Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

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

---

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

Start a new discussion

Continued edit-warring on Paul Ryan article

Ugh, this article already got full protection for a day just a little bit ago and all the combatants have jumped right back into the edit war after protection ended. It needs to be locked for longer and there probably needs to be a serious look at some of the editors repeatedly reverting on this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: In lieu of individual notifications, I have left a comment on the talk page linking to this discussion.

Fully protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. In the future, you can also take this to WP:RFPP. --Jayron32 03:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There are concerns other than protection as I noted. I am concerned about the general conduct issues in question as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't take sides. If someone wants to do so after me, that's fine. Protection hits all offenders equally. And from what I can see in the article history, I'm not sure I see any reason to suppose someone deserves credit for taking "the high road". But whatever. If some admin after me feels that blocks are in order, fine. But the protection has stopped people from reverting the article, and they now need to use the talk page to discuss and establish consensus first. I should note that, on one particularly conntentious article of a similar ilk, Presidency of Barack Obama, there have been some good custodians who have worked very hard to keep the article under control. Perhaps some of them could be brought in here to restore some sanity. --Jayron32 03:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just going to point out the obvious here that StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is involved in this. His third ANI thread in as many days, must be some sort of record. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah. I predicted "next week"... maybe that was too optimistic. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • The last thread about him only closed a few hours ago. This is getting just a smidge ridiculous, and I'm tempted to propose article or topic bans for the handful of names I keep seeing come up in these threads, starting with StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs). This level of disruption - whether in good faith or not - is getting, well, disruptive. It's apparent that SS, and quite possibly a number of other actors in these "Wikiproject Conservatism vs the people-who-don't-seem-to-much-like-conservatives" clashes, are unable to contribute to the topic of Paul Ryan, and perhaps the American electoral season as a whole, without causing disruption.

      Historically, articles and editing related to American presidential elections go, er, what's the kind term, sort of insane in the lead-up to November of presidential election years, and I'm becoming increasingly persuaded that we should keep articles in this area on a short leash during that time. It may be that we need an arbcom case for that, or it may be that the community is capable of imposing that short leash on its own. I'm hoping it's the latter, because there's no reason we should have to rely on Arbcom to say things as obvious as "This is a hotly contentious area, with a lot of emotion on both sides, and editors who cannot be on their best behavior for the duration of their editing should look elsewhere for something to do." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have been thinking that something of that nature may be necessary as well. Also should note that I actually suggested that Still stay away from these topics for a while, but the response was unfavorable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• I really don't think you can single out StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) here. In particular, the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs) needs serious review. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't single out any pair of editors; once we've stopped them, more will show up, since this is a high-profile article about an important public figure. No, the only answer is protection, I'm afraid pbp 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That's somewhat true, but I think it misses my point. We have a particularly problematic user who's done 6 reverts on the same article in 24+epsilon hours, and has made numerous personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. And it's not StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs), it's Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). The record is there for anyone who wants to look. Kerfuffler (talk) 04:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

There were more editors causing problems than that and several were brought up in the previous ANI cases. You are actually one of the other participants in the edit war yourself having restored the material in contention with a revert once before protection and again after protection. On the other side I would say Belchfire (talk · contribs) and Arzel (talk · contribs), who have had many problematic interactions with Still recently, were two of the more prolific edit-warriors. Another of the newbie editors SPECIFICO (talk · contribs) had already been blocked for 3RR over that very same material. However, that editor is apparently new and just reverted once since that block and Rtm is presumably also a new editor and thus unfamiliar with 3RR, having just been warned after the fifth revert of the day without any subsequent reverts on the article. Honestly, I don't really like listing people here, but I do not want this to become a dog-pile on Still. Lots of bad behavior to go around and there are still others I have not mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Make it two months full-protection: If we're going to gold-lock this, might as well extend it 'till after the election. If 2008 is any indication, the four candidates' articles will be gold-locked in mid-to-late October anyway. pbp 03:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea. Anything that comes up about Ryan between now and then is probably going to be partisan (for one side or the other) and need a great deal of care to straighten out, since the media will report just about anythting about anybody as long as it's "out there". I'd think the same would be true about the Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and Joe Biden articles: we're not a newspaper, and it's not going to hurt our status as an encyclopedia to be a bit out of date with the latest scandals and PR. There's plenty of time after the election's over to add whatever still seems significant then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was about to make same suggestion. 1 month protection is silly since things will be even crazier 1 month from now. If keeping article protected that long is tolerable at all, then protect til after the election (might be a day or two longer than two months). Alternative: put on PC2. Yeah there's no policy for that. Policy schmolicy, if it doesn't work it can be undone. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans and general sanctions

I'm going to take a scattershot approach here and propose a number of different remedies which I think may address some or all of the issues here. These are all possible routes, some of which may be more preferable than others, and I welcome all input into which, if any, of these options is useful to the community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a general statement: I could be convinced that a ban or sanction on SS247 is justified, but certainly not in the absence of a similar ban or sanction on his antagonists. It takes (at least) two to tango, and there are been a lot of repeat names popping up in those AN/I reports from the other side of the aisle as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

In any event, wasn't the latest advice to open an RFC/U on SS247? Are we going for bans and sanctions before the issues with his editing have been aired out in the proper forum? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe this would definitely be the appropriate forum for a discussion of whether General Sanctions are appropriate. As far as topic bans/editing-behavior issues, such things are commonly handled here, though there's no reason they could not instead be handled by an RfC if someone started one. I'm responding to this set of issues from the perspective of someone who's not involved in the topic area and has seen the same name(s) pop up repeatedly, fighting the same ways, on the same issues, all over our noticeboards, which means that I personally tend to feel ANI is an adequate venue for discussion of that issue. YMMV, and you're by no means required to agree with me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear: AN/I is the right place to bring up bans and sanctions (well, actually, WP:AN is, but put that aside), what I was questioning is whether we're putting the horse before the cart by talking about bans and sanctions when there's been no RFC/U, which is normally the first step in dealing with an editor's perceived behavioral problems. How many times have you read someone saying on AN/I, "Why are we dealing with this here when Wikipedia:Requests for comment/StillStanding-247 is a red-link?" Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban for StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs)

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

---

I see a couple possible areas that may serve as an area of topic-ban for StillStanding. Each of these should last a minimum of three months (which would put us post-election), though I would recommend an indefinite time frame, with SS allowed to appeal after 3 months. Possibilities:

Expand for options

StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to American politics and politicians, broadly construed StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Conservatism in the United States, broadly construed StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to US Presidential and Vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed StillStanding-247 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from Paul Ryan

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• As proposer: Support option 1. I think SS needs to step away from American political articles entirely. I would note that my support of this sanction does not absolve any other users in the topic area of responsibility for their behavior, and that I may support similar topic bans on other users if they're proposed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support option 1. We will then have to look at general sanctions (see below) to put some of the other re-appearing names on notice. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but if there is going to be a T-ban, it really needs to include all LGBT articles and all articles concerning SPLC or organizations listed as hate groups by SPLC. Belchfire-TALK 05:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there's plenty of grossly inappropriate behavior at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center as well, including flat out refusal to comply with the result of a RfC, and rehashing the same argument over and over again, and serious personal attacks on other editors. I sincerely hope an administrator takes the time to look at it. I will add another ANI if necessary. Kerfuffler (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It's also worth mentioning that he started 2 DRNs in quick succession at Focus on the Family, then refused to abide by the results when the DRNs failed to produce the result he was looking for. Much as he stated here [1], he's not looking to build an encyclopedia; he wants to "fix some articles". Belchfire-TALK 05:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree to a topic ban from Southern Poverty Law Center due to concerns about grossly inappropriate behavior at the TP.--Calm As Midnight 05:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Illegal sock. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose focusing on a single editor, in preference to handling the issue in a systematic and consistent way. My survey of these articles suggests there are a dozen or so editors from across the political spectrum -- including several participants in the present thread -- who should be put on ice until 7 November 2012. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above, since there has been no RFC/U, and the supports above me are among those same editors who appear to be aligned on the opposite political side from SS247. If there is a behavioral problem, the RFC/U is the proper first step to take. If, while the RFC/U is proceeding, SS247's behavior appears to an admin to be truly disruptive or tendenitious, a block would be in order, but I am strongly opposed to a community topic ban or sanction discussion used as a hammer top squealch one's political opponents. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) To clarify in light of Boris's comment above: If admins (perhaps a triumvirate?) want to do a survey of the political editing situation and hand down blocks to a number of different editors, I have no problem with that. It's the specific focus on SS247 (without proper groundwork) to the exclusion of other editors that concerns me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Jumping straight to an indef with a required wait of three months before appeal is woefully overdoing it and the focus on Still is, as noted by Boris above, focusing too much on one editor when there are many editors involved whose conduct is at issue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose As Boris explains above, focusing on a single editor is the wrong approach here. It is typically heavy-handed and elephant gun approaches that AN/I threads seem to reach for first, rather than exploring something simple like full protection for an extended period. These debates at these various article are going to only get more partisan and more silly, and rather than make it sound like one editor is the solitary 'problem', why not focus on the real issue at hand? Focus on solutions that don't single people out, especially when there is a larger problem to consider. -- Avanu (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If the user continues, we can always start another an/i thread.--Calm As Midnight 05:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what's wrong with the usual results of AN/I complaints: Wikipedia punishes the innocent and lets the editor causing the problem off the hook. Articles get frozen so that nobody can edit them, and the behavior issue is never addressed. It's nonsense, and we just wind up back here over and over. (And I note, this is only Still-24's most recent trip to the woodshed. Last time I checked, a few weeks ago, he's been the subject of AN reports something like 7 times in 21 days.) Belchfire-TALK 05:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be the ones who are causing problems to be topic-banned.--Calm As Midnight 05:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So what's your criteria to determine that? A sustained pattern of disruptive behavior, perhaps? Like this? [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. That's just up through 8/17, I'm pretty sure the list would be a little longer if I went to the trouble of making it exhaustive. (For example, it doesn't include the report just a few threads above this one.) Belchfire-TALK 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to complain about grossly inappropriate behavior on someone else's part:

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

That is just barely the tip of the iceberg. Kerfuffler (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think telling someone to "GTFO with this bullshit" is disruptive? [19]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In reference to the point about singling out Still, see my comment above where I name some of the other participants. Note that it is not an exhaustive list by any measure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Devil's advocate. Still's edits seem far less objectionable than the civil POV pushing from the pro Republicans. Rather than reward them, a better solution might be to fully protect the most sensitive article(s), until after the election, and for a team of 2 or 3 impartial admins to update them based on the balance of discussion on the talk pages. FeydHuxtable (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with FeydHuxtable's idea to have the pages fully protected rather then enforce a TB.--Calm As Midnight 05:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the same sanction is applied to all the problematic combatants in this area. Dragging SS along to ANI repeatedly (sometimes on the thinnest of pretexts) and then claiming he should be topic banned "because his name is always getting brought up at ANI" would be funny if it wasn't actually borderline disruptive. WP:BOOMERANG should be kept in mind here. Black Kite (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. General sanctions applying to all users is preferable to any topic ban applied to one user. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose As others have pointed out, there are many editors with problematic behaviors, from across the political spectrum - including some who have commented in this thread. A blanket sanction should probably be imposed on a whole list of people. This proposal feels too much like some edit warriors working the system to get an 'enemy' removed. FurrySings (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of General Sanctions below. Mojoworker (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; Still's editing is not more problematic, and may be less so, than that of his "opponents" in the topic area, and I will not support any sanction that favors one "side" when both have been misbehaving or when the favored side has been misbehaving more. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: Roscelese hit the nail on the head here. Support for sanctions against this editora is driven primarily by the political motives of editors whose behavior is more troubling than Still's. It's hard for me to assume good faith here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Still has done nothing wrong, this is a strong case of WP:WITCHHUNT GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 07:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose (Snoppose) Still is problematic, but the real issue is the "other side" who are disrupting wikipedia on a much larger scale, including a war against then SPLC across wikipedia etc (using tag teaming etc [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]). That is the real issue here. That he has been here at ANI so much is only because the conservative editors edit warring with him drag him around these venues. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic ban on Still Standing only. Although very tendentious, its not fair to single out one editor over the many others making reverts. I propose placing a series of articles on article probation and 1RR. Anyone breaking these rules will be blocked. But locking the page with full protection for two months is the worst idea ever. Don't punish the 90% of editors making serious edits to the article, because of the actions of the 10%. If those editors are disruptive, they will be blocked, otherwise we need the admins to stop being the nannies for the rest of us.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Ban, as I've said before its not the content, its the battleground mentality. If he remains working on non-political areas, I doubt anything will change. A topic ban would just be a bandaid. Support trout slap for IRWolfie and others for egging Still on to create an RfC by proxy since they didn't have the guts to do it themselves.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  13:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Helping with the RfC is a far more productive way of dealing with the issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

At the point Still "started" that RfC, his behavior was such that it was (or should have been) obvious to all that his involvement in this RfC would lead to a boomerang. Shame on those who goaded Still into walking into this snare.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are you talking about. It is highly unlikely any form of boomerang would result from the RfC. I have not been goading Still and I dislike that characterization. I also note that you have been involved in almost all the articles which are mentioned in the RfC, where your primary contribution has been to revert others; and your contributions are almost solely within this topic area. You have also been blocked as much as Still and for the same reason. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 - StillStanding has shown he is completely incapable of constructively editing articles on American politics, particularly articles on conservatism, and this is entirely necessary to prevent further disruption. Other editors may be doing stuff as well, but StillStanding has been repeatedly doing this at dozens of different articles since he joined. I believe this is ample enough evidence that Still does not intend to change or even address his problematic editing behavior, and if that is the case than a topic ban will be inevitable anyway. Toa Nidhiki05 14:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question - would you support a similar ban on another editor (and I'm just picking one at random here) who has commented in this thread, around 60% of their articlespace edits are reverts, and who performs drive by taggings, and tag-teams? If so, does that seem fair? Black Kite (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Response - Seems like a trick question to me; as with the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax, you haven't given me a full list of his editing behavior. It depends on the user and their sum of contributions. In my experience with Still, it is apparent he is essentially a single-purpose account disrupting American political articles (I know this because that it essentially my editing behavior was at one point, but in the opposite slant). The sort of battlefield mentality that he edits with and spreads goes so far against the idea of consensus-building and compromise that a topic ban is necessary. The fact he is threatening to leave if he is topic banned proves his lack of intent to recognize and change his disruptive editing behavior. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting. Since this this isn't going to pass anyway, I'll leave it for now. I am sure the editor I refer to (and a few others) will be back at ANI soon anyway. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you find interesting - you asked me if I wanted to topic ban a mystery editor based entirely on hearsay and I said that I'd have to see their overall behavior. I'm not sure if you are setting up an argument against me or this mystery editor, but Still has been recognized by a wide variety of editors as being disruptive in the topic area of American politics. As he has no intent of addressing, fixing, or stopping said battlefield behavior in the topic area, a topic ban is the only real solution to the issue at the moment. Toa Nidhiki05 20:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• My point, really; "Still has been recognized by a wide variety of editors as being disruptive in the topic area of American politics." How many of those editors have been neutral in that editing arena? Because looking through the last few ANI reports, the number appears to be very, very small. If Still was (a) disruptive, and more importantly (b) the only disruptive influence on those articles, he would certainly have been sanctioned severely by now. As you'll see from the comments here, however, consensus is that that is not the case. In my example I gave you the pertinent edit history of one of the other main editors in this arena; you declined to comment on that whilst asking for a topic ban for Still for a far less clearly defined "crime". That was what I found interesting. Black Kite (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Could you give me an idea as to what 'neutral' means before using it to support a claim? I don't know if you mean politically moderate or editing neutrally. However, the fact is Still has been incredibly disruptive and has been acknowledged as such by editors. The fact is he is indeed responsible for both short and long-term disruption on a wide variety of political articles, particularly American ones, and he has taken a battlefield attitude towards anyone who he suspects has political views opposite of his. This is both uncollegial and disruptive, and does not improve this encyclopedia at all. Still is undeniably being disruptive.
• As for your mystery user, please don't misrepresent my view - I am not going to support or decline a request to topic ban a user off of the hearsay of one user, and I hope as an admin you would act similarly if a similar request were to be posted on your talk page. The reason why I support a topic ban for Still is based off of personal experience and knowledge on Still and his editing history - particularly relating to his disruptive behavior and his lack of interest in acknowledging or changing it. I'm not asking for a topic ban, I'm supporting one - and while the community is clearly not ready to hand one out, I think that it will inevitably happen if Still continues his pattern of behavior. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

As others have alluded to, there is no such thing as a one-sided edit war. Several editors dogpiled on many of those articles, and I cited two whose behavior was much worse, chock full of grossly inappropriate commentary. There are a bunch of editors in this area who commit gross and repeated violations of WP:PETTIFOG, WP:AGF, WP:TE, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:FORUMSHOP, and WP:FILIBUSTERS. Kerfuffler (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Option 4: We know he's making unconstructive edits there. But this will be irrelevant because, (a) the topic ban is destined to fail, (b) He'll probably be blocked, and (c) if my proposal below succeeds, the article will be gold-locked pbp 17:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Focusing on one activist editor is not what will fix the larger problem. Wikipedia needs a way to rein in all activist-type editing. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose No evidence has been presented to show that there is anything to merit a topic ban. TFD (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support option one  WP:CIR.  In addition to the ANI threads mentioned, Still has been to Wikiquette Assistance twice within the last two weeks.  I took Still to Wikiquette Assistance after he/she called a comment of mine uncivil on his/her talk page.  Still's response to problem resolution is that he/she already knows what I think and why I think it.  [38], [39].  I asked Moonriddengirl here, "Is potential libel something that editors should ignore". 

