aide in illegal gambling, especially any more so than any other major sport. Beansy (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate User:Beansy demonstrating the problem we're dealing with. Regardless of the motivation, certainly a WP:BATTLEGROUND stance has been taken by the vast number of SPAs which arise anytime one of these events is discussed. Based on the edit history for UFC145, such articles should be at least semi-protected during the event to prevent the chat-like flow of edits. Name calling and ad hominum attacks are the norm in AfDs on the subject. It's clear in this content area that we're not working together to create the best online encyclopedia. As a community, we need to figure out the best way forward. This case-by-case stuff works in favor of the SPAs, not policy or pillars. BusterD (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your levelheadedness in that "we need to figure out the best way forward." I 100% agree with that and have proven entirely open to change in the past (when all of the Bellator pages got AfD, I created the seasonal pages as suggested). However, I'm not sure you understand the context in which two editors took a suggestion from an admin upon themselves and completely changed all of the UFC pages to an omnibus (where they initially wanted no results) with little discussion from users. That event is what kicked this entire thing off. Additionally, Mtking's campaign of multiple AfDs seems to have little bearing on making things better, but more on wanting to argue and be right (via constant Wikilawyering; example seen here on my talk page). It is ironic that he is all for pushing the omnibus article, yet rarely contributes to it. I'm all for finding a solution, but this latest round of AfDs has proved even less successful. Udar55 (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting thought given the statement made in the bloodyelbow article above. Mtking (edits) 11:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in UFC events (2nd nomination) has been started. Mtking (edits) 11:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, Mtking. It's faintly amusing that the MMA meatpuppets stoutly defend the right of individual match articles to exist, while going after the portmanteau articles with a bad faith nomination. Let me get this straight: MMA event articles are notable, but articles on whole years aren't? That being said, turning my attention to Beansy, why, NO: if people were to attempt to make articles on individual Miami Dolphins games (each of which have many more people and many more viewers than any individual MMA event), they would be swiftly and uncontroversially deleted. The way sports seasons are handled, after all, is with annual articles much like the one you're advocating deleting. Ravenswing 12:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, first off, nice ad-hominem attack on MMA fans, lovely impartiality there, clearly you have an even disposition towards the subject. Secondly, the argument is for individual event articles to exist (typically there are around 11 matches per MMA event today) not matches. I cannot think of a single individual match that has its own page (maybe there are a few exceptions). Thirdly, I said "pages" not games. As in existing ones. You have different pages for each season, each post-season, etc., going back to its inception. The entire NFL has 32 such teams. The season pages tend to be extremely detailed. But that's just the NFL right? Then many if not all Arena Football League teams also get their own season pages. Also the World League of America football. Each Frankfurt Galaxy season has its own page. But maybe that's not the best direct comparison. Take tennis then. There are different pages for each of several hundred significant tournaments each year. In the entire global sport of MMA like I said there are about 45 top-tier events, and 100 second-tier events, many of the latter of which are already omnibused (Bellator, for example, as it is the only major or second-tier MMA promotion to act on a "seasonal" basis), before getting into the thousands of minor events that generally are not mentioned. This is because average fighter has only 2 or 3 fights a year once they reach the elite levels (and with a few notable exceptions, maybe 4 or 5 a year max before the elite level), compared to the two dozen tournaments a tennis player might have. There are tons of obscure sports pages like that. When I wanted to find out Olympian-turned-MMA-fighter Hector Lombard's Olympic judo record, at first I was unable to since the 2000 Olympic Judo results only listed the medal winners but then I found tournament pages for each weight class. Why isn't anyone deleting those? There's no prose or anything, just information. I guess because they contain useful information which is exactly what one goes to wikipedia for and they haven't caught the attention of some wiki-crusader. Please try and have some perspective on things and at least pretend to be neutral here so this battleground doesn't get any worse. Beansy (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's notable to mention that one of the more seasoned and reasonable supporters of these individual pages has proposed that canvassing for more chat board participants is the best way forward. BusterD (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And a good proposal it is if it is read from an uninvolved viewpoint. We already have a battleground so things can't get any worse. But if Anna's suggestion succeeds then we can get a number of new and dedicated editors developing the subject matter in line with our procedures. Can only be an improvement. Agathoclea (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD closed. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 14:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Outdent) I have to say, I'm very disturbed by the level of battleground behavior from the MMA proponents. There are some suggestions on that blog of escalation into real-life harassment of WP editors (search for "the IP. GET the IP."; you can't link to individual comments). This is fairly typical behavior from bloodyelbow and its associated blogs/forums; an RFC might be a better solution than trying to hash this out on ANI. Bobby Tables (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    As a editor in relatively good standing, having worked with several of the key players in the MMA Project space, I would be disheartened to burn the entire MMA article space to the ground. For every editor we chastize into oblivion and off for violating the policies of WP, 5 more will join as SPAs for the single purpose of expressing support for any MMA article regardless of it's notability, independence, or reliability. After multiple sockpuppets, Canvassing attempts, and single purpose attack accounts I'm considering requesting Arbitration for the explicit purpose of seeking Discretionary Sanctions for the MMA article space so that admins can be more proactive with conduct issues. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like it's going that way. That'd also set a very refreshing precedent for other WikiProjects which simply opt out of collaborating with the rest of the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to go that route, make a request at WP:AN; that's what we did for Indian caste articles when we realized it would be necessary, and it's worked there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hasteur: I agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights that the easiest way to propose this kind of sanction is via community authorized discretionary sanctions instead of Arbcom. It's especially appropriate when the abuse is blatant. To see the example about Indian caste articles, open up WP:General sanctions and search for 'caste'. EdJohnston (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbCom also probably won't touch this right now due to the lack of prior dispute resolution. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention, what could ArbCom do, anyways, that could possibly resolve this, given that neither side will agree to anything? --MuZemike 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    DRN Try #1, DRN Try #2, this evidence section showing repeated misbehavior besides the user it was created for,ANI discussion, and more are not attempts at dispute resolution? Ending sarcasam here. The toxic enviroment that the fanatics create is why multiple experienced editors are fleeing the topic space. Hasteur (talk) 21:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Afd has been started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in Super Fight League. Mtking (edits) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy closed as a pointy nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    more off-wiki canvassing can be seen at Nerds are ruining MMA on wikipedia - help out. Mtking (edits) 01:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm about to fade out for the night, but I will be around daily. If it gets too disruptive with SPAs, I will see about page protection (I'm still learning new tools, you have to cut me a little slack as I'm not inclined to get cowboy with them). I'm not too worried. Much of that is just talk, and we have dealt with flood before by blocks when forced to. I'm hoping it doesn't come to that, but I'm tired of standing still and want to simply build a clear consensus of real editors and will see it to the end. It is currently a confusing mess. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 01:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    6badboy77 Removing deletion tags and suspected sockpuppetry