Additional diffs:

• Admin warning on August 25, [40]. 
• Another Wikiquette discussion, accusation of personal attack
• Still recommends a blog by "Guest Commentator".  [41]

Unscintillating (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose For most of the reasons already mentioned above. A topic ban is not the solution to a problem that is much larger than one editor. I have seen marked improvement in StillStanding's approach to collaborative editing, even in the past week, probably due to some excellent (and generous) coaching that he has received from other editors and admins. I think he has the potential to be a great contributor here once he learns how to effectively influence, negotiate and compromise. Also, there are some unclean hands in this situation: I've observed a few other editors goading him in truly shameful fashion.

As long as his interactions continue to trend positive, he should be able to remain involved, even with politically charged topics. – MrX 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. This user is capable of self-restraint and showed it in the middle of a controversial article. Please don't ban a person for trying. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as overkill. --Nouniquenames (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1 Initially I was not going to comment on Still but because of his continued battleground attitude I feel there is no other option. I had not even suggested a topic ban on him, and he is now suggesting that I be topic banned while this discussion is ongoing! It is clear he has no intention on working collaboratively with anyone that does not share his personal beliefs. Arzel (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't you see the issue with suggesting someone should be topic banned because they suggested you should be topic banned? Still also specifically says he does not endorse a topic ban against you. That is, you have misrepresented his position in it's entirety to justify a topic ban. You have unclean hands supporting this. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - StillStanding is an active editor who is very dedicated to restoring what he views as a neutral POV. Although he's a little too liberal for my taste, he's an excellent counterweight to a lot of conservative editors. Acoma Magic (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Meh. StillStanding is an active, uncivil, POV warrior, with policy comprehension issues. However, that, without policy comprehension issues, describes most of the participants in American politics articles. I don't think adequate evidence has been presented to single out StillStanding. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG much? Let's see:

• PA/AGF/CIVIL? [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]

• encouraging someone to edit-war? [47]

• admitting to stalking, then trying to justify it because you want to edit-war? [48] [49] [50] [51] [52]

• complaint from another user about stalking? [53]

• falsely accusing another admin based on a strawman? [54]

Is that behavior expected of an admin?

In case anyone wonders why those examples are all from interactions with StillStanding-247, it's because, as far as I can tell, Arthur Rubin spends the vast majority of his time on Wikipedia arguing with StillStanding-247. —Kerfuffler 10:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• oppose as insufficient. This long drawn-out combat involves too many people to hang it all on just one of the offenders. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose If I may bore people here with history, Sarah Palin was a massive battleground four years ago. My first action with that article was to warn an editor for edit warring after 7RR. That editor, along with the other parties to the battleground edit warring toxic environment, were not topic banned. Article probation was put in place, and worked well. That editor went on to make many fine edits to that article. Of course, that is not to say history will repeat itself - but in my experience, article probation works exceedingly well. Still is not the only editor there with strong opinions. If we topic ban him, we will be right back here regarding another editor, and another. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I have come accross this editor several times and in many of his disputes, he came accross as a balancing counterweight to to editors with extreme views. Pass a Method talk 19:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Proposal: General Sanctions authorized by the community

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

---

Similarly, a couple of possible ways to handle community-imposed sanctions.

Expand for list of proposals

Possible areas: Articles about American presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed, are placed under Community article probation Articles about American electoral politics, broadly construed, are placed under Community article probation Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan are placed under Community article probation [Some other group of articles or topics that I haven't thought of, feel free to suggest below] are placed under Community article probation Possible time frames: General sanctions on the area(s) described above will expire 3 months from their imposition General sanctions on the area(s) described above may be lifted after 3 months from their imposition, pending community approval General sanctions on the area(s) described above will expire 6 months from their imposition General sanctions on the area(s) described above may be lifted after 6 months from their imposition, pending community approval General sanctions on the area(s) described above will remain in place indefinitely, until lifted by the community.

A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• As proposer: Support option 1 from areas and option 1 from time frames (that means "Articles about American presidential and vice-presidential candidates and their campaigns, broadly construed" under the GS, with the GS to automatically expire after 3 months). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support options 1 and 1 per Fluffernutter. These articles are rapidly spinning out of control. Admins should enforce these sanctions on a near-zero tolerance basis. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose in preference to a T-ban, as proposed above. Still-24's early history suggests he has potential to be a highly valuable contributor to the overall project; he just has trouble in certain topic areas. If sanctions are imposed, they should be narrowly crafted to protect Wikipedia while still allowing the user to contribute, if possible. Belchfire-TALK 05:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This proposal is not specifically about Still. Considering the tag teaming you are involved in here: [55][56][57][58], Edit warring to insert material [59] here: [60][61]. Unexplained removals of text which should be easy to verify: [62]. Removing content which should be easy to verify after tagging for tw weeks [63], Removing sourced content as "obvious OR": [64], I can see why you are against extending sanctions to all within this topic area. This is far far from an exhaustive list. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 1 from areas and 5 from time frames, or sanctions to be reapplied automatically starting 3 months before each election. I do not see any reason why the situation is likely to get better for future election cycles. We also should not expect topics bans to resolve this for the future - note that most of the editors in the current set of disputes joined after 2008, so probably this would be the same case for 2016. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Opppose per my comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ?? Your comments above say "seems like a good idea" for full protection. So you'd rather completely lock'em down instead of probation? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Support 1/1 Thanks for that, I misread the suggested sanctions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Request for clarification There seems to be some confusion as to whether the proposed sanctions are addressed specifically to Still24/7, or are meant to be broadly applicable to all editors. It would be helpful for the proposer to make this explicit. (My support is conditional on the latter interpretation.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is meant for everyone and anyone. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
  • That's what I had assumed as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 for all editors. (Note, now second choice to full protection below (but still supporting, obviously). Black Kite (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• The suggestion is for allowing stricter sanctions for misconduct on these articles, not sanctions on specific editors.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• I know, I was making it clear per the request for clarification just above my posting. Black Kite (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. About time. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• 1/1 is a good idea. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support proposal 2 - 1. Political BLPs are getting all kinds of crap from partisans involved in the elections. FurrySings (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support option 1 (though should we specify 2012 candidates? anyway, this covers biographies, campaigns, conventions without picking up a lot of articles that have had no or unrelated problems) with timeframe 1. If agenda-driven editors continue to be a problem after the election, sanctions can be re-imposed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 for all editors, without making reference to Still or any other particular editor, withour prejudice against expanding the timeframe should problems with partisan editors continue. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 2/5 There are plenty of congressional races which invite the same sort of problematic editing behavior. Or as Arc en Ciel suggested, sanctions to be reapplied automatically starting 3 months before each election, since it's likely to be a recurring problem each election cycle. Mojoworker (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 at least, we should have done this a while back, it's more than merited at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support placing all WP:BLP covered articles connected with politics for all nations (not just the US, as the same occurs in other articles as well, though with less visibility to most editors) for a period of 3 months prior to any elections in such countries under "silly season protection" with the goal of reducing the use of such articles as campaign vehicles. Collect (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• By any elections, Collect, you mean that articles about US presidential candidates would have been under protection since about November 2010, three months before the first primary elections? —C.Fred (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think elections in other nations have the same sort of effect on wikipedia as the US ones. IRWolfie- (talk)

Off the top of my head, I don't recall seeing much drama related to Mongolian politics, Altankhuyag seems to have generated very little wiki-controversy, at least. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The examples most currently noted are ones aimed at Australian politics, although UK articles are also known for such edits. And no -- since the elections are at the start of November, the candidates and persons involved and articles directly relating to them per WP:BLP should be restricted as of the start of August before the actual election -- not in perpetuity. BTW, the first primary elections for the 2012 cycle were not in 2010. <g> In the case of Australia, see [65] indicating a reasonable likelihood of an election there in the near future. And of course the infamous edits on British MPs in the past as well. And the French DSK article, inter alia. And Canadian BLPs. So much for "this only applies to the US". Political BLPs are so routinely used for campaign purposes that they are a long-term major problem for Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support an extension to a list of other countries as well. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 2/1. 2/5 would be my second choice. I also like Arc de Ciel's recurring protection proposal (assuming that the articles are removed from probation) and Collect's idea has merit, although I suspect we could tailor it a bit to make it less unwieldy. The only other countries which seem to have experienced such election-period nonsense in en.wp have been the US, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia (all populous, industrialized, English-speaking nations). I'd be willing to bet that Collect's suggestion, applied to just those four nations, would essentially accomplish the same thing with far less overhead. Just a thought. Horologium (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Support 1-4. Include all think tanks that comment on political issues in the US etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support and include all that abortion related fluff as well, SPLC, Chick fil A, FRC, and more.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and any polemics on the talk pages should also lead to topic bans or blocks etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 2 / 1 - Basically 1RR type restrictions, forcing WP:BRD, a slightly slower pace that is less reactive, for all candidates in all seats at every level of govt. Under WP:IAR, I would also support full protection on the 4 big articles for P/VP, and allow modification only via the talk page/review/admin, until after the election, around Dec. 1. This isn't a news site, it is an encyclopedia, and preserving the peace and sanity justifies the protections, which at this point could arguably be described as not "preemptive". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an interesting experiment would be to sysop protect all the key election related articles; that would enforce a slower approach to the article building. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Question How would this work? For example suppose Editor XYZ is being a disruptive ass on the talk page of one of these articles? Is any admin (involved?) allowed to come in and say "XYZ thou art being an disruptive ass and thou art banned from this article for X months?" then enforceable by blocks?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, that's exactly how it works (as long as the admin is not involved, of course). Black Kite (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support 1/1 Do NOT support using this as a catch-all for other stuff. That should be handled separately.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 This will deal with any and all disruption, as editors will be required to be civil and follow BRD instead of disrupt. Toa Nidhiki05 14:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Moderate Support of 1/1 I say moderate because the problem is really that many editors seem to think that WP should be a repository of the daily news cycle. Much of the issue here is that many editors mistakenly believe that anything that gets published in the news today is deemed the most important thing in the article and must be included or others are censoring WP because of their political bias. These sanctions will not solve this problem. I suggest we apply a time line for most everything related to political season articles. With few exceptions one week must have passed before the inclusion of new controversial material. It has been my experience over the years that WP articles, especially BLP's are overwhelmed by daily events, especially if some think that these events make the subject look bad in some way. After a few days context regarding the events are determined and the event is almost always of no consequence. If editors would simply adhear to existing WP guidelines like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT and admins would actually come along and enforse these guidelines these articles would not be nearly as problematic. Arzel (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support; this area is going to be crappy, anyway, but this should make it a little easier to deal with the flood of POV-pushing around this time of year. I'd prefer 2/1; if we can't get consensus on that, 1/1 is OK. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, full protect instead: See my comment above and my proposal below pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clamp down on political campaigning on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Option 1/Timeframe 5 Indefinitely could be 2 hours or 2 years, but it can be lifted based on when it's necessary. I agree with Sphilbrick that all issues should be addressed individually. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Option 1-4/Timeframe 1, include sexual politics, eg LGBT rights.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  19:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify whether you mean option 1 time frame 4, or options 1-4 without specifying a time frame please? Go Phightins! (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Whilst I understand why you want to include those, that would be a huge range of additions, and actually quite difficult to define. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Would "Same sex marriage" narrowly construed be better? While an unfortuante few come to wikipedia to spew forth a hateful agenda, there are quite a few editors who fight back. Though the cause may be noble, the latter group is no more welcome than the first if they are editing not for the encylcopedia, but rather for WP:THERAPY.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make much sense. If people come to "fight back", they will most likely dissolve away when the first group is dealt with. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that is unlikley. There are many editors who appear to be on a mission to tag anti LGBT groups. I have no objection to this principle. Let the sunshine in via RS and the reader can decide. However a subset of these editors do so with prejudice and in POV fashion, which is not something we should tolerate.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "There are many editors who appear to be on a mission to tag anti LGBT groups. I have no objection to this principle". IRWolfie- (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Options 2 and 2. Alternatively, topic ban (and tar and feather) everyone who is obviously here to push a political agenda. It would be really nice if logging in didn't mean seeing Bill O'Reily's minions battle it out with Keith Olberman's. Sædon^talk 20:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think admins have good sense to be able to spot POV pushing editors when they get disruptive. Most of the editors pushing POVs on this topic aren't particularly discrete. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support options 1/1. It's about time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Obama is already under article probation, and has been for about 4 years. I have supported for some time having article probation for all candidates and vp candidates during election season (post nom until after swearing in, or until no longer needed) so I would support 1. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• support at least 1/1, would like to suggest 4/1 which is to say, the edit war extends over a wide range of political topics, especially including the SPLC-condemned social conservative groups and some other related topics. Mangoe (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1 with 1RR/24h: this would be much more productive than the current full protection. In fact, given the general support for this option / opposition to protection, I think it's a travesty that the article is protected at all. I know I've gone beyond 1RR on this article but I'd be delighted to cut down to that level if it were a generalized disarmament. Homunq (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support 1/1 Pass a Method talk 19:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Expanding on suggestion above

Place all WP:BLP covered articles connected with politics for the US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and France for a period of 3 months prior to any major elections in such countries under "silly season protection" with the goal of reducing the use of such articles as campaign vehicles.

• Support as proposer. Collect (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment/question: this sounds like something which might be helpful, but to be able to !vote for sure, I'd want to see a definition of what you're calling "silly season protection". Apt as the descriptor is, it doesn't tell us what the protection would do/allow/prohibit. Also, the country list seems a bit arbitrary - is this based on experience of which countries' elections tend to go craziest or something? Why this set? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

It was based on input from two others above - it was said that those countries appear to have the greatest problem with Wikipedia BLPs being edited for political campaign purposes in the past. As for anyone who does not see that the problem exists (the Earth still moves), there is very little I can say. There is absolutely no doubt that it has been seen in multiple articles over a period of years, with Wikipedia being the loser as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And by "protection" I refer to protection in line with what has been widely supported above for American political articles in general directly above -- if it is unclear what the word means in that proposal, then the same unclarity applies here. If the usage there is clear, then it is similarly clear here. Collect (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'd oppose this until such a time as it is demonstrated to be an issue. If for any particular nation it does become an issue, it can be highlighted at ANI and maybe dealt with at that stage. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as being very vague, and as unnecessary bureaucracy anyway. Yes, during the months prior to a major election in a larger country, a lot of tendentious edits happen on articles directly related to that election. However, I have yet to see any reason to believe why existing community procedures don't already adequately cover when things get particularly nasty. This would extend sanctions, editing restrictions and whatever else this vague proposal suggests to pages that don't necessarily need them and thus potentially turn off new editors to the community. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't find the comment that lists these particular countries - they seem exceedingly arbitrary. Never mind, I found the comment, though NZ wasn't there. They still seem arbitrary. Oppose. StAnselm (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nonsense. Dont block ips from editing political articles its wrong. 79.172.242.165 (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the discussion in the above section. In response to the comments about arbitrariness, I think it's been demonstrated at least for American politics; Counterproposal that we should enact this for America specifically and leave the option of adding other countries as necessary. In response to Electrik Shoos, I don't see how the existing community procedures have adequately covered the problem thus far with regards to the American election. It's possible that things will trail off now that sanctions have been placed, but it took a couple of months of constant edit warring before we reached this point. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I have started a new section below with this counterproposal. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Counterproposal: United States only

The same proposal as in the previous section, but limited to the United States. "Silly season protection" means "community article probation," similar to what has just been enacted for the current election.

• Support as nominator. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Collect (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support While I believe that this does not go far enough either in scope or breadth, it is a start, and is certainly better than the status quo. 67.0.149.253 (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Counterproposal: full protection

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

---

Above, I suggested that Paul Ryan be full-protected until after the election (~2 months); a couple of editors liked the idea. A few more mentioned full protection in the sanctions section above. Since everybody last night/this morning seems to be making proposals, I'll make one too pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Expand for proposal
Paul Ryan should be fully protected for a period of ~2 months, to expire ~8 November If similar content disputes occur on Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Barack Obama, or related articles, they should also be full-protected until ~8 November pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom pbp 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support as an addition to the above proposal There are clearly major issues with the edit warring on the Paul Ryan article and that the cause is the US election. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about it, and would prefer to see how the current community sanctions pan out first. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Not only no, but hell no. Don't punish the 90% bacuse the 10% can't play well with others. block not lock.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, if a person made 900 solid edits, and 100 vandalism edits, he should be allowed to continue in this manner. Ridiculous! If vandalism edits were 10% of an editors edit count, he'd not only be blocked, but indeffed! Blocks and protection are supposed to be preventive. We know that there will be more vandalism and content disputes on this article, probably a lot around Halloween. We had to lock the major candidates in 2008, and it's time to look at locking them now. Under your proposal, this will turn into a giant time sink for admins, to say nothing of being a fairly unstable article. Under my proposal, consensus is achieved for every single edit, the article is stable, and admins don't have to waste their time blocking person after person pbp 15:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about edit warring, not vandalism, and this is about 10% of the editors, not 10% of a single editors edits. If there is disruption, block the editor, but place the article(s) on 1RR and block anyone breaching that. Not too hard to figure that out.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• If it was actually 10% of editors, I'd agree with you. A quick look at the history of the article gives the lie to that statement, though. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support for all 4 top candidates. Again, we are an encyclopedia, not Google news, accuracy before timeliness, and these are disrupting the regular business of building the entire encyclopedia, not just these articles, demonstrated by the fact that we are here, now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as nom getting consensus before edits at this peak time is a good thing. As long as consensus is based on policy, not vote-rigging from POV project members GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support and add Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, and associated articles. Black Kite (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

First you support placing the article(s) on probation, now you support the counter proposal to fully protect the article(s). Which is it, because they don't mesh?--JOJ ^Hutton 16:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This one (which didn't exist earlier). I'll make it clearer above for you if you want. Black Kite (talk)

Ok, thanks. :)--JOJ ^Hutton 16:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Edit requests required for article changes. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as an addition to the above proposal. The problem is widespread. Paul Ryan just happens to be the most high-profile article which it has spread to at this time. Arc de Ciel (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the moment. If General Sanctions pass, they will give admins a much more extensive toolkit to curtail bad behavior on these articles, to the (hopeful) extent that editors who disrupt the environment can be easily removed. If that's in place, there's no need to lock down the article(s) under full protection. My preference is to leave the articles open for editing (they are, after all, extremely popular and attract many new editors) and just remove those editors who can't play well with others using GS. If GS fail to handle the matter - if there's extensive socking, or if every single editor who edits the article can't behave, etc, then full-protection may have to go back in place, but I prefer to leave it as something we could deploy, if we end up needing to, in the future. (Note: this non-full-protection should obviously not go into effect unless and until General Sanctions pass. Without GS, full-protection at admin discretion is appropriate). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose with a slightly different rationale than JOJ: don't punish Wikipedia's readers because a few editors can't behave themselves. The hammer should fall hard on those who have created problems. But editors who are willing to engage the articles in a constructive way should not only be permitted but encouraged to improve these articles. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boris. While many of us lament the news-y state of election articles, stuff is undoubtedly going to happen in the next two months and we'd disservice our readers by keeping the articles so out of date. Probation should take care of the issues. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per all above. Maybe we do this on Election Day, if we can't keep up with everything. But constructive editors should almost always be accommodated if possible and we would do a disservice to our readers to not allow constructive editors to keep the articles in good quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
• Couldn't Oppose More Absolutely unnecessary to limit all improvement of articles for 2 months because of some editors who can't control themselves. Maybe, and I emphasize maybe, if this is necessary the day before election day and the morning of, this could be acceptable. But this suggestion is ludicrous at best, flat-out offensive at worst. General sanctions are an infinitely better idea. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would point out that being full protected ≠ not being edited pbp 18:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It can only be edited by admins, correct? That's less than .01% of editors. Go Phightins! (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Plus edit requests. It just means that each edit can be quickly checked before adding it, and enforces the requirement for consensus before the edits are made (plus eliminating simple vandalism). Arc de Ciel (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Well edit requests can only be carried out by admins...there are roughly 1500 admins and 17.5 million editors, you do the math. It's just not a good idea. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Phightins, who says it very very well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reminds me of the story of a Zen student asking his teacher how long until I become enlightened? The teacher started with "10 years", then when he saw the student was in a hurry, "Sorry, 20 years". The student started to say that he planned to work very hard at it, when his teacher replied "30 years". The article is no longer truthful, by virtue of omission, and needs to be edited. Waiting for an election is not a solution. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although it will never happen, it is probably a good idea for all political articles to be locked during the prime election period. It would still allow information to be added via talk page concensus and RfC, but it would go a long way in removing tedious "news of the day" edits which serve no historical value. OR we could establish a time frame for additions. Events less than one week old could not be added. It usually takes a few news cycles for the entire story to get out anyway, and this would eliminate many edit wars regarding something that just happened. Arzel (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. The articles need further changes during the election period to provide relevant, up to date information. Providing accurate, unbiased political information at the time it matters most is very difficult, but worth doing. Placing power over article content into the hands of the admin corps would further concentrate power in Wikipedia and create further incentives to ongoing efforts to banish or elevate admins based on political considerations. I no longer think that the complete political domination of Wikipedia by crass outside interests can actually be prevented, but stopping this proposal for now may delay it. Wnt (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I think this edit [66] reads as a threat. The whole conversation is full of accusations without evidence and is yet more proof there is a WP:WITCHHUNT ongoing. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The essay you mention says, "The only purpose of blocking, banning, and other sanctions is to protect the encyclopedia from harm."  The diff here and in follow-up here, and the continuing denial here, show a potential for harm to the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, largely per Boris. At least for the time being. Give the general sanctions a chance to work; if they don't, we can reconsider. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Any positive contributions is far outweighed by the effort involved in monitoring the political hacks who come in between now and the election. The people who really want to contribute towards a lasting encyclopedia will be here after the elections are over. FurrySings (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support: No, we do not need this article to be "constantly up-to-date" - isn't one of the premises of Wikipedia that we're NOT a news ticker? What we need this article to be is unfailingly accurate, and that can be assured under the circumstances much better by talk page consensus than by a flurry of editors with axes to grind. Somehow I can live - and suspect most others can as well - with a day's delay in amending an encyclopedia article. I would be very interested in hearing the Opposers' take on how failure to include the last 24 hours' worth of news cycle "punishes" the readers more than not having to wade through a blizzard of vandalism, subtle or otherwise, aids them. Ravenswing 04:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per SBHB and Phightins. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose: full protection does get rid of some bathwater, but it also throws out a whole lot of baby. Homunq (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The level of disruption is not unusual enough to justify this. If it were something like Stephanie Adams, maybe. Even then, I'd let ArbCom do it. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - General power of administrators to toss political hacks making disruptive edits is correct approach. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

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

One more proposal: indef semi-protection in addition to sanctions

I see gold-lock has failed, but is there a consensus to raise the article's protection level to semi-protected indefinitely? pbp 02:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose most of the issues we are dealing with are with auto-confirmed editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral I think that IRWolfie's right, most of the bad actors here are auto-confirmed. On the other hand, most of the good actors are too. If this isn't semiprotected, IP editors will help some with various details, but also inject some chaos that will slow resolution of the most contentious issues. So I (weakly) think that it should be semiprotected for the short term, but we should try lifting that once the RfC's worked out. Mostly, though, I don't think it matters a whole lot. Homunq (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

also, what happened above? Why no comment here about the decision to put the article on probation? Doesn't a protected article on probation make no sense? Homunq (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this happened. Homunq (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Dont block ips from editing just for a few bad apples who aren't even ips. 79.172.242.165 (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

West Hartlepool War Memorial

One dynamic IP user is getting increasing annoyed that his version of West Hartlepool War Memorial has been changed to one more in keeping with wikipedia policies. His recent edit[67] includes

How is all this going to end? I am afraid Sir that I now have to remind you once again of your possible personal liability, (together with Wikipedia itself of course if they do nothing to correct these matters and it can be shown that what is in question is a deliberat refusal to do other than support the present Hartlepool Borough Council notwithstanding that they were aware of the actual facts as now detailed by myself) under Section 7 of the Perjury Act 1911, namely that "every person who aids, abets, counsels, procures or suborns another person to commit an offence against this Act shall be liable to be proceeded against, indicted, tried and published as if he were a principal offender", etc., etc. (the immediate section so far as the local authority itself is concerned being the previous section, Section 5, in this Act).

this sounds a bit like a legal threat to me.--Salix (talk): 08:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Me too. If nothing else, it's attempting to chill discussion in order to get their preferred version dangerouspanda 10:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know what his actual point is? I got lost after only two incredibly dense paragraphs. Is he just trying to say "it should be called "Victory Square""? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Monkey hangers apparently have no idea what "perjury" is. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So maybe we can deduce that Quakers are the legal experts here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Can someone semi-protect the talkpage as the ip is continuing to post these vague rants with allegations that anyone who disagrees with him is (possibly including West Hartlepool Council) may be liable under the Perjury Act 1911. And someone may want to revdel the ips alledged email adress.Nigel Ish (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked the last-used UP for making legal threats - if he skips IP, maybe someone can investigate the possibility of a rangeblock? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like it's part of a dynamic TalkTalk range, so a rangeblock doesn't appear plausible. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor seems to have been in the local library looking up reports of debates. Unfortunately his own version was interminable and unreadable. He clearly has sources reporting on debates about the design of the menorial and its location. If he could provide the proper detailks of the sources they could be incorporated. The difficulty is that he does not seem to respond well, even though he clearly wants to communicate. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked another IP for repeating the same statement and saying he will only withdraw it if we allow his edits, although his writing style is nearly incomprehensible it is difficult to see what his actual problem is. MilborneOne (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the legal threats on the talk page, and have left him a warning there - a temporary protection of the talk page might indeed be worthwhile if he continues -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's a bit of background I found while researching the article that may be illuminating Peter Judge / Moving the statue. I think he's very passionate, has done a lot of research, and wants all his research included in the article. I and others have suggested he find another venue / blog / webpage to post all his information. I think someone else nailed it - it's really an original research issue and I don't think he understands that we cannot post original research.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, to quote Norman Moorsom of that Evening Gazette article: "In the meantime, Mr Judge, "of Hartlepool", I would politely suggest that you should go away and leave us alone." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• He's still carrying on about Wikipedia editors being liable under the Perjury Act of 1911 - though really not making much sense about it. As he won't drop the legal thing, I've blocked his latest IP and have semi-protected the article and its talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• He is now repeating the legal stuff on my talk page, I am afraid he just doesnt get it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked that IP too. If he posts again, I suggest you just revert and ignore, and deny him the outlet for his nonsense. If you want your talk page temporarily semi-protected, let me know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

(Ah, sorry, I see you can semi it yourself ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• This user has been posting on the article and its discussion page in very long, very detailed, original research mostly stemming from odd bits of local legislation (I think). As far as I can tell, his recent claim seems to be that the local council is in some way guilty of perjury over having misrepresented some details surrounding the memorial in its publications; if we don't "set the record straight" then we're aiding and abetting that. This is patently implausible, so I wouldn't worry too much about the "legal threat" aspects.

I've tried to engage with this user in the past - see Talk:West_Hartlepool_War_Memorial/Archive_1 - but gave up a couple of years ago - it didn't seem very productive! Andrew Gray (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There looks to be a definite WP:COMPETENCE issue with this user. Pity he's on an IP hopping connection, although I didn't think any still reset that quick that you'd get 3 or 4 different IPs in one day. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 17:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, there are still some that give you a new IP every time you reset the modem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Humm, yes. Personally I'd invoke WP:IAR, inform the IP that he is bocked from editing Wikipedia until Hartlepool F.C. beats Manchester United 10-nil in an F.A. Cup Final, refer him to Arkell v. Pressdram regarding the legal threats, and then place a notice on the edit page stating that any postings that may reasonably be inferred (by us) to be from him should be deleted on sight. We have enough problems with POV-pushers and world-setters-to-rights concerning issues that matter. This one doesn't, as far as we at Wikipedia (and evidently likewise the vast majority of the inhabitants of Hartlepool) are concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Never argue law with someone violating WP:NLT. It is like wrestling with a pig. You only get dirty, and the pig actually enjoys it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the intention was not to cite Arkell vs Pressdram in earnest, but rather to refer the user in question to the response in the case - for which, see AndyTheGrump's link, above. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A person of this name seems to have a history dating back to 2005 of taking councils in the North East of England to court for moving memorial statues [68]. Paul B (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. The article will remain on my watchlist, and if he carries on when the protection expires I'll re-protect it for longer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. I've added the page to my watchlist. De728631 (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's hope no-one tries to move it!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

He appears to believe that it has been "moved" because the square around it - indeed Hartlepool as a whole - is not the same shape it once was. Kind of Zen-like memorial moving. Paul B (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant the article, haha. As we all know, Wikipedia is not the same shape it once was. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

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

---

• Is this a community ban yet? (on either legal threats, or competence) That's going to make the cluebat easier to wield in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  That might not be a bad idea - it's clearly been an obsession of his for quite a few years, and I think it's unlikely he's going to drop it any time soon. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  Support community ban, assuming we can ban somebody who doesn't have (as far as we know) any named accounts. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• We are going to ban a dynamic IP? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why not? We had an Arbcom case six years ago for a dynamic IP after it ignored the results of an RFCU on it. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Then I guess I will Support in principal, although not sure the actual benefits since he is de facto banned anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support ban of Peter Judge the person - it's always the person who's banned, not the account or IP. He always signs his real name, and his posting style is unmistakeable, so we can be sure it's him. If the person is banned, we can revert/block/protect on sight, whatever IP he uses -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

  If a ban is enacted, he will need to be told. He's given us his email address enough times, so that should suffice - I'm happy to send a notification to him -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support a ban of the person, not the IP's. He's basically just using the page to promote his own ideas. --Salix (talk): 08:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support the proposed community ban of Peter Judge for his persistent threats, disruption, and lack of competence. Mephistophelian (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC).
• Support ban of the editor calling himself Peter Judge. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Pass a Method talk 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Peter Judge is now hassling me and threatening legal action on my talk page (twice deleted) and after I asked him to cease and desist. Totally unacceptable and irrational behaviour. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 20:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Peter Judge has yesterday been attempting to consult a solicitor on Just Answer (UK Law) here [69] regarding his perception of Wikipedia's stance and actions. It would appear he has confused the solicitor, almost as much as he has confounded us, about what his actual question is. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support the ban of the editor calling himself Peter Judge. He has clearly exhausted the community's patience with his irrational behavior. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. He's now moved on to Talk:Redheugh Gardens War Memorial, making demands under the Data Protection Act 1998 this time. I've reverted, and temporarily semi-protected that talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  And legal threats continuing on my talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

  Wikipedia Control to Major Tom... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support user is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia but to use it as a soapbox for his ideas and the use of legal threats to support his position in not acceptable behaviour. Most of the time his badly formed English make it impossible to understand his points, efforts over they years to communicate with the user have failed so I would suggest we also have a competency issue as well. MilborneOne (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not here to improve the encyclopedia. 79.172.242.165 (talk) 00:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly lacks competence (amongst other things). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It seems that there is enough evidence for me to believe that this troll now needs to be shown the door out. We are far better off with users with this bad of an attitude on Wikipedia as he has failed us for the last time. Throw this troll under the old bridge where he belongs. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 03:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Uninvolved, but having reviewd enough (without reading all the TL:DR posts), this seems typical of some good faith citizens who plaque the press with their letters to the editors about some personal crusade for justice. He mentioned a couple of times this 'new media' but he needs to understand that Wikipedia is not a platform for his campaign. I now have all the pages on my wl. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Kudpung. --John (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• OK, this looks like pretty overwhelming support for a community ban, so I'll send him an email to tell him so. He's been editing today without making any legal threats (but still adding impenetrable walls of legalese-sounding text), so once he is informed of a ban it will make reverting simpler - just "revert banned editor". I'll leave someone else to close this as I have taken part in the !vote (but I can't see any possibility that I've misjudged it). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  He has now been informed by email -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  And I got an unsurprisingly long and rambling reply, which he also copied to Hartlepool Council and to an online law site - I won't be replying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Closing comment I'm willing to formally close this (as opposed to the parts Boing! already took care of), but can someone clarify that this is not the same person as User:Peter Judge?--v/r - TP 13:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

  User:Peter Judge's style of writing looks very different to "IP Peter Judge" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they look to be un-related based on editing history and writing styles. GiantSnowman 14:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes

The backstory is that user Kwamikagami is advocating that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron do not exist, that the correct name is Lake Michigan-Huron for a combined lake. (BTW they do behave as one lake only with respect to levels because they are connected at the straits of Mackinac, but IMHO sources overwhelmingly, probably at or near 100% name them as two lakes) ) Towards that end they (or the material that they are untagging etc.) are putting in material that is either unsourced or where the sourcing does not support the assertions made in the article which cited it. There are also some more convoluted constructions. For example, there is editor-written text within one reference which says that it supports the editor's assertions. Another example of a convolution is where an editor took an asterisk/footnote from a level data chart explaining why Michigan and Huron were combined in the chart out of context and placed it as a separate quote as if it was a statement about the lake's name status in general. In short, took it out of the context of explaining combination in the level chart to make it sound like it was a general statement on the status and naming of the lakes.

We've had some sporadic debates over this over months. There have been comments from others regarding this and I took it upon myself to finally do something about it. More recently I've done a lot of detailed work related to this at two articles: Lake Michigan–Huron and List of lakes by area. To avoid writing a book book with zillions of diffs I believe that this is an accurate summary:

At List of lakes by area I tagged both the name and data for "lake" Michigan-Huron for sourcing. I added Lake Michigan and Lake Huron as lakes and the data on them, with solid sourcing (US Government summary of Great Lakes Data). I deleted "lake" Michigan-Huron from the listing and renumbered the size ranking of the lakes accordingly. Kwamikagami reverted everything that I did in one edit, with just an overall statement "Every statement you have made about that article that I have checked has been false." This included removal of the sourced Lake Michigan and Lake Huron listing and data and re-insertion of the unsourced "lake" Michigan-Huron data, and removal of the "citation needed" tags on the latter.