    I submitted the Michael T. Dunn page for deletion because of lack of notability. Twice now, 6badboy77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed the deletion tag (here and again here.) I subsequently learned that the same person's vanity page was previously deleted here, but the name used then was Michael Thomas Dunn, so it appears to have gone undetected for some time.

    I have also grown to suspect that 6badboy77 is engaged in sockpuppetry, based on the information I have detailed here in my Sockpuppet investigation request. But, I figured I should report the deletion tag removal here, as well.JoelWhy (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I reported you for violating Wikipedia rules (e.g. repeatedly removing the delete tag from the Michael Dunn page, deleting comments critical of Michael Dunn, etc) and for being a suspected sockpuppet. I've also submitted virtually all of your content on Wikipedia for deletion because it nearly all involves promotional material for a director who lacks notability. If that's harassment, I'm guilty as charged.JoelWhy (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This apparent legal threat may be grounds for an indef in and of itself. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This too - clear intent to produce a chilling effect; blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed topic ban for Hipocrite

    Consensus appears to be that the repeated AfD rationale is justified. User:Hipocrite stated he intends to notify article creators of his AfD nominations in the future. Further discussion of AfD notifications in general should be taken to Village Pump or WT:AFD. Equazcion (talk) 15:28, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I have been noticing problems with the conduct of User:Hipocrite with regard to pornographic articles. Right now, there is a long discussion about the rewording of WP:PORNBIO going on. For some reason, Hipocrite was initially !voting "delete" in AfDs about possibly non-notable pornstars with the reasoning usually being something like, "Closing admin - WP:PORNBIO is depreciated [sic] and should be disregarded." (Like the closing admin is just going to take his/her word for it?) I kept telling him/her that that isn't true; in fact, it came to the point that I had to issue him/her a warning (which also shows that I am not the only user to bring this to his/her attention). For a few days it seemed like s/he stopped, but I come home from work tonight and I discover that not only did s/he nominate a few of the articles I created for deletion ([12] [13] [14]), s/he didn't even notify me about it (check my talk page and even my talk page archive for proof). That all kind of reeks of bad faith. In addition, as you can see from the above diffs, lately s/he has now even been saying that WP:PORNBIO isn't a guideline at all.

    Because of all this, I propose a topic ban on Hipocrite for pornography-related articles until s/he understands that there's a difference between WP:IAR and just dismissing a guideline on the basis of just not liking it (being under discussion does not necessarily equate to being deleted). If a topic ban is deemed too harsh, is there any other way to get him/her to stop this behavior? This situation seems too intense for WP:WQA. (And for the record, unlike Hipocrite, I actually am going to notify him/her of this discussion.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Erpert, WP:PORNBIO is depreciated because it's too lax, and some editors refuse to update it. In the last years, the notability requirements have gotten stricter, and this guideline is showing its age. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    An example of the problem: following Erpert's preferred wording of the guideline, if a group scene with half a dozen people receives a group award, then every every actor and actress in the scene are automatically via WP:PORNBIO and gets an article. Even if he/she doesn't have any coverage in any reliable sources beyond his/her name appearing in the award's list of names. Erpert has reverted several improvements to WP:PORNBIO [15][16][17], Erpert's opinion in bottom of the diff --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. We can consider it to be de facto depreciated by the lack of consensus to enforce it. Guidelines and policies are reflective of community norms, not dictorial, and as of late there have been several points made against the guideline as written. My suggestion is to work out a new guideline asap. Oppose topic ban, but would ask that Hipocrite makes sure to remember to notify Erpert in the event he nominates his articles for deletion. I'm sure it was just an oversight. SÆdontalk 08:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hipocrite has already nominated Erpert's articles: Elexis Monroe AfD, Janet Mason AfD. And no, he has not remembered to notify Erpert :-( (why can't we all be friends and have a group hug?) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Enric, I explained those reversions on the talk page, and other users agreed with me in all those cases. But that's all I want to say about that here because I don't want to be accused of canvassing. But Saedon, I like to assume good faith, but do you really think it was an oversight every single time? I even told Hipocrite about it the first time s/he did it. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 09:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Without looking too into it (it's way passed my bedtime) I agree it looks off, but I suppose that's where the A in AGF comes in. I would like to see Hipocrite's response. SÆdontalk 10:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never notified article creators about AFD. If that's part of the process, it should be added to the basic toolbox "nominate afd" that comes standard, or it should be noted on the article-page template, or it should be noted on the AFD page template, or it should be noted on the AFD instructions at Wikipedia:AFDHOWTO#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion. I ignored Erpert's templating of me because it started with a " Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed," which was false in all cases, combative, and a clear violation of WP:DTR. Hipocrite (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm...whenever I use the Twinkle interface to nom an article for AFD, it automagically notifies the creator. WP:TRR and all. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not use twinkle. Hipocrite (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TTR maybe? Jafeluv (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Afd how to says "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Therefore, while it would be better if Hipocrite notified editors, there's no justification for a topic ban (or another one sanction) if they chose not to. Nobody Ent 10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if Hipocrite didn't start providing notices from this point onward, there would be a problem. There are a lot of things that aren't required around here, but not doing them over-and-over will get you a ban of some sort. Not following WP:BEFORE over and over would be such a case. And Hipocrite, IMO, isn't always very collegial in discussions related to the PORNBIO topic. So I'd hope an outcome of this discussion would be folks urging Hipocrite to be sure to be collegial and asking them to provide AfD notices, especially inside of this topic area. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I intend to provide AFD notices going forward. If there is a problem with my "collegiality," I'd appreciate it being brought to my attention on my talk page, with specificity, and not with a template that informs me that my edits are disruptive and have been reverted and that I'm going to be blocked for daring to disagree. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When I initiate an AfD, I consciously do not give any editor a notice about the discussion, sorry. If someone is interested in enough in an article, then the onus is on them and how they manage their watchlist, not anyone else. I would emphatically reject any suggestion here that an editor be required to perform a purely optional and IMO meaningless action. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agree with Tarc, for several reasons: (a) the number of people who have made significant contributions to an article is often impossible to delimit; (b) none of the editors who have contributed to the article own it; (c) notifying a specific group of users may well bring just the wrong set of people to the AfD debate (the whole point about AfD is to get outside feedback, not feedback from those who already have a vested interest in an article); (c) we have watchlists for a reason; (d) I generally refuse to do any manual notifications in deletion matters beyond those that are easily automatable through Twinkle and similar tools, as a matter of principle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Twinkle does it already, so... I make sure to notify the creator, because... well, it's just the nice thing to do. The "if they cared enough they'd make sure to know" argument gets used for a lot of different things and it's dubious. Watchlists aren't that reliable