At the Lake Michigan–Huron article I went through and tagged all of the explicit and implicit assertions of the "Michigan-Huron" naming for sourcing, and also tagged the data given for the combined lakes for sourcing. I also did more detailed edits and edit summaries which unraveled the more complex constructions such as the editor-written assertions within a reference. As a sidebar, I also reviewed the references; the traceable ones actually refuted the assertion rather than supporting it. That left one (untracable) one, a magazine. They gave only the name of the magazine, and the year that a statement was purportedly in the magazine and a cryptic code which the magazine does not use at their website for searching back issues etc. There was no title of the article. no author of the article, no page number, no indication of which month's issue of the magazine it purportedly was from in 2004. I tagged it asking for verification and a page number. I did all of this split into a series of about 9 edits, each with an edit summary. Kwamikagami revrted all of the work en masse in one edit with only the comment "we don't ref the lead, the page numbers are given, etc etc." (the "etc. etc." is their words, not mine).

So far I've only reported 2 people in my Wiki-life, this is #3. I tried avoiding it, with a suggestion at the article and on their talk page on how we could work together on the Lake Michigan–Huron and an indication that if they persisted on the policy-related areas I would be forced to report them. The core of their argument seems to be (in MY words) that their (mis)interpretation wp:brd (which is not a policy) overrides wp:ver (which IS a policy). While there is also an underlying content issue (Whether or not Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron-Michigan are the names for those lakes) lakes) this report is only about the policy related-issues which I have noted in my report. And I'm asking that a reading be given on the policy-related aspects. More eyes on the article would also be good, but I digress. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The very first version of that article was modestly written and truthful - that these two bodies of water are sometimes grouped together. It looks like we've now got some editors trying to be advocates for an obscure technical viewpoint in order to impose their viewpoint over common convention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Any POV corrections are welcome. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You can start by abandoning the fringe claim that the two lakes are one lake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

He accused me of removing tags at List of lakes, despite the fact that there were no tags. The tags in the main article were largely spurious: he repeatedly tagged the bolded words in the lead, despite the fact that I explained to him that we don't normally ref the lead. (The words in question are cited in the text.) He tagged a ref for verification because it needs a page number, when it already had a page number. He deleted a note with the summary that it wasn't a good reference, when it wasn't supposed to be a reference. He tagged another he claimed did not say what it clearly says. (The least he could do is explain his POV at Talk; it appears to me to be a case of OR.) Perhaps some of his other edits were legit, but when I got half-way through and every one turned out to be spurious, I decided going further was a waste of time and reverted him. Rather than correct the errors I pointed out, he started to edit war. This appears to be a case of trying to smear the article because he failed to get it deleted altogether. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone remind me again, in a little less tl;dr manner, why this isn't a garden variety content dispute? People who disagree have different points of view on a matter. That is tautologically true, so noting that someone whom you disagree with has "POV editing" doesn't mean anything more than "Me and this other person are in a content dispute". The best way to handle this is to follow any of the things listed at WP:DR, before it becomes necessary to block someone. I see nothing here that isn't a simple content dispute colored by strong emotions on both sides. Meh. --Jayron32 23:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, aside from the edit-warring, there is no such thing as "Lake Michigan–Huron", so really the article should be deleted, and there are processes for doing that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Someone's trying to claim that they're the same lake? Who do I need to lose respect for today? dangerouspanda 23:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes they are deleting "Lake Michigan" and "Lake Huron" and their statistics from the "list of lakes" article, and inserting an unsourced name and statistics for "lake" Michigsn-Huron. Can't wait to see how that plays out for Oceans, since they are more-than-joined. Start deleting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans from listings and replace it with the Atlantic-Pacific-Indian-Artic-Etc. Ocean data. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So, they are doing so right now, as we are typing this discussion, they are sneaking out to put their own versions of the articles back? Is that correct? If that is what is happening right now, then perhaps we should fix that. If, however, they have stopped doing that, then we are in the discussion phase and no one should be blocked for discussing their viewpoint, so long as they aren't reverting for force a fait accompli. So what is it, are they still warring right this minute or have they stopped and started discussing their unpopular viewpoint with others? --Jayron32 23:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nearly all the world's bodies of water are interconnected, so just drop all the names of bodies of water and replace them with one highly-useful designation: Panaqua. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, CharlieBugs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That article actually makes some sense, although it's likely redundant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding deletion, it probably should get deleted, but my "Plan A" was to cooperatively evolve it to an article that discusses the ways (levels etc.) that behave like a single lake, which I put out as an olive branch. North8000 (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the right way to handle this would be to take out the approximately two useful sentences from that one article, put them in the appropriate place in Great Lakes, and then make this fictional "Huron-Michigan" a simple redirect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All the continents and even minor islands are also joined, if you dig down deep enough. This is a content dispute, but it does look like it has gotten to the point of being disruptive due to it touching many articles. I would love to hear Kwami's rationale for the whole "one lake" theory, including sourcing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Either the Fringe noticeboard, or the "don't edit Wikipedia while on mind-altering substances of any type" noticeboard might be better :-) dangerouspanda 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

They're joined underwater, yes. But even considering only the conventional surface level continents, and ignoring artifices like canals, there are really only 4 continents: Australia, Antarctica, the Americas, and Europe-Asia-Africa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an argument to keep Huron–Michigan. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Only to those who don't understand satire. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to Kwamikagami:

• regarding "despite the fact that there were no tags", here are the tags. [70] When you did a giant deletion of all of my work you nuked it to a version prior to the tags.
• regarding page number, if you would put in a page number and/or identify it as such, that would settle that tag. But there still would just be name of the magazine and the year so the other tag would apply.
• regarding "failed to get it deleted" I have NEVER tried to get either article deleted. In fact I would fight for the retention of one of them if someone AFD'd it. North8000 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the content dispute notes, yes there is a content dispute underlying this the core of which is I am saying that "Lake Michigan" and "Lake Huron" exist. But I approached the editing as tagging the unsourced assertions otherwise, and my report here is on the policy-related matters, most of which are semi-warring to remove tags for sourcing. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at your tagging, and it hen way past the line into tag-bombing. I've looked at the sources provided, except for the magazine, and they support the hydrological claim. If you haven't already, you should revert any changes made to lake lists to remove Lake M & lake H and replace them with Lake M-H, since it is not generally considered to be a lake, per se. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've done that now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. None of the sources I can check support the claim that there is a lake called "Michigan-Huron". What they support, and what the article is now about, is that the two bodies of water can be considered as one hydrologically or hydraulically, and that combined body can be called "Lake Michogan-Huron". No lists of lakes should be changed, there's no general consensus in the world at large that these are the same body of water, it's simply that for one specific purpose one can think of them as one body. The article should stay, on the basis of that specific reason. I believe that I've removed any vestiges of a fringey POV that the to lakes are actually considered to be one except in that particular circumstance. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You've already stated everything that needs to be said about it. So why a separate article? It should just go back into the Great Lakes article as an "oh-by-the-way" thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with it being merged into the Great Lakes article as a section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

BTW, here I'm just trying to resolve the policy related aspects. More feedback or eyes on the overall issues would be a nice adder. But I do not seek any sanctions etc. (I have to leave for a few hours.....) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've boldly moved all the material from the Lake Michigan-Huron article into the already existing section in the Great Lakes article, tagged them both with the "copied" template, and converted the former into a redirect to the section of the latter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kudos. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that is best. Goes further than I did and is for the best. That renders what I brought on one of the articles a moot point; the other where the issues has been active is at List of lakes by area (Plus it is germane at one or two more "lake list" articles where I've done nothing yet. North8000 (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I restored Lake Michigan and Lake Huron in the "area" article, and broke up Michigan-Huron to its components in the "volume" list. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami reverted you on the Lake Michigan-Huron article. North8000 (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I reverted per BOLD because there was no discussion: the discussion is on the talk page of the article; I didn't even see this.

As for deleting the tags, you did that yourself![71] You're chiding me for your own actions?

@BaseballBugs: Huron–Michigan are one body of water the same way that the Ocean is one body of water. The sources are clear on that.

@Beyond My Ken: "no lists should be changed". Then please undo your changes. Lake Huron-Michigan has been on the list for years. — kwami (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The "for years" argument is irrelevant. The fact that this bogus item has been under the radar for a long time doesn't accrue any validity. In fact, the original article was modest and on the mark. It has evolved somehow from merely an obscure alternative term to an alleged "fact" which is unsupported by sources or common usage. In either case, there was no valid reason for it to be separate from the Great Lakes article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwamikagami, do you propose to merge our articles on Europe and Asia? The sources are clear that they are one body of land. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. The claim that I'm saying that "Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes" (in the title of this section) is purposely obtuse. I'm not proposing that we merge those articles, merely that we keep the article on the combined body, just as we have articles on Eurasia alongside Europe and Asia, and the World Ocean alongside the Pacific and Atlantic—or for that matter, Hindi-Urdu alongside Hindi and Urdu, and any number of other cases where there is disagreement as to how to divide up continua into conventionalized units. Are the people opposed to this article willing to delete those articles as well? — kwami (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that wasn't the best analogy. But either way, we don't call "Eurasia" a continent, which is the core issue at both lake articles. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course we do. Read continent. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is, in my opinion, disingenuous. While there is dispute as to exactly where the boundary between Europe and Asia is, and possibly on the difference between Hindi and Urdu (I'm not that familiar with south-central Asian languages), there is no dispute as to the boundary between the Atlantic and Pacific (dividing point in open water is a line running directly south from the southernmost point of Cape Horn to the edge of the Antarctic continent), and likewise, there's no dispute as to where the boundary between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron is--the line that represents the shortest distance between Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas (which is, not so coincidentally, the exact alignment of the Mackinac Bridge) in the Straits of Mackinac. As people have pointed out earlier in the discussion, all the referenced sources support that they are *separate* lakes rather than a single lake, except for the single magazine article that does not have sufficient information (month, article title, page number... the year and a cryptic code that doesn't do anything in the magazine's website isn't enough) to be verifiable. Others have pointed out that the combined body of water is only referred to as a single entity in the hydrographic sense, where the two lakes act as one; in all other circumstances, they are referred to separately. I recommend you self-revert, Kwami, and do more discussion in the future. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone close this please now and/or take it to DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Maybe only after someone puts Kwami on the Ross Ice Shelf for awhile, for having broken 3RR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

When his post started I was at 1RR/24hr on both articles and Kwamikagami was at 2RR/24hr on both. Since the beginning of the report Kwamikagami moved up from 2RR to 4RR in 24h on the one article and from 2RR to 3RR on the other article. I stepped back and remained at 1RR in 24h on both. Rightly or wrongly so, the policy related issues in my original report got lost in the shuffle. I am not seeking sanctions, but I also don't want this to descend back into the mess of a situation that it was in when I reported. North8000 (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am fairly certain this is not the first time Kwami has been schlepped here for edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I gave up on the threads I had going with them there for now.....there isn't a real conversation going on, they are just firing volleys and ignoring the main points of each of my posts in the conversation. And now they have added insults e.g. "Your personal POV is clouding your ability to read the sources objectively".....most of my points included precise specific things from a careful reading of the sources, so that is uncalled for. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the content issue, I agree strongly with Beyond My Ken that the very minor double lake concept should not appear in any lists of lakes. A lake is a body of inland water; Lakes Huron and Michigan are obviously separate bodies joined by a narrow strait. The lakes are huge and so it the strait, but the relative sizes give us the popular mainstream viewpoint that there are two lakes. A ratio of many thousands to one in reliable sources tells us that the proper weight for the minor viewpoint is vanishingly small, and it should only be mentioned at the Great Lakes articles. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Also agree. And each claim of support by a source where the source is available turned out to be a mis-use of the source and where the source said the opposite. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The clear consensus of all editors involved in discussing this article, between the discussion on the article's talk page and the one here, is that the separate article is not warranted. (Consensus does not have to be located in a single place.) For this reason, I have restored the redirect to Great lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron, and this should not be undone without the support of consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have also removed the terribly WP:FRINGEy view that Michigan-Huron is "one lake" from Lake Huron, Lake Superior, Lake Michigan and Straits of Mackinac, although I left or added the information that the two lakes can be considered to be one body of water hydrologically. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is Kwami still a rollbacker?

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

---

It seems from the above that he edit wars regularly and he was also desysoped by ArbCom. The anti-thesis of a trustworthy user, I'd say. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good to know -- I have had the very same experience with him @ the article on Croatian language. He is supported by another user there and they revert everything which isn't their POV.esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 00:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please provide diffs where Kwami has violated WP:Rollback. Absent violations, what harm is there in retaining the right? (other then lack of consistency with the rollback thread below) Monty₈₄₅ 00:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

[72][73], [74][75], [76][77]. Also [78][79][80]. Not really related to this incident, though, so maybe this is not the most useful place for the rollback discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he is regularly misusing rollback in content disputes. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• It does indeed. Since we regularly remove rollback from editors who use it in content disputes, I have removed it in this case. This is an admin action, and the normal rules apply. If Kwami can show that he understands the problem and agrees not to do it again, any admin can on their discretion restore rollback. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Why is Kwami not blocked yet?

Kwamikagami (talk · contribs)

He already violated 3RR yesterday, with no admin response, and today he continues to edit war against consensus. This needs to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Bugs, you said "there is no consensus" when you deleted the article. The article has been there for five years (and not created by me). If you want to delete it, go through proper channels at RfD. "No consensus" means we leave the status quo for now. Meanwhile, we do have consensus wording for the lead to address the objections, proposed on the talk page and apart from a few quibbles apparently accepted by everyone.

(As for violating 3RR, does deleting a speedy tag on an article that is being debated count toward 3RR?) — kwami (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You continue to support a fringe, non-notable viewpoint. The length of time it was under the radar is irrelevant. And you, as a former admin, should know the consequences of edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It clearly is not WP:FRINGE, it is only minority usage. Regardless, if you want to make a contested deletion—and despite North8000's allegation, I'm not the only one contesting it (Jason Quest characterized the deletion as "a hearty fuck you", and others have as well)—then take it through proper channels. — kwami (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was not deleted. Redirecting =/= deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And even as he makes his bogus arguments here, he continues to edit war. He's already been stripped of his adminship and been blocked several times for edit warring. I guess he wants to go leave wikipedia altogether, in a big splash in a non-existent lake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Being the admin's incident board you can imagine that many admins are aware of the situation and if they feel blocking is necessary that's a decision one of them can make. You're not making this situation any better by antagonizing Kwami; it's just adding to the drama so please cut it out. If you feel so strongly that you're in a better position to judge whether someone should be blocked then perhaps you should consider an RFA. Sædon^talk 01:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, he's antagonizing everyone else. He's at war with several editors. I expect the admins are asleep at the switch, and that Kwami is hoping to outlast everyone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I'm not going to disagree (or agree) with your position about the edit warring, but I personally find the moniker "Kwami the Swami" to be racist. I'm pretty sure you're just trying to be humorous, but it's not coming across that way. Would you please strike the "the Swami" part of your comments above? Thanks. Risker (talk) 05:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's racist at all; Chris Berman would certainly disagree. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, please don't use the obnoxious Chris Berman as an exemplar; however, I do agree that BB's comment was clearly meant humorously, with no "racist" intent, and that Risker (an admin I have great respect for) is being a bit too sensitive on this particular occasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the, IYO, "obnoxious" Berman, what's racist about it in the first place? If there are reliable sources for the blatant racism, we should add it to the article... --Onorem♠Dil 09:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you remove the YouTube link per WP:COPYLINK. Bidgee (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And as regards RFA, you don't have enough money to get me to run again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion of the core topic is already at two articles so we shouldn't start a third here. But IMO it is a case of Kwamikagami vs. reality/everybody/overwhelming sources. North8000 (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Apologies for editing another's post - but wrong is wrong. We can do better than resorting to name calling. — ChedZILLA 09:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And you can do better than refactoring someone else's posts. Please don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
    • You're right in general, but I tacitly gave Ched permission to do so in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The term "Swami" is used by my Indian colleagues to mean someone who is wise and knowledgeable. So calling Kwami a Swami is basically rhyming irony. Sorry about the distraction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly that you're in a better position to judge whether someone should be blocked then perhaps you should consider an RFA. This is a BS argument. So now, only administrators are allowed to say someone needs to be blocked, their opinions on this are indisputable law, and non-admins ought to shut up or start a self-RFA? I knew Wikipedia had strayed from its core values over the past few years but I had no idea just how far. - Balph Eubank ✉ 15:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And I take back what I said. If Saedon the Nanny gives me a million dollars, I'll consider running for admin again. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Bugs, if you give me a hundred grand I'll create a thousand sockpuppets to votestack you into office. - Balph Eubank ✉ 18:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Then we'd have Bugs in the system! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's happenning again. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What is happening again? (Specifics, diffs???)--regentspark (comment) 20:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe he may be referring to Kwami re-instating Lake Michigan-Huron into List of lakes by area on the grounds that it's been in the list since it was created 5 years ago. However, consensus doesn't work that way: the very strong consensus is clearly that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are separate lakes except for when considered hydrologically -- that's what the sources say. If that's the case, then Lake Michigan and Lake Huron must be separate lakes everywhere on Wikipedia, and local consensus, or the status quo of an obscure list article, can't override it. Kwami also changed the redirect at Lake Huron-Michigan from pointing to Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron (where the information currently is) to Lake Michigan-Huron, which is a redirect, thus creating a double re-direct. That behavior seems a bit WP:POINTy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Somebody needs to link him to WP:LONGTIME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Beyond My Ken has said that discussion here constitutes consensus. It does not. Consensus needs to be built on the article talk page where everyone can see it, not hidden in admin territory. North8000 and I agreed that including both Michigan-Huron and lakes Michigan and Huron in the list was an acceptable compromise. Perhaps it can be modified further to reflect both the popular and scientific conceptions. We have a RS that MH is the largest lake in the world. That is certainly worth mentioning in a list of the largest lakes in the world, even if it's a minority/scientific view. — kwami (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The idea that article talk pages are the only places where consensus can be determined is not true, and as an ex-adminsitrator you should know that. The clear consensus of editors discussing this issue in the ongoing discussion here and elsewhere is that Lake Michigan-Huron is a construct which is only valid hydrologically, and no sources – not a single one of them – supports the nonsense that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not separate lakes. The more you try to push that very WP:FRINGEy concept, the more you are going to find yourself up against it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Deliberate pointiness/trolling

• It looks like he's repeatedly doing the deliberately-breaking-the-redirect thing BMK mentioned. Somebody should full-protect it to put a stop to it (I would but don't want to fall foul of WP:INVOLVED). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

...and he's also doing the exact same thing to Lake Huron–Michigan - producing a redirect loop between the two. It's clear this is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point in a distinctly trollish manner and a stop needs to be put to it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I suspect Bushranger is confused. If I didn't correct the redirects, I would get threats for that. It is only proper to correct double redirects when moving or creating a page, and the page needs to stay until there is a proper RfD. BeyondMyKen is being disruptive of the encyclopedia by not allowing discussion to take its course. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I refuse to fully protect the article or redirect against one disruptive editor, so I've blocked Kwami for 72 hours, at the end of which period one would hope he will have dropped the WP:STICK. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Amen.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm off to me bed, and I see he's appealed. If he sees sense, or folks disagree with me, I've no problem with another admin unblocking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You blocked me on spurious charges after I pointed out that they were spurious? That's highly unprofessional of you. All you had to do was check my edit history to see there was no basis to them. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Something longer term on those 2-3 articles might be a good idea. I also put the question up at "Recheck" on the Talk:Lake Michigan-Huron talk page to doubly put it to bed if anybody wants to comment there. Probably a bad idea on my part to put it there. North8000 (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't have done that myself, the consensus was very strong and didn't really need to be "checked". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is not strong on the talk page, where normal editors have access to the debate. And the consensus here is based at least partly on misrepresentations and misunderstandings. — kwami (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, frankly that is just pure bullshit. The only misrepresntations have been on your part, about what the citations you provided actually say, and the only misunderstanding is yours as well: you fail to recognize a consensus when you see it.

Is this really want you want, to join the cadre of editors who push WP:FRINGE concepts against both the consensus of Wikpedia editors and that of the world at large? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to keep things up to date here, Kwami has been unblocked by Regentspark on the condition that he "not directly edit on the articles on these lakes or about these lakes for 72 hours". Talk page comments are OK, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Kwami has now branched out into WikiProject Geology [81] and WikiPRoject Geography [82], making what appear to be deliberately innacurate statements concerning those that oppose his POV, such as "Several commenters have explicitly said they're upset with it because it's not what they learned in school". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

@Kwami: Please provide the diff(s) for the "several editors" who said they opposed your stance because it wasn't what they learned in school. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluerim is still refusing to discuss (4th report)

User:Bluerim is still refusing to discuss. I don't understand why he won't discuss. There's a trend I've noticed with this user. I'll make a report against him for the very issue of not discussing (this is the 4th report), he'll begin to discuss because he's essentially forced to, but after a little time has passed (maybe a week or two after the report is archived), he'll go right back to not discussing. It happened the first time, it happened the second time, and it's happened again. The second report was never answered by an admin and the third report was also not answered by an admin, however, there was a lengthy discussion involving myself, Bluerim, and another user (User:Bridies), and that other user noticed the issues with Bluerim.

The article of question that he's refusing to discuss is Kratos (God of War) (which was one of the two articles in the last report). In the majority of my edit summaries since September 2, I've mentioned to Bluerim about the discussion (Kratos revision history). He's reverted me and stated things such as "Didn't see any discussion re: Simpsons." which he essentially hid the big portion of this revert by stating something minor; he's stated "...what discussion?" despite the fact it was the one he started (which User:Niemti was more in agreeance with me as we had discussed the lead and other issues previously); he covered up his reversion again by stating "Correction"; he stated that he's "Not ignoring anything" despite the fact I've told him about the discussion multiple times; despite me mentioning it multiple times, he tells me to go to the discussion, and then did it again. I've also sought the opinion of a copy-editor on how a particular sentence in this article should be written and they gave me their opinion. I implemented that version because it is worded much better and clearer than what Bluerim wants to put, but despite that, Bluerim states That's one opinion" when it's actually two (mine and the copy-editors), and in his last two reverts, he hides this by telling me to go to the Talk page over the lead section. I pointed this out in one of my edit summaries to Bluerim but he ignored it: he's walking a fine line (and probably crossed it) of disruptive editing, particularly bullets 4 and 5 here under "A disruptive editor....".

This has been going on for far too long. I was hoping the last two reports would settle this, but obviously they haven't. Administrative help would be appreciated. --JDC808 ♫ 02:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This needs to stop right now. It is obsessive and I am now concerned for this user's mental health. He argues the point on even small corrections and shows more than a little ownership. I've repeatedly asked for a justiification for a certain lead, and instead receive reverting with some rather preachy edit summaries. The fact that this editor has come here a fourth time is stunning. Not the correct forum. Again, a third party. Not going to comment here any further as it just fuels the debate.

Bluerim (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You didn't seriously just comment about their mental health? dangerouspanda 12:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a great deal of discussion on the talk page about this disagreement (from both of you). — ThePowerofX 12:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, after making this remark (We will require another opinion. diff), what outside help did you seek to resolve the dispute? — ThePowerofX 12:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I can source someone if you wish. As for the mental health issue, it is not personal. I find this a real concern on Wikipedia. People become far too involved - and indeed obsessed - with editing. I found two other editors - one who looks to have edited on and off for 24 hours and another who admits to having issues and their posts are wild ramblings - in one hour. Hence my comment. Wikipedia can be a great thing, at times.Bluerim (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you give up that train of thought quickly. Making personal comments about folks like that is a quick road to a block.--v/r - TP 14:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

[83] Indeed (note edit summary). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Per the last incarnation of this: Bluerim has a continuing pattern of making personal attacks against the OP, which have now progressed to questioning of the OP's mental health. A block has to be in order if that isn't the last one. bridies (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Bluerim, you didn't find anyone to resolve the dispute, so I don't know how you could source someone. That mental health comment is a personal attack against me. You said you "repeatedly asked" for me to explain, but you only did it a couple of times, and in actuality, I've been asking you countless times to discuss. I left a post on that discussion and your only response was "We will require another opinion." but you didn't find anyone. There was another editor that posted (User:Niemti), who like I said earlier, was more in agreeance with me, and they actually reverted you. --JDC808 ♫ 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my comment comes out of concern. Wikipedia is a fine thing, but people become too involved in the process. Your examples also shade the truth. That said, nose to the grindstone. If these things must be thrashed out on the Talk pages word by word to resolve the issues, so be it. List of God of War characters is a start. Bluerim (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article in question is Kratos (God of War), not the List page (which I requested that RfC despite the fact you're borderline rejecting community input) . My examples show the truth, and you're now trying to cover it up by saying the List page is a start. It's your same argument from the last report. If it was a start last time, it should have carried into Kratos. And as I stated in the OP, you're essentially being forced to discuss because of these reports. That's one of the problems, it shouldn't take four reports to force you to discuss. --JDC808 ♫ 01:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I too take issue at Bluerim's numerous jabs at user's "mental health". It seems like a cheap way of avoiding the real issues (article/content disputes) while thinly veiling a personal attack. I haven't seen anything wrong with JDC's actions, but even if there were, it's not Bluerim's place to make commentary on it anyway. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that it's any of my business, but I find the comments above unacceptable as a personal attack on another editor, and it is made worse by Bluerim's response to a NPA warning. See diff. He is essentially daring an admin to take action. GregJackP Boomer! 02:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I also take issue with Bluerim's jabs at a user's "mental health". I believe that this reflects an attitude that is incompatible with Wikipedia. I have seen nothing wrong with JRC's actions as well, but it's not Bluerim's place to make commentary on it anyway. Any type of personal attacks are not, should not, and will not be tolerated. Also, competence is required. As a collaborative encyclopedia, we users should comment on content. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a jab but rather an observation. Thank you for the excellent link on competence. I thought it was fascinating and it should be a must read for all editors. I don't believe it addresses all the areas of incompetence and only generalizes about solutions, but it is encouraging and I may try and offer some suggestions as to a framework. They may or may not be accepted but I believe it to be worthwhile as there's a bigger picture. Anyway, that said, I still feel the other editor is a tad too keen but will post more comments if I can find someone to moderate. There's a decent chap at one of the pages in question who seems willing to ask questions. Will start there. Bluerim (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, article in question is Kratos, not the List page. That "decent chap" posted here and noticed the issue of the personal attack. --JDC808 ♫ 11:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you (Bluerim) label it, the way you approach it is wrong. You can make the same point without being offensive. For examples

• Constructive - User X is paying too close of attention to my edits. I think he's crossed the line because it's being disruptive to cleaning up Article Y.
• Innappropriate - User X is paying too close of attention to my edits, and therefore, has a mental disorder.

That's the real problem here. It's out of line to jump to that "mental health" conclusion. Just stick to what you feel is really happening, and leave the diagnosis to a Doctor. (Note: This is all hypothetically how I feel Bluerim should have reacted if he takes issue with a user. As I said before, I don't think JDC is in the wrong to begin with.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair comment. I never stated said user was unbalanced, simply guilty of beooming too involved. I still believe that's not healthy, but I shouldn't have invoked mental health (that said, there are some Wikipedia folk out there who need to be managed. I think the notion of a "timeout" as opposed to a block would go a long way to helping but this is an idea I'll be suggesting elsewhere). Bluerim (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That's still questioning my health, and to make comment about the "timeout", how would that be any different from a block?

On a related note to why this report was made, it seems that Bluerim's refusal to discuss is carrying over into God of War: Ascension. I had sought the advice of a copy-editor on that page and implemented it here. Today, Bluerim almost completely reverted a part of it and only stated Tweaked. I reverted him, stated what he did, and asked to explain on the Talk page if there's still an issue. Instead of explaining, he just reverted me and stated Corrected and he reverted me again, telling me to "try again." --JDC808 ♫ 04:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about the "time out" here. If really interested, you can read my submission. I'll offer a link. Re: second, the Edit Summary did explain and I suggested you try rewording. I don't believe a discussion is required for every edit, particularly one so small. That would be very time consuming, and to my knowledge no editor does that. Will pad out the ES for you if required. Bluerim (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Your explanation came (which was small and in my opinion, false) on your third revert. It doesn't matter how small the edit is, that fact is, I asked for you to discuss if there was still an issue. Instead of doing so, you refused and reverted. And yes, other editors do discuss, even if it's small issues. --JDC808 ♫ 21:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Try to avoid using strong words such as "refuse", as it is emotive and an assumption. As for other editors...some yes, some no (examples by the thousands in the latter category). I suggest adjourning to the relevant Talk Pages as this achieves nothing more here. Bluerim (talk) 04:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if you didn't refuse to discuss (despite the fact you gave that away in your last post), then why didn't you discuss at Kratos where I asked countless times and why didn't you discuss at Ascension even though I asked you to? This does achieve something as it shows the truth. --JDC808 ♫ 04:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Threatening legal action

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

---

On my talk page a message is threatening legal action because I reverted an edit, identified as vandalism diff here where an IP editor removed content without providing a reason for his actions. He claims he removed it because it was defamatory. --Itemirus (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The material removed by the IP was a gross violation of WP:BLP (it made unsourced claims of illegality), and on that basis anyone could have (in fact should have) removed it. I suggest you familiarise yourself with policy before accusing others of vandalism. Meanwhile, rather than go through endless further drama, perhaps you should apologise to the IP editor - while we have a WP:NLT policy, it seems hardly worthwhile to invoke it here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That article could use some work. Note the embedded editorial comment, "SIN wasn't even record label SIGNED YET!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

1. After noticing the notability tag on SIN (band) from September 2010, I checked the references and determined that there was an obvious and substantial copyright violation that dated back to the earliest version of the article.
2. While the long-standing copyright infringement is remarkable and unfortunate, it doesn't mitigate Andy's concerns regarding the removal of defamatory biographical material.
3. Another worthwhile observation is that the existence of an edit summary is wholly inconsequential in relation to the validity of another editor's rationale for reverting any changes. Omitting the summary introduces an obvious difficulty, but the reversion should relate directly to the material altered, its neutrality, accuracy, references, structure, coherence, etc., rather than the explanation offered.
4. Following Andy, I'd also apologise. Don't lose heart, just ensure that you rectify the mistake. Mephistophelian (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

I presented my apologies to the anonymous editor. I am positive this issue will be resolved as it is clear I have reverted his edit with no intention to defamate. My mistake was just being too hasty in identifying it as vandalism, when I should have paid more attention to the contents removed. It is an article about a 2nd-tier band from the late 70s, so I was quite careless...--Itemirus (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Itemirus. Mephistophelian (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

I have advised the article creator, MDSanker (talk · contribs), that he should come here and comment on this matter. I noticed his second edit summary said, "Missed first paragraph". Presumably meaning he forgot to copy-and-paste it. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe he didn't realize he was violating copyright rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

After glancing through MDSanker's contributions, there are various warnings relating to copyright violations from 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Mephistophelian (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC).

Never blocked for it, though. I hate to come down hard on our brave military personnel (U.S. Navy Captain in this case), but copyright violations are on the short list of things that could potentially get wikipedia into legal trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a Captain at all; not even a commissioned officer. US Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class if I am correct. You're confusing the bird. The Captain/Colonel bird does not have the chevrons under it.--v/r - TP 14:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. E-5 Petty Officer Second Class [84] I mis-read something. In any case, after he deleted the copyright complaint without comment, he asked me what ANI is. I am not impressed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In the brief encounter I had with MDSanker, I was immediately struck by his difficulties with the English language, evidenced in his edit summaries. I made him aware of my concern(kindly...sort of). Perhaps I was a little harsh, but I mention it because I haven't noticed him responding much after that. I bring it up because it wouldn't surprise me if he stays clear of this discussion. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 22:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Recommend closure: Given that Nyttend deleted the infringing article, I don't believe that there's anything else that's recent and properly actionable for administrators. While other contributors evidently share my concerns regarding MDSanker's competence with English, and his decision to avoid the discussion, the deletion has nonetheless resolved the principal issue. Thanks, Mephistophelian (talk) 09:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC).