and we don't have the tools to keep them all that organized, despite many of us asking for that ability each passing year. It's nice to recognize that we're all in that same crappy boat and notify each other of certain things we'd especially like to be notified about, being that we can't can't currently have our watchlists especially notify of things we care especially about. Equazcion (talk) 13:13, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    Interesting, I didn't know that people would publicly admit that they would deliberately attempt to hide a deletion nomination from the article's creator in an attempt to keep "the wrong set of people" from participating in a deletion discussion. I knew User:TreasuryTag did that, but I just assumed that was just TreasuryTag being TreasuryTag. Looks like it may be time to write a bot to notify the poor sods that aren't given the common courtesy of a notification that someone intends for their contributions to be removed. Anyway, kudos to Hipocrite for offering to do the courteous thing here regarding notifications. 28bytes (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Said bot already exists, and is why I didn't waste my time with notifying creators (the same way I don't waste my time rescuing references) - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Erwin85Bot_8. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a rescinding of "I intend to provide AFD notices going forward," above, or are you just referring to past instances? Equazcion (talk) 13:56, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    Pay careful attention to my tensing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, I thought it said "don't". I'm slightly dyslexic. Still, there's no reason to be snarky. We're all friends here =D Equazcion (talk) 14:15, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    Looks like that bot hasn't edited since 2010. 28bytes (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask the creator for the source Download the source [18] and restart it. Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Grabbed it. Thanks for the link. 28bytes (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is talking about 'deliberately attempt[ing] to hide' deletion nominations, 28bytes, and it's beneath you to misrepresent people's comments that way. I think everyone agrees that deletion nominations should be accompanied by a clear and explicit edit summary, so that everyone who has an article on his watchlist has a fair chance to participate. (This should, incidentally, automatically bias participation in the AfD towards individuals with an interest in the topic.) I'm not persuaded, however, that compulsory talk page notifications are necessary or beneficial, largely for the reasons that Equazcion suggests.
    Not that this will ever happen, but it would probably be good for the process and for Wikipedia's content if the first day or so after an AfD nomination didn't involve any editors who had even heard of the article's subject, let alone edited the article, so that we would be able to get an idea of what editors coming to the article 'cold' were seeing. The best 'defence' for an article isn't widespread notification/canvassing of every editor who might have touched an article, but rather writing articles that are firmly based on good-quality sources that clearly demonstrate the importance and relevance of a given topic. An article which accomplishes this does not need the intervention of its creator to pass AfD (and is frankly unlikely to be nominated in the first place). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My statement was actually in favor of notification. Did you mean to say someone else? Anyway, I think the purpose of this thread has been served, since Hiprocrite says he intends to notify in the future. Equazcion (talk) 14:42, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    TenOfAllTrades, I misrepresented absolutely nothing and I would appreciate it you retracted that accusation. The plain English interpretation of "notifying a specific group of users may well bring just the wrong set of people to the AfD debate" is that the nominator would prefer that the article creator and others likely to !vote keep not know about the deletion discussion. If you've got a more plausible interpretation, I'd like to hear it. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)In a rational world, rather than worrying about what an individual editor did do, didn't do, or won't do or will do Wikipedia would do the necessary consensus building to have a coherent policy -- that is, either Afd says yes notify or not required. Nobody Ent 15:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think either of you meant what you're accusing each other of. Notification is open to interpretation. I'd say it's good, since it can be especially disheartening to miss an AfD and find out later that something you created got deleted without anyone letting you know it was even nominated. I could understand it being seen as slanting the discussion too, but I think closing admins know to take creators' comments with a grain of salt (if they don't then that's the real problem), so the benefit of notifying outweighs the conceivable detriment. Equazcion (talk) 15:04, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't support a topic ban, not by a long stretch. If a user is saying something you don't like about content/policy/guidelines, shutting them up is rarely the answer. Instead I would suggest talking to them about the content/policy/guidelines. Also, it's courteous to notify the creator of an AfD but not required. If the article was recently created by an active user, they're most likely going to have it on their watchlist anyway. OohBunnies! Leave a message 10:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing much good faith in this proposal. The filer has been on the losing end of some pornbio-related AfDs lately, and this smacks of trying to rid oneself of an editor with an opposing POV. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Topic bans should not be used to appease an aggrieved editor, and no such ban is warranted here anyway. Seeing as this has now become a discussion on the advisability of notifying article creators about AfDs, perhaps it would be best closed or moved elsewhere? WT:AfD perhaps? pablo 13:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Rinpoche Back Via Proxy

    User:Rinpoche posted on User:Drmies talk page via a proxy. Could an admin block the initial proxy account for the stardard 5 years and then block the whole range for the same? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey, I wish you had dropped me a line (I blocked the 81 IP)--if you had, I wouldn't have embarrassed myself! (See section below.) Drmies (talk) 15:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry about not notifying you about the ANI thread. I was just about to signoff for the night when I seen that post by Rinpoche and I posted to ANI. I am actually surprised it was coherent as tired as I was. :) Anywho, my apologizes, will definitely make sure all are notified in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we please get evidence (up here, so it doesn't get lost in the discussion) of the harassment? Revdeled is fine: I have magic glasses. I am not aware of it; I apologize if I'm asking for something redundant. I see some oversighted edits but my magic glasses aren't that strong. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed community ban for Rinpoche

    Further to the above, as this guy incessantly returns to cause more disruption in various places under various sock accounts, I propose a full community ban from wikipedia, so that his edits can simply be reverted immediately once they have been identified.

    Normally I would agree with you, but to give an example of why a ban would be useful: my most recent interaction with him involved an RfC started by a sock of his regarding an issue which had already been addressed. After he was blocked he could no longer flog the horse, but the RfC still had to be allowed to run its course because redacting comments made by blocked users is against guidelines, whereas doing the same for a banned user is recommended (if I understand things correctly). Blocks and bans are two different things; there are subtle differences in the way they are applied. I think a ban would be useful in this instance. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 11:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't understand correctly. All edits made by block evading editors and by banned editors are subject to precisely the same restrictions.—Kww(talk) 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Identified by whom? Nobody Ent 11:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Any good faith editor is the prevailing standard. There's no requirement to wait for a checkuser, SPI enquiry, or any form a elaborate consensus-seeking proposal.—Kww(talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know where you have got that from. The policy says that any edit of a sitebanned user may be reverted, AfD closed etc etc. It says nothing similar about an editor who is simply blocked. Indeed how could it, as many editors are indefinitely blocked for quite short periods of time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Edits made in defiance of blocks have always been revertable, Elen. I don't know why you believe otherwise. WP:BAN#Difference between bans and blocks details the issue under "Content created during block or ban" in the table.—Kww(talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't said that for very long: it was changed relatively recently. All they way up until that point, there was nothing on that page to indicate that edits of blocked editors could be reverted without question. I don't see any discussion on the talk page relating to that change (I could be missing it), so it must have been a bold one. Noting in the blocking policy says that blocked editors can be reverted without question. Doc talk 15:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite incidentally, I opened a discussion on a very similar question just a few hours ago, at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#3RR exception for edits by blocked users. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was coincident with this discussion. An indefinitely blocked editor that no one will unblock is de facto banned, and we've always treated them that way. Reverting an editor based on "block evasion" has always been accepted, and WP:CSD#G5 specifically includes both blocked and banned editors. Not a very bold edit at all.—Kww(talk) 16:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out on your talk page, your change had the unfortunate side-effect of all blocked editors, not just indeffed, having their edits reverted without question. Ouch. Doc talk 17:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not an unfortunate side-effect at all. If someone evades a block, it's block evasion, and the content created during block evasion is subject to reversion and deletion. Content created before or after a block is not.—Kww(talk) 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the unfortunate side-effect is it gives wiki-warriors license to bite any new editor that has the misfortune to resemble a banned/blocked editor without the benefit of consensus and good faith. Nobody Ent 17:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an involved "Any good faith editor" with virtually no grasp of Wikipedia banning/blocking technicalities, I'd just like to add moral support to Basilisk's point that this pseudo-Rinpoche guy continues to disrupt with his smelly-sock reincarnations. —MistyMorn (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. Over the last several days this individual has been posting from a host of different IPs, engaging in outing attempts directed at a minor, as well as boasting about the off-wiki harassment that he also mentions in the post to Drmies' page linked above. The vast majority of his dozens of posts over these last few days have had to be revdel'd, a fair proportion have also been oversighted, and several rangeblocks put in place to limit the harassment. My presumption was that the person was already banned. If they aren't, then it's way past time. (Information from elsewhere suggests they are better known under another troublemaking name, but I'll leave that for people who know more of the background to either comment on or not). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The nuances are different for a block and a ban. When there is a question of extending an indef block to a ban, routine approval of the ban is probably the simplest action to take, unless it's one of those indefinite-for-now blocks where the person might be unblocked at any time if they agree to change their behavior. Rinpoche is a guy whose talk edits are now being rev-deleted, so he is pretty far gone from normal editing. I am notifying the two blocking admins in case they want to comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support ban, wastes community time (User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch89#Lede image Major depressive disorder), but even after blocking, was still posting via multiple IPs to MastCell's talk.[19] Good luck with this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support They shouldn't be allowed to edit here again without clear community consensus as they have shown they are unwilling to comply with the terms of the block. The problems at Major Depressive Disorder alone justify the ban, plus I've had to revert a few of their sock comments on my own talk page [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] and sent him to SPI here. A civil sockpuppet is still a sockpuppet. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and a particularly bad faith one, it would seem. A few hours before User:LHirsig was identified as a sock of Rinpoche, the user page rapidly expanded (diffs nla) to provide personal and family history, together with a committed identity. I found that quite striking. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    To ban or not to ban?

    Close: leave the section for now since I linked to it in a couple of places.

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Eye candy to draw you in. Why is this perspective so hypnotically striking?
    Hello all. I'll try to be succinct. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rinpoche/Archive. The editor done some bad things, apparently, socked around a bit, and is now IP-ing in what appears to be an attempt to set the record straight. On one of the IP talk pages they were referred to as a banned editor but I see no evidence that they actually were banned, though de facto that seems to be the case; see User talk:81.178.38.169. The user seems to have an urge to contribute though they deny that at the same time; I guess that's typical socking behavior. Right now they're hopping about a bit and got in touch with me (I blocked the 81 IP a little while ago).

    What I'd like to know is this. Should we ban the user, or should we not? My gut feeling is that acting as if there is already a ban (and some comments from good-willing but in my opinion overzealous editors on that IP talk page) only antagonizes the editor. Moreover, and I've asked for a second opinion on this, I think that the editor can contribute. We could, for instance, consider the standard offer with a topic ban (on some psychology-related articles) for good measure. Mind you, I have no dog in this fight, only Jimbo's miniature schnauzer: I don't necessarily want to break a lance for this editor, but I always dislike the piling-on that sometimes takes place. I think the editor has something to contribute.