What about other potential copyright violations? If he's been dinged for that on several occasions, it looks like a trend. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Spam revdel on Talk:Minecraft please

• ebay.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• ebayimg.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Live eBay links posted here (2 edit spa). I've blanked them, but they've also been restored (GF, but it's still spam) by another editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised eBay links aren't blacklisted. Is there an encyclopedic purpose of which I'm not aware? Aside from a link to the main page from eBay of course. Sædon^talk 19:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You can always propose it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I've given the user a last warning on his talk page. That is a pretty obvious policy violation even for a new user, so I assume he will be blocked on site if he does it again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A blacklist wouldn't be helpful because eBay is a suitable source for images. You could probably find good examples of fair-use images that came from listings on eBay (album covers come to mind), and I've seen plenty of images of PD-old artwork (especially postcards) that came from there. If we blacklisted it, people wouldn't be able to provide good sources for images uploaded from eBay. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me for being confused, but how is ebay a good source for images? All the images there are copyrighted, are they not? I have been an occasional ebayer since 1998 and have never seen an auction with a copyright release in it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you're right, Dennis. I found nothing on Ebay.com that discusses the copyright of the images there, but it seems safe to assume that whoever owns the copyright, Ebay or the seller, has not signed a release somewhere that gives us a license. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Photographs of many public domain works, like say old postcards are derivative works. They are still PD even if posted on ebay. There's no problem using them in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. Let's say that you want to upload an image of a full pane of Scott United States 905, the Win the War stamp — you're free to upload this image, because it's just the stamps. You may want to tag it with the nonfree-frame template, but the stamps themselves are fine. You could also upload this image to use as the album-cover image for C+C Music Factory's "In the Groove" album if we had an article on it, since with images of nonfree 2D artwork, it doesn't matter who produced the image. Nyttend (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend: A blacklist does not in any way affect anyone's ability to attribute an uploaded image properly. We have several cases of this already. If you need to post a link for the source, simply leave off the 'http' part of the link. There is no requirement that a source URL be hyperlinked in an image description. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point on the partial link; I'd not thought of that. Definitely correct on the no-need-for-full-link bit. However, many people might not think of this, so it would still have the potential of giving a hard time to many uploaders. Is it possible for the blacklist to work only on certain namespaces? If so, I'd heartily support blacklisting eBay from mainspace, their own article excepted. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Omitting the URI scheme is not a good workaround to blacklist filtering. There are a few other not-uncommon schemes besides "http" which might have been intended, and we shouldn't force users to guess which is the correct one. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I would also argue that if I take a photo of Public Domain work, I still own the copyright to that photograph. You certainly can not upload that as PD unless you can demonstrate it is nothing more than a faithful digital copy of the original. That area is quite tricky. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please read Commons:Template:PD-art. When you're taking a picture of a 2D work, the photo doesn't result in any original work, so no new copyright arises: either copyright in the new image is owned solely by the owners of the copyrighted work that's photographed, or nobody owns copyright because the work that's photographed isn't under copyright. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like Dennis is, uh, faithfully repeating the language of the template. Whether the photograph is copyrightable depends on whether it has sufficient originality to do so. In good faith.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Folks, aren't we missing something relevant here - that eBay listings disappear after 90 days? So it's not like the URL will mean anything for very long. Also, if a source attribution is really required, what would be wrong with "ebay item #nnnnnnn"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm ... ebay.com & ebayimg.com are used quite a lot in mainspace, sometimes as external links, sometimes as references. I do note that some of the stuff is indeed a dead link (expired, see e.g. the ebay ref on Elijah Monte Radlovic). Spamming from ebay is likely a problem (hey, people try to sell stuff, so if you post it here it may get the attention you need), though it is difficult to properly weigh against the use of ebay as references (and for the latter, in how far those references are suitable, necessary or functional). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Outside discussion of eBay itself, and noting the basic transience of any seller content posted at eBay, there must be only a tiny window where such a link could be at all useful. I would question if any can be WP:RS. just because of their transience (and yes, I'm aware that ELs and refs don't all need to meet RS). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The one use case presented here (photographs of expired-copyright cultural works) doesn't seem to warrant the overwhelmingly likelihood that an eBay link will be inappropriate. Certainly every time I've seen eBay link in an article it's been as some crummy reference that's usually broken by the time I've gotten to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I do have to state that calling this spam may be a misunderstanding, at the same time I could be wrong. My first impression on seeing the links was not on spam, but of merchandise, items that are sold to fans of the game. Calling it spam is not the right word for it. Spamming by ebay would be sending random offers out through the wiki, these are not random, they are directed to Wiki specific Mincraft items.►Skyshadow382◄ (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept that neither editor adding these may have been connected with the auctions, or adding them as promotional spam. However we don't need them to support a "merchandise exists" claim, and we certainly don't want eBay auction links to start appearing in either articles, or on talk pages. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would probably call this a borderline case between it being WP:LINKSPAM vs. a new user doing a good faith addition of inappropriate content - given WP:AGF, I will for now assume the latter option. Either way, removal of the inappropriate links was justified - although I likely would have just redacted the links and not removed the full thread. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, then this topic is settled. †₳☼ҤѺԝӀіӣǵ (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesinderbyshire and our article on George Galloway

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

---

Despite having policy (e.g. WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:OR) explained numerous times, and in spite of requests to stop using the talk page as a forum, Jamesinderbyshire has repeatedly made claims to the effect that the subject of the article isn't in fact a Christian, in spite of multiple sources to the contrary, including one as recently as 2010, when Galloway unequivocally described himself as such on a broadcast on CBC, Canada's national public radio and television broadcaster. [85]. Instead, Jamesinderbyshire has variously alleged that "It isn't self-declared by him that he's now a Muslim but there appears to be evidence that points to that" [86], "Wikipedia is giving people more access to facts and reality than you would ever get from Galloway himself in a million years", [87] and "he's a 100% political animal who would be happy to announce he was Jedi if running for a Jedi vote" [88] (note that the edit summary also calls Galloway "a huge liar") and generally makes clear that he refuses to accept Wikipedia policy - which is that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, there is no better source for George Galloway's faith than George Galloway, even if we don't like his politics. Given Jamesinderbyshire's refusal to drop the stick, and his multiple violations of WP:BLP on the talk page, combined with his claims to be 'defending Wikipedia' and his assertions that others are driven by "strongly motivated personal desires to ensure Mr Galloway gets his own PR version in place", [89] can I suggest that a topic ban might be the simplest solution here - he seems to have been a useful contributor elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

A highly distorted version of reality. I gave sources that show that he is, at best, not currently Christian and proposed his status be changed from "Christian" to being removed. In response, AndyTheGrump told me to "fuck off" and he and Matt Lewis subjected me to a stream of verbal abuse and attacks. The status has been removed and this was done by an admin who agreed with my position. It appears that Andy has severe ownership issues on the article. I have committed no violations of BLP, indeed I have only done one admin-confirmed edit on it in this cycle. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(Footnote) I would also refer admins to Andy's block log [90] which shows a 2-week block for personal attacks only a few weeks ago. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This is hardly an accurate representation of the debate. There has been speculation that Galloway is no longer a Christian, based on recent events and statement, so the reference to a 2010 utterance obfuscates this point. Jamesderbyshire has lost his temper, but IMO he was no exactly unprovoked. The "Jedi" comment arises from the fact that Galloway has clearly been intentionally evasive in the manner of politicians generally when they think a straight answer will create more problems than it resolves for them. As a result, the religion has been deleted from the infobox, an outcome recommended by Andy himself and also supported by Jamesderbyshire. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say haven't we been through this already with people arguing that he is a Muslim. The most you can say is that the chap was brought up in the Roman Catholic faith, but has more recently been very noncommittal as to allegiance to any particular religion. What AndytheGrump is doing arguing that he is a Christian, I don't know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What I'm doing is pointing out that as recently as 2010 he made a public statement to the effect that he is a Christian, and per WP:BLP policy, we don't go around accusing him of being a liar. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to reverence politicians - it is true that my personal views don't matter, but someone on that thread asked me what I thought, so I expressed my honest opinion about it. If that's all this is about, I take it back and retract it from the thread. Will you retract the bit where you used the F word? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be the post where I wrote "if you wish to argue that a statement by Galloway broadcast on CBS that he is a Christian isn't a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN". [91] Did you? No you didn't. Instead you continued to accuse others of "only recognis[ing] sources that confirm your viewpoint", of "ownership issues", and finally claiming that "current sources don't bear out the assertion that Galloway is a Christian, he's not exactly saying that himself now is he?" [92], when not only do we have an assertion that the only claim to the contrary (Khan's NS article) has been denied by Galloway, but we have a clear statement from him asserting his Christianity as recently as 2010 - long after any alleged 'conversion'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for removing that. I need to be more careful about the terrible UI clicking Edit on a diff page. BTW, I double check every edit I make later, and would have noticed this. —Kerfuffler 20:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

(Slight sigh) I mean this in all seriousness Andy, is BLP the right place for you to be working? You seem to have a shaky understanding at best of the logic of sources. The Guardian citation is NOT about the Khan allegation, but a general commentary about his MUCH MORE RECENT THAN YOUR SOURCE discussions, by an expert journalist and well-known source on Galloway. We were discussing the infobox status that baldly said "Religion - Christian" - a blanket definitive statement like that becomes non-definitive if there are challenging and reliable QSes that paint a different picture. This appears to be a misunderstanding of what the BLP issue actually is - but the admin who agreed with me on the article talk page that it should be changed did, luckily, does get it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, who is this "expert journalist and well-known source on Galloway" you are referring to? And where does this journalist assert that Galloway is not a Christian? As for the infobox, you are well aware that I argued that it should either read 'religion: Christian' as per the CBC source, or be left blank. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Can't see what James has done wrong here. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 19:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I got mildly overheated. Yes, the sources are inconclusive and Andy wants us to simply take Galloway's word for it against a welter of contrary facts and reports; his basic position is that the article should convey Galloway's position regardless. I concur that I did get a little ill-mannered and the Jedi remark was throwaway, but in the light of attacks like this from AndyTheGrump [93] I felt riled. I ask that admins consider giving Andy another break for personal attacks, as he really doesn't seem to be able to not behave in quite an offensive manner when an edit is proposed with which he strongly disagrees. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no "welter of contrary facts and reports" - there is a single unverifiable assertion by Jemima Khan that Galloway once went through a conversion ceremony, which Galloway promptly denied and threatened to take legal action over. Everything else is speculation, WP:OR and gossip. WP:BLP policy is clear - an individual's assertions of religious belief are what matters, not the unverifiable opinions of others, regardless of what we think of the individual concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's your interpretation - the Guardian (generally regarded as a QS!) says in April that "Galloway is often asked about his faith but refuses to answer, saying his religion is a "personal matter" of no import to his political activities." [94] So the point is that his "Christian" status is in doubt according to at least one QS. (There are others). But did you really drag me to ANI to debate the quality of these sources in a reasoned manner? That's what the article talk page is for. Shall we go back to it? Or do you want to continue to press your claim that I am some vile abuser of BLP? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for once again demonstrating how you engage in WP:OR to back up your dubious claims. There is nothing whatsoever incompatible between someone stating that religion is a "personal matter" of no import to his political activities, and that person being a Christian. As for "debat[ing] the quality of these sources in a reasoned manner", I suggested you take the CBC broadcast to WP:RSN if you didn't accept it as a source - you didn't but instead continued to make personal attacks on Galloway, e.g. "he keeps stum about it [his religion], understandably given what's really going on". That is a direct contravention of WP:BLP policy, amongst other things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You are being completely disingenuous. There is no compatability between stating that religion is a "personal matter" and that person being a Christian...or being a Muslim, atheist, Jedi or anything. That's the point. When someone changes from saying they are a Christian to being evasive, we should change to being evasive too...which is what we did. Paul B (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Andy's position appears to be that his definition of "Christian" includes Muslim marriage and recent public statements strongly identifying with Islam or else denying a religious affiliation. He's welcome to that view, but it is just a view and not objective. The difficulty is that when challenged, he resorts to strong attacks rather than a structured discussion and rejects discussion of sources ("take it to RSN", etc) - against this background it is difficult to see how this can proceed logically. Personally I think the project could easily manage without this kind of approach. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And we're off again. Please provide (a) a reliable source for Galloway undergoing a "Muslim marriage", and (b) a reliable source that asserts that this marriage made him a Muslim. As for "take it to RSN" being a rejection of sources, it is nothing of the kind - it is a suggestion to get wider input on whether the source can be cited for what is being claimed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And while we are at it, can you provide a source for Galloway "denying a religious affiliation" - you've produced none so far, and it would rather demolish your claims that he is a Muslim if you did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What, here? What exactly is the purpose of your ANI Andy, are you griping at me, or the sources? Do you seriously believe that a paper as clever as the Guardian would publish recent articles like this one [95] about the notoriously litigious Mr Galloway without the most excellent sourcing? But that isn't the point, is it? If you dispute the sources, we're in the wrong place. Have you given up on the behaviour angle? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The guardian piece is in their 'comment is free' section - it isn't an 'article'. As for your behaviour, it is your endless resorting to WP:OR that is at issue. You have made specific statements, but have not provided the sources to back them up. So where are the sources? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you wanting me to repeat more material from newspapers here in ANI? Is this a source dispute, or a genuine ANI? The former, self-evidently. But since you insist, how about things like this story from the Mirror in April that his former wife said they are still married under Islamic Law? [96] The trouble is, lots of sources have material on it. I am happy to debate if we should or should not use material from them and to not refer to the content of it directly in talk pages, but here in ANI I will continue to state that I am not some wild BLP-vandal, but am using sources to give positions. However, these debates belong in the talk page of the article. The basic charge Andy made at the start of this thread is untrue. Andy has however been very incivil and repeatedly so, also his constant allegation that I am doing OR is also becoming quite offensive as it is false. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That amounts to gossip, which has no place on Wikipedia. (But I do not support bad behavior from anyone, and AndyTheGrump should be more civil.) Since this is primarily a content dispute, some will say this is the wrong board. —Kerfuffler 20:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Which bit is gossip? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The part where you extend “some reporter claims he's evasive” to “his religious affiliation is in doubt” is pure speculation. Even if the reporter said it, it's still pure speculation. It's the kind of crap I expect in The Enquirer. —Kerfuffler 20:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not just some reporter. He put out a leaflet entitled "God KNOWS who is a Muslim and he KNOWS who is not. I, George Galloway, do not drink and never have.". There was extensive debate. See Bradford West by-election, 2012. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If Galloway had put out the leaflet, it might be significant. He didn't, so it isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It would be significant in not actually supporting the claim that he's Muslim. In any case, the one statement I find from him on this is a strong denial. —Kerfuffler 20:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The leaflet not coming from Galloway is strongly contested, not least by the Guardian and the Telegraph if I recall correctly. So once again this is about sources, not ANI material. If there is nothing else and no blocks are to be administered, I suggest this "discussion" (rehash of the source debate on the article talk page) be closed forthwith. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you propose to (a) provide sources for the assertions regarding Galloway you have made here, and (b) take them to WP:RSN if others query whether they can be seen as reliable for the assertions you make regarding them? Unless you do, further discussion on the talk page is pointless - you are abusing the page to make assertions which are of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

“Strongly contested”: more rumor-monger. I also note that this is all based on some claim of a secret conversion 10.5 years ago, and his own direct statement of his Christianity is far more recent than that. I'm now convinced that is completely specious political hackery. —Kerfuffler 21:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with 'political hackery' and everything to do with trying to be honest. Either the issue is properly debated or it is left out. Al Capone's infobox doesn't say 'catholic', so why should George's? Paul B (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Helping spread rumors is the exact opposite of honest. —Kerfuffler 21:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Saying nothing is not spreading s rumour, is it genius? I do wonder what the point of talking to some people is. Paul B (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Previously when asked about his faith, he said he was a Christian. More recently, when asked repeatedly about his faith during the Bradford by-election and the subsequent local council elections where his Reform party made a showing, he has consistently refused to answer questions about his religion, only giving riddling hints that he might be a Muslim while never answering a direct question. Personally I believe him to be behaving like the Vicar of Bray, but it does mean that one cannot in all honesty stick "Christian" "Muslim" or any other religion in the infobox. In the article text, one has the opportunity to explain all this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes and the problem is that some sources say Galloway was also behind the leaflet, although that's not something that came from me in the original talk page discussion this ANI is supposedly supposed to be about. The position from Andy appears to be that if we want to discuss those other sources, he will accuse us of OR and of breaches of BLP. In fact, this whole thread is increasingly looking like an attempt to game the system and prevent an open discussion of the sources on Galloway where Andy and one or two others do not happen to like them. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop right now with your accusations against other editors. I came into this because it showed up on WP:ANI. I independently reviewed the sources and, to put it charitably, found them lacking for the reasons I have stated. Accept it and move on. —Kerfuffler 21:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

When you continue to present articles like this [97] as proof for claims of religion, the "accusations of WP:ORand WP:BLP violations" are TRUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

? I haven't presented it as proof for any claim. I've suggested (something that has been upheld in the article edits) that there is sufficient doubt about his current status that the article should not make a definite claim about his religious status right now. The complainant here actually agrees with that position! Have you actually read the thread? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I got the link from your statement "Do you seriously believe that a paper as clever as the Guardian would publish recent articles like this one [114] about the notoriously litigious Mr Galloway without the most excellent sourcing? " where you most certainly appear to be using it as proof for some type of claim. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Suffice to say that other editors on the article agree with my position on the whole picture. The individual source you mention was not raised by me for OR reasons but to show that (as I said) a leading quality newspaper regards it as cast-iron enough to not hesitate to allow the story to be repeated in its pages; there are also other source on the talk page of the article, right now on Google I can see that the Mirror, the Mail, the Telegraph and the Guardian have all given it extensive coverage. In the context of the original discussion, these were raised to show that there is doubt that his past claim to be a Christian is still accurate enough for us to definitively state it. This is not, repeat not, OR. Attempts to keep pasting this as OR must be based on a POV or else are simply misunderstandings. End of really. I'm not getting into any more sourcing debates here, as its getting ridiculous - as far as I'm concerned this ANI is over. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