    I'm going to drop a couple of notifications in various places and hope for some input that goes beyond the standard "turn de facto ban into real ban". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Errm... take a look at the section above this - may be related.. --Errant (chat!) 15:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    S**t. Hadn't looked at anything at all yet. Eh, can someone merge this carefully and elegantly? Drmies (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    AfD discussion getting out of hand

    AfD speedy closed so everyone can have a nice cup of tea before taking a second bite of the apple. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). There are lots of civility problems here and it's getting pretty tiring. Another editor "ask[ed] a couple of uninvolved administrators to keep a close eye on this discussion," but I'm not convinced that this will be enough. I haven't notified any of the individual participants of this ANI since there's far too many of them, and we're really talking about the discussion as a whole rather than one individual (at least, I assume that that's the case, but I'm starting to have my doubts). I will put a notice on the AfD promptly. If anyone else feels I should have individually notified everyone, feel free to do it. --NYKevin @683, i.e. 15:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. I posted a similar request today in the section higher up this page: Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire talk page and discussion. But in all the other drama here, it seems to have been completely ignored. I contacted one admin on their talk page, but haven't heard back yet. Please if any admins are reading this, your eyes would be appreciated. Voceditenore (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Immensely tiring and frustrating. And it has spread back to the source article as well. I do think some of the IPs are socks (poss unwitting socks) of some of the participants. There have been a number of instances where comments addressed to IP contribs have been answered by named contributors. Some eys would be much appreciated. Fmph (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, the building the school is housed in appears to be far more notable than the school. The building deserves an article; the school one should be merged to it ... Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, that's a fun suggestion. The AfD, y'all are just going to have to stick it out. Blocks may happen if the namecalling continues; someone may start an SPI. Otherwise, have a bit of faith that the closing admin will sort it out. I nominate Black Kite. And I second. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy cow, that's only two day's worth of discussion! I hate to be the admin who closes that. BTW, I sometimes think we should follow WP:IAR, close the AfD as a trainwreck, and start a brand new AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen much bigger AfD trainwrecks than this one. :/ Best to let it run its course, painful as it is. It's got another four days to run. I can't see a new one producing anything better, given the strong feelings of some of the participants, several of whom are new to Wikipedia. I was just hoping that a few more administrative eyes there and possibly an uninvolved "word to the wise" might help people to tone it down. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think A Quest for Knowledge had a good suggestion,and I boldly did it. The point of AfD is to discuss articles, and this one can best be discussed by starting over. There's no point adding another two days of interpersonal sniping. (FWIW, I have no fixed opinion on this actual article, & had I !voted, I would have said "Undecided". DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The result was speedy no consensus. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 21:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a couple of gentle reminders about warring on a couple editor talk pages, as they had been busy since the close. Not wanting to get dragged into this, however. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 21:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a t-shirt and a mop. You better get involved. The only reason I bribed so many editors to support you is that I want to have less work to do. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All the buttons scare me! Besides, everyone has listened to advice and things are ok in several areas tonight, so no need to use them. That's always my goal anyway. I still have more to read before I get click-happy. And keep talking like that and I might have to break them in on you. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 23:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • An absolutely awesome example of why the Elementary Schools Out, Secondary Schools In automatic rule of thumb is the way to go, versus debating the merits of every school in the world for notability. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:PurpleSteak

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved
     – indeffed as confirmed sock of JHerbertMunster

    This discussion is carried over from the Dispute resolution noticeboard, because repeated disruptive editing and general lack of cooperation by User:PurpleSteak, has turned this into more than just a content dispute. It started when he attempted to move the article General Joseph Colton to both "General Joseph B Colton" [29] (without the period), and to "General Joseph B. Colton" [30] (with the period). It was reverted both times by Favonian, who had reverted many edits by other users trying to perform the same cut and paste move.

    PurpleSteak has now proposed a move of the article to "General Joseph B. Colton", and has changed this information on other articles and files related to this article [31] [32]. He has left several messages on my talk page (Edits to Joe Colton and Joseph B. Colton), and I have mentioned the concepts of original research, reliable sources, and coming to a consensus on the article's talk page (Talk:General Joseph Colton#Requested move and edits), but my attempts to reason with PurpleSteak have fallen on deaf ears. In the meantime, he has continued to re-add several POV edits to the article, even after they have been disputed. [33] I believe that he is trying to prove a point, but he is going about it the wrong way, and he thinks that any information he can find online automatically supports his position, regardless of how relevant it is. I also believe that sock puppetry may be involved, since these edits were attempted by other users before PurpleSteak (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JHerbertMunster).

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    68.198.254.73 and Port Chester, New York

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
    Resolved
     – Blocked by User:Drmies

    Hi. A particular IP user, 68.198.254.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has persistently (since November 2011) been putting uncited, POV, and sometimes (according to some) incorrect information on the Port Chester, New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. The user has been warned repeatedly on their talk page, including a final warning at 2:01 am today, and has (since that warning) again posted the same problematic material. A notice of this discussion has been placed on the user's talk page. Blocking would be appreciated, unless it is concluded that semi-protection is preferred (I would not think so, given that it's the same IP address for several months...). Thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 17:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ‎User:Don Cuneo removing the Afd Template

    ‎User:Don Cuneo removed an AfD template from the article they created. I restored the template leaving an extended edit comment. They removed again. I leaved a notice at their talk page which they reverted. This exhausts the communication avenues available to me. I request a more experienced editor to re-explain them the policy and to restore the AfD template. Note that this is a new user and may require special care. The user will be now notified. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified him regarding the afd policy. Calabe1992 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also restored a tag on another article that he had erased. Calabe1992 18:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor looks very similar to User:King Genovese: stub articles about non-notable mob characters, and a great deal of blanking of deletion notices.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLongTone (talk • contribs)
    Hmmm. Let me take a look around at things. Calabe1992 20:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Stalker is showing an overlap on Carlo Profeta and Michael J. Perna, both of which were created by King and had a deletion template removed by Don (one AfD, one PROD). I've asked the user to disclose if he is the operator of both accounts, so we'll see where that goes. Calabe1992 20:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    The greater policy question can be handled at another venue (let me suggest WP:VPP) however there was not any consensus for administrator action during the last discussion Red Pen participated in; in a few hours that is unlikely to change. Let me suggest moving the discussion over the policy issue to the more appropriate venue. --Jayron32 18:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The user page User:Cla68 contains an advertisement, listing specific serivces for hire for specific prices upon contacting specific address.

    Advertising is prohibited by policy, including user pages, and without regard for whether the services may or may not be related to Wikipedia.

    The introduction to WP:SOAP reads as follows: "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."

    The inappropriate content has been removed multiple times and been returned, ostensibly because there was not a clear consensus in a previous discussion. The previous discussion may have ended without consesus on a number of things such as whether a particular phrase of a guideline might or might not apply, and whether or not paid editing is appropriate.

    I am now asking the community to affirmatively address specifically whether there is consensus to disregard policy and allow an advertisment on this user page. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I could have sworn that was what this thread was about? It closed as no consensus for administrative action regarding his advertisement within the last 24 hours. MBisanz talk 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think his userpage – or a particular part of it – should be deleted, you'll need to nominate it at MfD. 28bytes (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also: if your interpretation of policy differs from another editor's the solution is not to edit-war. I see you've attempted to remove the material from that user page twice; fortunately an admin has protected it or else there'd be some edit-warring blocks coming if it kept up. 28bytes (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    WP:SOAP prohibits advertisement and as WP:SOAP is policy, the advertisment must be removed and consensus must be shown for it to stay. Red Pen of Doom is right! @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 11:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, now that he's commercializing things, file a Better Business Bureau complaint about his editing - it's deserved :-) Not to suggest a violation of WP:NLT, but he creates a legal liability upon himself that can no longer be avoided by the free-nature of the editing...he has lost all protection (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible class project creating essay-like articles

    I came across a few articles that I thought were being edited by socks or meatpuppets. On closer inspection, it appears to be a class project that is using Wikipedia to post their research papers as articles. In one of the AfDs, a number of editors have tried to explain the problem, but there may be a bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT combined with the students' worry they will lose marks if their articles are deleted. Can someone please take a look at the following:

    Articles (that I have identified so far):

    Editors (that I have identified so far):