As somebody said earlier... this is a content dispute, and aside from incivility, it doesn't belong at ANI. Shadowjams (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's ironic that I was the one targeted by incivility by the complainant, I didn't raise that on any forum (tried to with the complainant, he deleted my complaint from his talk page) and yet the completely non-ANI content dispute was raised here. I really despair sometimes about the sheer time-wasting involved in Wikipedia in repudiating non-points. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

e/c It's not content, it's tendentious trolling (or whatever you call it these days). Not one of you admin has picked up on James for being a complete troll and wind-up merchant over there from end to end - you just give people like him sugar spoons - it's what you do. Encourage him to do more and more. "James has done no wrong" etc - I wonder sometimes if most people on Wikipedia aren't in a strange way all trolls of some sort. I honestly have so little respect for hardly any of you. Whatever you think of Galloway and his faith, just read the flipping debate on the sources: they are all that matters. They look at policy, then try and thing about religion for a minute and what it actually is. I'm posting something I started writing earlier but didn't have time to finish. Then I may address another couple of later points, then probably get blocked for this. Few Wikipedians are intellectually able to follow Wikipedia policy any more it seems to me. What is absolutely clear is that Wikipedia is for trolling Truth Defenders (29.99 on Steam) like Jamesfromderbyshire in all his almost endless and bizarely identical guises, it's not for people like me. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The only trolling I can see is from you, frankly. What is the point of this edit other than to attack another editor and to create a chilling effect to stiffle meaningful discussion while promoting pointless drama? Paul B (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've spent (with Andythegump) all time and all the work in the discussion providing meaning in place of often TOTALLY unsupported theories about Galloway. In return I get the old repetitive claim that 'yet again' I am nonsensical and abusive, essentially just for disagreeing. It's an age-old Wikipedia tactic from a certain type of person, dropping a baton to be picked up similar people who share the POV. I didn't expect Andythegump to open this ANI, but why do you think he did it? There is not even a specific edit issue here (!) - it's just all about the abuse. The abuse towards George Galloway, towards Wikipedia, and towards us. Andy has clearly been made very unhappy by our treatment, as have I - because we are doing all the donkey work (careful and policy-based discussion combined with proper source reading) and we are getting repeatedly trolled for it, by someone who is clearly enjoying both that and the anti-Galloway support he's getting along the way. Clearly most admin attending this section care very little about editor sentiment (and would rather a free diss of George Galloway), but what else is ANI actually for? And don't forget what Wikipedia is supposed to be about too: an unbiased Verify-based encyclopedia, with some very specific rules on how to debate. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Concur, Matt Lewis appears to use sustained lengthy and multiple attacks as a campaigning tool to prevent careful reflection. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Now is that really me - or is it actually you, hmm? Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is all about attacking someone who's an easy target: George Galloway, and without offering ANY suitable evidence in support of these very-openly biased talk-page claims. Is that really what Wikipedia is about?? You can believe what you believe, but you need evidence. Underneath all of this issue of whether Wikipedia can expect BLP subjects to jump through hoops to satisfy them. I don't think Wikipedia has a right to expect that. Someone like Galloway will simply stare at you. Yes he's a character isn't he. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Racist and abusive remarks by User:Radiopathy

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

---

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

---

User:Radiopathy has been abusive and is using racist comments in his edit summaries. Radiopathy is calling ip 218.102.210.217 (Hong Kong) a gook while reverting their contributions! 103.246.114.85 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• [98]
• [99]
• [100]

I suggest a site-ban for this racist and abusive editor. 103.246.114.85 (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The edits are three days old and don't seem to have repeated, so I'm not sure sanctions are warranted. A block would be to prevent further instances of behaviour, not punish past behaviour. That said, the comments are absolutely inappropriate, and any repeat would justify a block. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Screw the 3 day old thing, those are unforgivable in my book.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't even know why Radiopathy is still editing here. He used to be a productive editor but he seems to have gone off the deep end earlier this year. He made unprovoked personal attacks against me sometime near the beginning of summer, and I see his behavior hasn't improved since. He's been busted for operating sock accounts at least twice and has been taken to AN/I repeatedly without ever showing up to participate in the discussion to explain himself or to make a statement of contrition. To put it in simple terms, he's hostile and completely uninterested in collaborating with others. Having been on the receiving end of his nonsense, I fully support a site ban. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, he's reverting what he perceives as vandalism by the IP, which appears to be a questionable claim, but in any case, he doesn't need to using terms like "gook" and "hong kong fooey". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Their last edit a few days ago was to They put a retired notice on their user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not really; he's edited several times since then,[101] including on this page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You drop racials slurs like that you don't get to "retire" you get indeffed.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He edited three hours ago, which isn't something the truly retired tend to do. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no excuse for using racist language like that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, Evan, I was looking at the wrong thing.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed site-ban

There's no chance the current discussion will result in a new policy of automatically indeffing editors upon the use of racial slurs being applied today. On the other hand, there's broad agreement with the week off instated by Drmies. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I propose an indef site-ban for this abusive and racist editor. Support Zero tolerance is the only way to treat these types of behaviours. 128.127.107.243 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC) A little canvassing going on?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Nope. You can never canvass at Jimbo's page dont you know that Bbb23? 91.228.1.101 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Wow. Where do y'all keep your passwords, IP editors? Drmies (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose - it's true that there's little or no tolerance for this, but a WP:BAN is too much at this point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Let's not start indeffing and banning right away. Their last block was two years ago. I've blocked for a week for PA; let's see if Radiopathy chooses to be retired or not. I'm not opposed to being overruled, but we shouldn't be too quick on the draw. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't have blocked, as I feel the block would be punitive, but the long block log shows the tenure of this problem and I feel that 1 week is just right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose while fully supporting the one week block. The comments are unacceptable and some action is indisputably warranted, but I'm not remotely convinced that the disruption warrants a full site ban, or that the project would be better off at all with this editor gone. Swarm X 02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose ban I think Drmies has handled it for now, lets close this, and if the editor continues to leave offensive edit summaries the matter can be reopened. Certainly doesn't justify a ban yet. Monty845 02:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support Indef Block I can not in good conscience support less.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support Racial slurs aren't okay. Let's be honest, if he had used the n word, we wouldn't even be discussing this as he'd already be indefinitely blocked. If there's a list of racial slurs that are okay, I haven't seen it. AniMate 02:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I disagree. Radiopathy has been here a while, and I am very surprised by those comments. If he had used the n-word, or the da-phrase, I would have done the same thing. Right now I'm more interested in what the hell got into him. An answer to that question might make a lot of difference a week from now. No one wants a racist around, but I don't wish to condemn him utterly for what may have been a childish whim or momentary impulse. Believe me, I find this difficult also--my instinctive response, and I pondered this for a moment, is to block indefinitely, and that was when I was thinking he had already retired. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC) No offense, but that is utter horse shit. Just because he's established he gets a free pass? Letting someone get away with racial slurs with a slap on the wrist doesn't help the encyclopedia. If anything, your actions show the divide between new and "established" users, and if I was new and saw your rationale for letting him continue to edit here, I would run for the hills. AniMate 02:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC) No, because he's established I won't think of him as a troll who just comes by, spouts some racist terminology, and gets rightly indeffed. There's a few other places where I could say this, but I might as well say it here. The ANI and other links brought up by EvanH, who seems to have a long-standing grudge and can copy those diffs from a cheatsheet, should not convince any admin to block indefinitely. There are serious concerns about Radiopathy's temperament and behavior, and some of those are indicated by some of those links (that they date back three years or more means two things: a. yeah, but they're old and b. whoa, this is a long-term problem)--and the most appropriate thing to do would be to start an RfC/U, rather than have it determined over a couple of hours at the drama board, with some quick and vengeful responses, a bit of canvassing here and there, etc. I'm neutral on Radiopathy's future here: I think there are serious concerns, but we can't have somebody's future be decided swayed by a couple of unregistered/not-logged-in editors and a few folks who hate his guts. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I have never engaged with this editor. I don't care what the IP's agenda is. I don't care what EvanH's grudge is. I care about the fact that someone who calls an editor Gook in an edit summary has no business editing here. Ever. No excuses. No explanation. No apologies. No place for that here. Or so I thought.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC) da-phrase? What's that? (I'm being serious here; I'm at a loss as to what that might mean. "Donkey's ass" is the only thing I can think of, but that's not a racist slur as far as I know.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I think Drmies was referring to the term "darkie", but I'm not 100% sure myself. Kurtis (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) "Dutch asshole". Drmies (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) ...Oh, OK. I see what you did there. =) Kurtis (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support No tolerance for racial slurs EVER. Wikipedia must act decisively leaving no room for ambiguity. 91.228.1.101 (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support, strongly. After this, this this (another "retirement"), this, this, this, and these, he's had enough second chances already. A temporary block is only going to keep this cycle of harassment and bad behavior (and now racism) going and going. Not right now (see below). Also, I don't have a cheat sheet, but whatever. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Five of those links refer to issues from 2010 or earlier! And the remaining two AN/I threads reveal troubling behavior, but certainly nothing that warrants an indef ban. In fact, I think the racial comments are by far the most troubling thing we've seen, but nothing indicates that this is any type of a pattern. Swarm X 03:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support OMG, Radiopathy again? How many times has he "retired"? This being his latest "retirement". He always seems to "retire" every time he gets blocked. I'm sorry to throw fuel on the fire but I was literally LMAO when I saw his latest "retirement" banner. He keeps retiring with every block and he keeps coming back. Only a formal ban will stop him. I'm sorry if it has come to this, but its not as if you can't think before you type. It's not "talking", where sometimes you can blurt stuff out that you don't really mean. You actually have to type, then press send. Good luck to him in the future, I hope he does well in real life.--JOJ Hutton 03:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose ban; support indef block. Now that I've looked at his block history and more of his edit history, I say put the burden on him. If he wants to edit, let him convince us with an unblock request that he'll be a constructive member of the community. He'll either do that, or just quietly retire into the sunset, or do something else that will get him banned for good. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose for now. I don't think that an indefinite site ban should be slapped on him for the time being, though I am going to wholeheartedly agree that racial slurs, whether intentional or not is wholly inappropriate on this site, take an example of User:Piercetheorganist for example who did this. If he is truly apologetic for his actions, let him sit out his block and demonstrate some contrition. I'd say wait for a while. If he continues this screed, then I'd say the ban will be necessary. Mr.Wikipediania (Stalk • Talk) 03:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support We should have no tolerance for ethnic slurs. Ryan Vesey 03:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Those edit summaries are very disquieting, and I felt uncomfortable reading them (especially considering how the IP editor was undoubtedly acting in good faith, and in fact may have even been editing constructively). I suspect Radiopathy did this out of a sudden urge to engage in provocative behaviour for his own amusement, as opposed to being genuinely racist, but regardless of the reasoning behind his edits, it must be made very clear to him that this sort of name-calling must not happen again. Otherwise, the consequences could be dire. I oppose an indefinite ban for the time being. Kurtis (talk) 03:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose. This is idiotic behavior that should be earning a heaping trout pile, but it hasn't risen to the level of a site ban yet, IMHO. Doc talk 03:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Comment No toleration of such slurs does not necessarily mean a full ban yet. A ban on the next offense, though, would drive home the point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support Full site-ban of course. The opposes are very weak, why give a retired user another chance to be a racist pig? Think of the new editors on articles that are driven away by this type of abuse. NO TOLERANCE FOR RACISM ON WIKIPEDIA. Doc, you think racism is idiotic behavior deserving trouts? Are you serious? This user has a history, no more from them. 128.204.196.179 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Not just trouts - I wouldn't argue against an indefinite block until he gets his act together (if he can/is willing to). But a site ban seems premature to me, IMHO. If no admin will unblock him, he is not getting unblocked. And if he does it again, he'll be gone. Doc talk 04:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Comment - Er, why so many IPs suddenly interested in this? Hmm... Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I'm sure there's something funny going on with it but i'll be damned if (he/she/they) aren't right.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Well, that's a good question. But I think there's fewer IP editors here than one might think at first glance. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 91.228.1.101 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed open proxy that, I believe, should be blocked (and their comment removed/stricken?) Doc talk 04:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Yes and yes. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose at this time as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose- at this stage the week long block is enough. Reyk YO! 04:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC) This tolerance of racism disgusts me. You haven't retained an editor, you've exchanged one.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Stopping short of disproportionate retribution is not the same thing as tolerance. Reyk YO! 04:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) We normally jump from an indefinite block to a ban, not a one-week block to a ban. At least, we should. No one is condoning what he did, and by not voting to ban him we are not tolerating racism. Doc talk 04:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Comment - I suggest a speedy close to this discussion, as it is going nowhere will all these socks about. In this state it's a non-starter and I wouldn't blame Radio for feeling ganged up upon with such blatant sockpuppetry abounding. I suggest we ignore the (or should that be "The"?) socks and get on with our lives. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I think it's highly inappropriate to focus on how Radio “feels” about it. I have no other comment here. —Kerfuffler 04:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I'm waiting for someone to get The reference I made in connection with the socks. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Just let it be. It's been a hard day's night. —Kerfuffler 06:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Comment I find it confusing how on one hand making a racist statement can get you a lifetime ban from wikipedia, yet joining an organisation dedicated to killing foreigners gets you special treatment and leniency. Mad world we live in, suppose wikipedia is just reflecting that. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose. A ban would be premature. The block should be sufficient at this time. I do think the proxy server posting here should be blocked and the comments struck. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose a hypocrisy. People are free to spill their racism every day here, and it's not about using just certain taboo-words. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose We don't ban for making one mistake. A week block is more than sufficient for this. --John (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Het was niet een fout was drie fouten. 195.242.152.60 (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Wie ben jij? Welke drie fouten? Doc talk 06:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Drie misbruik en racistische commentaar natuurlijk. Wie ben ik? Wie ben jij, wie is wie. Was het Jean Paul Sartre 'die zei ... Ik ben tegen racisme! 195.242.152.60 (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Bilagáanakʼehjí yáníłtiʼ doo tʼáá shxǫǫdí. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC) 128.127.107.243 (talk · contribs) and 128.204.196.179 (talk · contribs), both of whom voted to ban, are either the same user or two buddies in the Netherlands. The anonymous proxy? Probably just a "well-wisher". Consensus seems to be leaning towards not imposing a community ban, but we should let this stay open until that's quite apparent. Doc talk 05:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose Block, yes, ban, no. No excuse for the conduct whatsoever, but the IP lynch mob at AN/I smells too. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Support block, sans ban. Even though we were dragged into this by a pack of socks, we can't let it slide by unnoticed. Now everyone can go back to accusing me of having a grudge. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC) I would definitely consider extending the block beyond a week in order to force him to appeal it without it simply expiring during another retirement. This needs an apology, really. "Revert the (insert any slur)" as an edit summary is disturbingly inappropriate here, and something we don't want others to get in the habit of thinking is okay. If the block expires without him even acknowledging any wrongdoing, he could repeat the behavior. This would be preventative, you see. Doc talk 07:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose site ban. Racist slurs in edit summaries are indeed entirely unacceptable, but the block is the appropriate way to deal with this case - site bans are for repeated problematic behaviour. Hard though it might be for some to accept, it is possible for an angry person (perhaps a burned-out editor) to use a racist epithet in a heated moment without actually being racist. So we need to see how Radiopathy responds and how their future behaviour goes before jumping on the ban-wagon. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose the proposed site ban per Bushranger, John, Kudpung, and others. Whereas the racist comments have received significant attention, it's incredible that no-one informed or apologised to the anonymous editor who actually received the abuse. Despite the overwhelming focus on retribution, I'd anticipate that the retention of well-intentioned editors is imperative to the longevity of the project, irrespective of whether they’re anonymous. Mephistophelian (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC). Oppose He hasn't repeated them and this has the look of extra punishment. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC) Oppose site ban, Support block This is not an isolated incident. Editor appears to have no ability to recognize impropriety of comments towards others. As such, block protects other editors dangerouspanda 10:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

<chuckle> Here's where blocks vs. bans get really confused. "There's no chance the current discussion will result in a new policy of automatically indeffing editors upon the use of racial slurs being applied today." This was a ban proposal, not an "indeffing". Keep it closed though, please. Doc talk 11:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless there's evidence to the contrary, I automatically assume "block" when someone says "ban" here, especially if the proposer is some random IP and the antagonist isn't even blocked (as was the case at the time of the proposal above). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Banned means "site banned" which means you made the list. We only ban the very worst, theoretically. Tons more fall into the block category. Doc talk 11:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The socking IPs used "ban" when they should have used "blocked." Radiopathy should have received an indefinite block, but because the word ban was thrown around, Drmies has now set a precedent where racial slurs = a one week block. Well done. AniMate 13:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that there should be a longer block - not sure indef based on just this, but more than a week. GiantSnowman 13:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that everyone appears to be ignoring the fact that this discussion was closed, I hardly think that any "precedent" has been set on the duration of a block, regardless of the basis for the block. If Drmies set a "precedent", then we have a helluva lot of conflicting precedents. Block duration (short of indef - and even then) is always discretionary, and admins, as well as other editors, will often disagree about how long a particlar block should be.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You overestimate Drmies's power. Drmies chose one week using his judgement, he didn't set a precedent. If I find something similar, I am not bound by his decision in any way, shape or form. I tend to block less often than other admins, but also tend to block for longer periods when I am forced to. I'm not setting a precedent either. It is only slightly different interpretations of the same policies. If any admin feels any block duration was seriously calculated incorrectly, they are always free to adjust it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23 and Dennis. Drmies made an evaluation of the specific circumstances, and came to a specific conclusion about a specific editor (a conclusion which most here agreed with, or at least acquiesced to). He did not set policy or precedent, and the next set of circumstances evaluated by a different admin will, presumably, have a conclusion appropriate to it. Admins are not robots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Dennis is right. I made a judgment; different admins have made different judgments in similar cases, no doubt, and will continue to do so, and that is just fine by me. We cannot have automatic mandatory punishments. If Dennis or anyone else wishes to overrule me, I wouldn't have a problem with that: they (and their judgment) are worth as much or as little as me (and mine). If someone would lift the block, I'd probably raise an eyebrow. In either case, one would expect an explicit rationale, such as I have tried to give. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Support Indef per Doc. If the user can make a case why the Pedia can expect this conduct to not be repeated, despite the repeated past conduct, the user should be asked to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The more traditional approach to dealing with editors who have also contributed in good faith is escalating blocks for all but the most severe abuse, followed by an eventual indef after a long block. Some admins are moving towards more quickly indef blocking, followed by an attempt to resolve the matter through unblock conditions. To say that an admin doing either sets a precedent for the others isn't true at all, to set a precedent at all would require the community overriding the application of one approach in favor of the other, which hasn't really been happening. Monty₈₄₅ 15:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Some admin attention

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

---

118.129.60.149 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) needs some help to learn how to accept that people don't agree with his ideas without using foul language (see. Human evolution and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Human_evolution).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for edit-warring and for the "should be shot", anti-semitic refactoring on their talkpage, etc. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Richard Machowicz

Resolved

 – Blocked by Kww

Hello, I would like to request that either the article get semiprotected again or the IP 98.195.86.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) responsible for reintroducing BLP content be blocked (see also DocumentMack (talk · contribs). If Machowics really said those dispicable things then 1) someone in a reliable source would have reported on it or 2) it is UNDUE fixation on content no one considers important. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

And I would also point out that the IP's first edit yesterday [102] raises flags about the legitimacy of the person behind these edits. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem with user

Excuse me if I am posting this in the wrong place - the directory is a bit confusing - but this user 108.78.177.132 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to have a wee bit of bad habits re: civility on talk pages and (in a lesser measure) constructive editing, as evidenced by [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108] and [109], [110]. I've warned them (probably using the wrong template, if it isn't a capital crime), but the reply wasn't postive. Can someone tell them to become more civil, please? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I hate to say this so bluntly, but this IP user's lack of effective communication skills and apparent failure to demonstrate a modicum of common sense leaves me the impression that they may not have the skill set necessary to become a productive contributor on Wikipedia. I'll leave them a note on their talk page, but if their unconstructive pattern of editing continues, I wouldn't be opposed to a 36-hr block. Kurtis (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

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

---

User Let Me Eat Cake (talk · contribs) has made several personal attacks on my talk page and has made several snide remarks in their summaries at Go On (TV series). Purposed block. LiamNolan24 (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make mountains out of molehills. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What attacks? Could you please supply diffs? I am not able to find anything that remotely resembles an attack.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing to see here IMO. Nothing remotely resembles a personal attack from what I can see. – Connormah (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think they were referring to the "high horse" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Toucan alganna blanking Innocence of Muslims and portions thereof

I think he's up to 4RR by now; if not he will be by the time you read this... Wnt (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Ouch. He's just been indef-blocked, which is more than I was looking for. Wnt (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a WP:VOA/SPA so I treated them as such. – Connormah (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing?