    Talk page discussions

    I'm going to be a bit busy over the next few days, so I'm not really in a position to step in here. If an admin or an experienced editor can help out, that would be great. Singularity42 (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I've just got a dirty mind - or German's a naturally hilarious language - but someone with a basic understanding of German might want to have a look at this one's current user page, which would appear to suggest there's at least some prankery going on. Either way, agreed all the content seems to be dodgy non-encyclopedic waffle. Not quite sure why a school or college would be doing this - is the point to showcase the homework/essays, or is it more of a project to see what you can get onto Wikipedia (and the essay content per se is kind of secondary to that)? Quite good evidence too, more generally, that impressive-looking sourcing and lists of footnotes count for little by themselves. N-HH talk/edits 14:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    About the user page, I was tempted to blank it with an edit summary of "oh come on, you don't really need that, do you?", but then I saw he had already removed it himself. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a bit harsh. The MSI article certainly has a future and it's no prank. Come on, we had editors with swastikas on their user pages (I know one editor with tits on their user page), and new users do think of it as their little MySpace. I put Template:Educational assignment on its talk page; the others need that as well. What they need is some advice on what makes encyclopedic writing, and what we need is to know who's in charge, if anyone is. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not harsh in the least. I simply asked the question and asked someone who might be able to confirm either way to have a look. Even if the page really does translate as saying "prosthetic penis", "long and thick", I merely said that would point to some prankery being involved, not that it would be evidence, by itself, that all these contributions were worthless. I only looked at the first two articles - and here I will be harsh - and they simply looked like that kind of random essays on nebulous topics that have no purpose in an encyclopedia other than to inflate the egos of the people writing them. This place is not a blog or an essay-hosting service for would-be academics to publish their brilliant but otherwise neglected opinions and synthesis. The MSI one looks better, having looked at it just now. N-HH talk/edits 15:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • oh my god. i am so sorry. this is a sendbox accident by a friend of mine, he just wanted to show me how to make headlines. it has nothing do to with the quality of my article. i know this words are really inappropriate and i am so embarrased right now. can someone please show me how to delete this or delete it for me?Somkw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    • Sorry for making you feel that way,but please do not misundstand. This is not a showcase or something,by saying that I just mean it's important for me to get this article uploaded and I'll really try my best to make it qualified. Without knowing the details,please not deny our work just by glimpsing at the source lists and the footnotes!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, none of them are actually badly written - they seem perfectly decent as essays, and with decent footnoting. The problem is that - in my view, and I'm only one person - the first three at least are about such vague conceptual things that it's pretty hard to write about them without it being an essay. Whatever you do to the content, they're not going to cut it as an encyclopedia entries, which - again, in my view - have to be about something a bit more tangible and defined. Also, I accept it may be important to you, but that's not the criteria for creating articles. And I'm not denying your work, I'm just saying I don't think it should be hosted here. N-HH talk/edits 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for your understanding, Drmies! The point by saying it's a school project does not mean the articles should be published or we beg for publishing or something. The point is, we can learn about the encyclopedic writing style by creating articles in wikipedia and we are also trying to figure out its difference from the educational assignments. We are here to learn and please be considerate,it is neither a project nor a prank, and there is no instructor...Please do not be so harsh on us,N-HH,you already make me scaried. Yes, I accept your judgement,the articles are not qualified, I'm just looking forward on some adivices. Thank you!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, not trying to scare you, just explain what the problem is (and I've recently run into a whole load of what I consider dubious new content being added here; my view is that WP is more than full enough of such stuff, which might explain some of my exasperation. Even after several years I don't add much new content myself). Your comment above that you're posting enormous amounts of new content as part of some kind of test or learning exercise doesn't inspire confidence though. N-HH talk/edits 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, if this is not a school project, tell me what it is--a half a dozen articles on similar topics. BTW, we encourage school (and other) projects, but having someone to talk to, a spokesperson in case of group work, makes things a lot easier. For starters, you should probably all have a look at WP:NOTESSAY: encyclopedic articles aren't like essays, and reading that guideline may help clear up why two of the articles are currently up for deletion. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    N-HH,I totally agree with you,I didn't realize the question until I edited my article here and got these feedbacks. The topic I've choosen is too ambiguous to give a defination. I will consider writing a new article instead of revising this one. We are just a 4 students group for a topic on "media freedom",we presented our findings on this topic in a seminar and are supposed to create articles about our findings on wikipedia. We don't mean to put more load on your work by creating some nonsense in your eyes. We've just read some literature and found something that maybe worthful to spread. Right now I've got a clearer boundary,the next article will be better.Thank you very much for all these discussions!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just an FYI, we now have WP:ENB (an Education Noticeboard), but it's still dealing with start-up issues. I should also add that this suite of articles reminds me of a sockmaster I dealt with years ago-- far too long ago for me to remember who or where, but there is enough similarity for me to say this smells like sockpuppetry and trolling, based on memory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    So right now the problem is just about the first two articles right? I really think the other two team members have done a great job here. If so, our team will concentrate on creating another two qualified articles...We will read the instructions more carefully and avoid making you more trouble!Thank you all again!--Zhumengmeng (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Insults from user

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfrican_American&diff=489479284&oldid=489444874

    "This Leaf Green Warrior person is a foolish troll"

    Judging by his talk page he's had other incidents too.. Leaf Green Warrior (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you notified the user of this thread, as required?--ukexpat (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well a user needs not to be blocked for single personal attack. I have faced myself, times, trolls and personal attackers against me. Let me drop them a warning. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, dropped them a warning and also notified them of the ANI discussion. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as an information B-Machine has previously been blocked for personal attacks, and has had several threads on ANI concerning their behaviour: 1, 2. After several years, this does not look like just a "single personal attack", but a pattern. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • The user had already been notified of the ANI further up, just not using the template, so LGW had already properly notified. The template isn't required, it just makes it easier. I left a clear message on the editor's page explaining my concern. Because I saw that the editor in question has been participating in good faith on the article talk page, I would conclude that they lost their cool and needed a firm reminder. Hopefully, this is all that will be required to get their attention and allow everyone to just get back to the discussion. If they conduct any other personal attacks, bring it back here and a block can be considered, but at this point I don't think it is the best solution, and the warning should suffice. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dennis, that's what I'd told, right? A warning (level-2) would do the work. Plenty of users with personal attacks and trolls I'm seeing these days...... Enjoy your day. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While there is nothing wrong with a template being placed on the editors page, my experience has been that a carefully worded and calm (but firm) explanation is more effective when it comes to preventing further disruption. People always respond better to real words than generic templates when they are upset, and this serves the goal of defusing situations better. Usually. No one is a troll here, someone just got upset and got out of line, so we assume good faith for single events. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 15:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=489491577"