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

---

Last night, an IP posted a question on the Science reference desk asking "how painful would it to drink formaldehyde, dyes or other fixing chemicals in the lab", and continuing "I know they are harmful, and that they can kill you. But how painful would it be? Could you die with only mild or moderate discomfort if you drank formaldehyde or Coomassie Brilliant Blue?" [111] While not directly a suicide threat, it seemed sufficiently worrying in its implications to merit action per Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, so I blanked the section, e-mailed emergency @ wikimedia.org (who replied that they would look into the matter) and likewise e-mailed an admin, as recommended (I have had no response to this, though this was only a backup to the e-mail to the foundation). meanwhile, the IP had posted the question again, and I blanked it again. At this point, the IP posted a similar question at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk, which I again blanked, only for User:Jayron32 to reinstate it. Since then, several contributors have seen fit to debate the possible consequences of self-administered poisons, apparently in complete disregard for the possible consequences of answering such questions - see talk page, and it's history. Even after I pointed out that Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm seemed relevant, at least one contributor has seen fit to attempt to answer the question. Frankly, I am appalled at the gross irresponsibility of some of those involved, and think that it might be better if they were at least informed that they have at minimum a moral responsibility in such cases to consider the consequences of their actions, and might also have a legal one. Or is giving advice on the 'painfulness' of methods of suicide now within the remit of the reference desks? I shall inform all those that posted on talk:Reference desk, and hope that all concerned will explain why they think their actions were justified - though to be clear, I am not suggesting that all were at fault. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why do you assume suicide and not homicide? —Kerfuffler 21:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I can imagine a theoretically reasonable purpose for the question—perhaps someone is writing a mystery novel. But I also find it quite unlikely that this is the reason the question is being asked. Given recent controversies here, I suspect that the question is being asked for purposes of testing the boundaries on the reference and creating discord. For this reason among others, removing the question was appropriate, and the question should not receive further attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with the reasons for deleting the post. We have no encyclopedic references to offer that will tell a reader how "excrucaitingly painful" drinking a certain toxin will be. I am not sure that ANI is the right place to handle this, but we simply do not need to be giving advice on the use of poisons. μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe that you absolutely did the right thing, but I agree with Medeis wholeheartedly that this is not the place for advice on use of poisons. This almost, to me, because a legal issue in that if he was trying to commit suicide or homicide, and you had answered his question, you could be implicated, perhaps, but even then that's a stretch. Since you didn't, I think you absolutely did the right thing and hopefully the editor can figure it out through other means. ANI is as good a place as any for this discussion, in my opinion. Go Phightins! (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

At best, you've been trolled. You were right to assume the worst. This seems like a followup of last week's refdesk trolling re: poisons, confirming once again that the refdesk is actively dangerous as well as pointless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] While I agree with NYB that it doesn't really need to get further attention, it really didn't strike me as something that ran afoul of WP:EMERGENCY; just regular silly post that got blown out of proportion. Simply responding with "This isn't really something we can answer; try using Google" would have been a better reaction, in my opinion. [though I wrote that before seeing Chris' comment about a previous bit of refdesk trolling] EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes you did the right thing. Yes, I would have backed you had you been more aggressive in blanking, even if defiantly so. Yes, you were probably being trolled but blanking is still a good response and we don't roll the dice in these circumstances. And I have no issue with you bringing it here, although WP:AN might have been more appropriate. This is one area where being bold is the right solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Since on one hand I have been on record as discouraging the use of the Ref desks to ask for advice about potentially dangerous things, and on the other hand I gave an answer to the question in this case, it is incumbent on me to explain why. The answer is simple: the question was not asking for advice, it was asking for information. I don't believe it is our duty to go out of our way to figure out what nefarious things the information we give might be used for. Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to agree with Looie—this seemed like simple curiosity or simple trolling, and to conjecture beyond that isn't necessary or even reasonable. But regardless, if you're sincerely worried it's hinting at suicide, no one can ever blame you for handling it that way. But if you're doing so simply because something could possibly be conjectured as a "threat of harm" but really isn't that big of a deal otherwise (case in point, this), don't worry about it. Swarm ^X 22:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Better to be safe than sorry IMO. – Connormah (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• You did the right thing.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagreed with the decision when the topic was raised on the talk page. Seems I was drawing wrong conclusions one after the other.. Should have checked the removed post. From the info on the talk page I thought it was very specifically about extreme pain while drinking it, and later concluded the question was removed because it was nonsense, aquestion that couldn't be answered. If I had seen the "Could you die with only mild or moderate discomfort" part, I would have acted differently. (and spared myself a few useless hours. Ssscienccce (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Reading the talk page, it never even occurred to me that this would be seen as a suicide question. I mean, drinking random fixatives, dyes, etc. you find in a lab is such a laughably uncertain and presumably miserable way to go, it just doesn't even seem like it rates. When you live out in deer country, practically every plant landscaped around every house is deadly poisonous or they'd get eaten... so I assumed this was a novelistic or perhaps a poison control question, or trolling. (IMHO trolling science questions should always get a serious reply if can, in the hope that the troll will be so beguiled by the science of the thing that he forgets he was here to disrupt :) ) Anyway, I see no need for admin action here, unless the elite suicide hotline personnel become convinced there's a real threat. Wnt (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The underlying question is not, and never should be, "How can I rationalise giving an answer (because I really, really like giving answers)?" The two questions are: "Is there reasonable risk of harm?" and, "Is this an appropriate question for an encyclopedic reference desk?" When there's possible harm and no obvious encyclopedic connection there should be no question whatsoever of shutting down the inquiry. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for articulating it in such a concise manner. That is exactly the criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• The initial removal from the WP:RDS page was proper. It was a disruptive question. However, the user had a right to ask why their question was removed, and deserved an answer. It's OK to remove someone elses question. It is not OK to refuse to respond to a request to tell them why you removed it. I'd like AndyTheGrump to give all of us a concise request about what he wants an administrator to do to me because I restored the request for an explanation. Andy, can you tell us all what you would like an administrator to do to me? Also, I'd like to know why, if you were concerned with an action I did, you didn't come to me on my talk page and ask me about it before coming here. I think those two questions need to be answered. --Jayron32 01:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I gather from his statement, he isn't asking for anything. Sounds like a simple misunderstanding. They happen, he erred on the conservative side. Looking back, yes he should have taken it to your talk page, but it seems he was really trying to do the right think for enwp here. Unquestionably, so were you, and it was just a communications breakdown. I would hope no one was seriously considering any action on anyone here, particularly since there was nothing but good faith all around. Maybe a learning experience here, but no need for action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you bothered to even read the above thread? I didn't remove the question because it was 'disruptive', I removed it as falling within the remit of Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. And no, nobody has any 'rights' on Wikipedia that rank above our moral (and possibly legal) duty to avoid encouraging individuals to take poisonous substances, or otherwise engaging in acts of intentional self-harm. I had to take rapid action, given the circumstances - and the general consensus above seems to be that given what I knew at the time, I took the right course. As for what action should be taken against you, I'll leave that to the admins. In any case, I'd suggest that before restoring the question, there was nothing to prevent you asking me why I'd deleted it from the reference desk in the first place. Did you actually read the original reference desk question? Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm? Could you not see the relevance of one to the other? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

So, when the user asked the direct question "Why was my question removed", you thought it appropriate not to answer them? I have no problem with removing the initial question. Whoever did that was absolutely correct. It was a wildly inappropriate question, and Wikipedia should not be dealing with shit like that. But, when the person who initially asked it, then asks why it was removed, he has a right to know why. We're dealing with two different issues here. The first is removing an inappropriate bit of text. We do that. The second is ignoring and removing a request to explain why we removed it. That is bad. Two situations, and we shouldn't conflate the two. --Jayron32 01:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• If only WT:RD commenters agreed. Perhaps codification should take place on WP:VPP instead of WT:RD. Anyone want to try to provide persuasive examples? —Cupco 01:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by User:Sbharris

User:Sbharris frequently posts blog-like comments at Talk:Evidence-based medicine, where he also seems to flaunt a supercilious contempt for Wikipedia policies and guidelines [112]. Today I made it clear that I have no intention of being driven away from this highly relevant page by his mounting incivility and unprovoked personal attacks [113]. Whereas his most recent post on the article talk page appears more measured ([114]), he has continued his insinuations elsewhere [115].

I see this sort of interaction as an active hindrance to voluntary work on Wikipedia in general and the WikiProject Medicine in particular.

—MistyMorn (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

MistyMorn is not getting his way on the evidence-based medicine article, and very much resents my suggestion that since his major editing on WP is Jimbo's TALK page (yep, that's his number one contribution), that he might be a brownnoser who is more interested in brownnosing than writing an encyclopedia. Have you all heard of a more scandalous piece of incivility? I did not (repeat, did not) accuse him of being a drama queen. No. Nor did I undo any of his edits-- I simply suggested that he didn't know what he was talking about on the subject he was editing. zOMG again. So, here he is on ANI. Enjoy him, everyone. SBHarris 23:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

This may indeed be a content dispute, but your attitude is at best supercilious, and your treatment of MistyMorn is gratuitously insulting, particularly the last diff Misty cites above. Frankly, whether Misty spends more time than you think they should on Jimbo's talk page is irrelevant. If Misty raises a content issue, respond to the content issue, and skip the rest of the nonsense. If you have nothing content-related to say, then say nothing. The line between personal attacks and permissible heat is often discussed on this board, and this particular incident probably belongs more at WP:WQA than ANI, but if I were responding there, I'd say you owe Misty an apology.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Without any comment on who may be in the right in the underlying content dispute, I agree with BBb323 here. Such comments as "you have only about a sixth as much of my experience here" on the editors talk p. & the repeated mentions of brownnosing there and here are not acceptable. I consider this pretty much a matter of the sort of editor abuse that is actionable, and if it continues I would be prepared to act on it. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I concur with Bbb23. Where MistyMorn might wish to understand that Jimbo's talk page is mostly a blog-style venue for rants where little actually gets resolved except for the rare and wise comments by Jimbo himself, this is absolutely not a reason for Harris to be grossly insulting. The attacks on other talk pages and here are also inappropriate. There is a clear difference between being simply suggesting things and deliberately starting flame wars - something SBharris appears not to understand. L1 level 2 civility/PA warning issued. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Eff Won

For the past two weeks, Eff Won has proven to be a serial problem on the Formula One pages. Here are some of his examples of his behaviour:

• Claiming that if people can't see his edits as being excellent contributions, then they're all idiots. [116],
• Multiple instances of edit-warring. [117], [118], [119], [120], [121]
• Refusing to acknowledge consensus. ("Calendar table links - why not?", "Calendar table links again", "Calendar table links in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 articles")
  • Claiming that any existing consensus was obtained fraudulently. [122] [123]
• Refusing any attempt to reason with him over his edits. [124]
• Consistently low-quality edits. [125], [126], [127]
• Demanding to be shown an existing consensus against any changes he wants to make. [128]
  • Demanding that his edits be accepted without obtaining consensus. [129]
• Personal attacks (particularly after given some advice on how he presents himself). [130]
• Multiple instances of attempting to force edits through by rigidly interpreting Wikipedia policies. ("Serious level of non-compliance with key Wikipedia guidelines")
  • Despite having been told that the WikiProject: Formula One editors had adopted their own, acceptable manual of style. [131], [132]
• Refusing to allow any progress on a page until issues have been resolved to his satisfaction. ("Explanation", "Clarification of round 13 summary", "Prominent quotes at the end of race summaries")
• Reposting messages from his talk page to article talk pages without permission from the user(s) who originally posted said message. [133], [134]
• Aggressive behaviour, particularly in his edit summaries. [135], [136], [137]
• Claims that "others are throwing shit and making grossly exaggerated allegations of what I am supposed to have done, presumably in the hope that some of the shit will stick and my name will be smeared". [138]

Furthermore, he is also the subject of an SPI as several editors believe him to be a sock of Lucy-marie, a serial sockpuppeteer. Should this be proven correct, there may be a case to take to long-term abuse by Lucy. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Each and every point there is a shameless exaggeration or even misrepresentation of the events. I am a newbie, I made a few faux pas, but am a quick learner and am keen to learn the ropes. I've proactively raised discussions to help with this: [139] and [140] and have even been awarded a barnstar [141] for my efforts in that respect.

I suggest a very careful examination of each point raised above, and with a thorough reading of the links provided and their context. I am trying to improve the articles here, not disrupt them, and recent edits replacing content I added, which had been summarily reverted, show I am succeeding. I believe Wikipedia needs to encourage new blood, not stifle it.

Eff Won (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Photo Policy...?

I'm wondering whether this image runs afoul of some established policy. It strikes me that, other than the uploader's description, we really have can't know who's responsible for the text depicted, nor, indeed, can we even know where it took place. While I understand that original research restrictions don't generally apply to photographs, this particular photo strikes me as problematic as it's just begging for an inappropriate caption.

But I'm having trouble turning up on-point policy. Is there any? (In fact, I'm even having trouble figuring out the appropriate forum to ask this question in.) 24.177.125.104 (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you see the Talk:Israeli_settler_violence#Captions_for_images section ? The caption certainly needs attribution to the source/sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, although I agree. To that end, I fact-tagged the caption and explained why further down on Talk. But more generally, is the description of an image subject to content and reliability policies? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the description of the image and any "message" conveyed are still subject to all of the pillars and any policies relevant to the information. Just because it is an image does not exclude it from requiring verifiable reliable sources. Just point to those policies as needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Therein lies the rub: the photo is being touted as a verifiable source for that which it purports to represent; which is, by extension, being used to justify textual claims to the same. (See talk, but beware: it's tendentious.) I'm having a hard time articulating it, but something's very wrong with that.

Also, I'm super confused about whether the image lives at commons or en, and which talk page should be used, etc. Could an admin with experience in such things take a look? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

The photo is "problematic" only insofar as it is a powerful illustration of fascist menacing, which is at odds with the POV of one team and is solid gold for the other in the never ending wikiwar paralleling the Palestinian-Israeli civil war. Assuming the photo is legitimate and not a tawanabrawleyist provocation — to coin a term — as it seems to be shown to be on the talk page, I don't see what is the issue here. There are Israeli fascists just like there are Palestinians with genocidal intentions. Ironic? Yeah, you better believe it. Such is life. Carrite (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, okay. Did you have anything to contribute relevent to the question I asked, or did you just feel the need to express your POV? 24.177.125.104 (talk) 06:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sunalie Ratnayake

I have created the above page but I was approached by the subject through some journalistic channel to delete the page immediately on security grounds since she is against the present Sri Lankan Government and it will be harmful to her parents who are still living in Sri Lanka. Can any administrator do this? I kindly request on a very urgent basis.Manjulaperera (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I proposed it for deletion because it's an unsourced WP:BLP. There are two external links to articles she's written, but no sources about her. Not much of a claim of notability either since all it says is that she works as a journalist. I'm guessing it will be deleted in short order. Sædon^talk 07:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. God bless you.Manjulaperera (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I didn't realize you were the only who created the article. In the future you can use WP:CSD#G7 for articles you've created yourself and which haven't been substantially edited by anyone else. Sædon^talk 07:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I don't know about that so far.Manjulaperera (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)