위키백과:관리자 알림판/IncidentArchive796

블로킹된 편집기 망고이터의 양말퍼핏

제안된 Zeitgeist의 재작성 문제: 영화 및 사용자:얼 킹 주니어

사용자:지라이야47

지라이야47(토크·기여)은 타갈로그어 농담들을 계속 올리고 있는데, 이 농담들은 계속 빠르게 삭제되고 있다.방금 파일 네임스페이스 파일에 농담 두 장을 올렸어Tagalog 농담 시간.png 및 파일:Tagalog Jalks.jpeg, 그의 메인 스페이스 페이지가 이전에 빠르게 삭제된 후. -- 65.94.76.126 (대화) 05:40, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

더 있어, 파일:농담 시간 Na 및 파일:농담 시간 Tagalog.gif -- 65.94.76.126 (대화) 05:50, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

게다가 Special(특수)에서는 어떤 편집도 찾을 수 없다.기부금/지라이야47: 중단되지 않음.—teb728tc 06:49, 2013년 5월 8일(UTC)[응답]

그리고 외설스러웠다.건배. 살비오 10:17, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

오레이디

카테고리 관련 업무로 인해 발생한 상황을 그룹에게 알리는 것이 내 의무라고 생각한다.미국 범주의 카운티 정부.많은 분들이 이곳이 주목을 받을 만 하지만 사람들이 충분히 신경 쓰지 않기 때문에 방치되었던 지역이라는 것을 알고 계실 겁니다.카운티 정부는 대부분의 사람들이 선출된 카운티 공무원들 중 한 명도 지명할 수 없을 정도로 사람들의 관심에서 완전히 벗어나 있지만, 예를 들어, 카운티 내의 자치단체 시장(대부분의 사람들이 보통 이름을 지을 수 있는 사람)보다 더 주목을 받을 자격이 있을 것이다.

나는 곧 몇 가지 작은 문제들에 부딪혔고, 나는 결국 합의에 응답했다.문제는 "군수가 지방정부인가, 아니면 주정부의 기관인가" 하는 질문이었다.나는 절대적으로 확실하게 말할 수 있다. 극히 일부의 예외를 제외하고는, 카운티 정부는 선거를 통해 지역적으로 책임을 지는 주 정부의 기관이라는 것을.위키피디아의 합의는 카운티 정부가 지방 정부라는 것이었고, 나는 그렇게 정리했다.선거운동과 선거가 지역적이라고 생각하더라도, 실제 통치에는 국가 권력이 개입된다.

이러한 논의 과정에서 사용자:Orlady는 매우 미성숙하고, 방해꾼의 도움이 되지 않았다.당시 정책 위반은 없었으나 사실은 이 사람에 대한 존경을 빨리 잃어버렸고, 나로서는 그녀의 미성숙에 대한 대응을 거부하고, 더 이상 연락하지 말라고 그녀에게 알렸다.이 시점에서 나는 위키피디아에 대한 사례가 있다고 생각한다.괴롭힘, 그리고 만약 그것이 아직 그 수준으로 올라가지 않는다면, 나는 패턴이 일어나고 있다는 것을 확실히 하기 위해 이 사건들을 기록에 남길 필요가 있다고 느낀다.

A) 오레이디는 주정부 기사 토크 페이지(주정부 없는 로드아일랜드와 코네티컷 포함)를 약 십여 장이나 스팸 발송했다?!?). 어느 틈엔가 나는 모든 논의를 위키프로젝트 미국, 위키프로젝트 정치에 간섭하고 지적했다.나는 기꺼이 그 문제에 대한 토론을 시작하려고 했지만 50번의 토론은 하지 않았다.혹은 진행중인 토론이 진행되는 동안 **ME***가 새로운 논의를 시작한다고 인터뷰했다.분명히 이것은 매우 솔직하지 않다.

나) 어느 순간 나는 그 과목에 대한 나의 교육과 경험을 언급했는데, 그 마지막 내용을 듣지 못했다!내가 얼마나 거만한가!위키피디아에는 두뇌 유출 문제가 있으며, 지식 있는 편집자들은 매우 자주 유행하는 호이 폴로이에 의해 쫓겨나고 있다.나 자신을 위해, 내가 아닌 주제에 대해 정통한 편집자들이 있을 때, 나는 그들을 방해하지 않는다.

C) 오레이디는 특별히 내가 편집을 못하게 하는 것에 대한 생각, 그리고 아마도 미래에는 내가 편집을 하지 않을 것이라는 생각을 언급했다.

D) 나는 그 범주에 대한 작업을 하기 위해 시간을 좀 달라고 요청했지만, 그것은 내가 WP라는 외침과 맞닥뜨렸다.콘텐츠 소유.그래서 나는 그 지역에서 과민한 저격, 트집잡기, 그리고 내 일의 되돌리기를 다루어 왔다.그녀가 없으면 이미 충분히 힘든 일이다.그녀는 나를 위키리스트로 취급하고 있는 것 같다.

E) Orlady는 이사, 명칭 변경 또는 삭제에 대한 모든 제안과 내가 만든 기사들을 병합하려는 모든 제안에 반대해 왔으며, 그것이 그녀의 권리다.하지만, 나는 그녀가 토론 과정 내내 단 한 점의 유용한 점도 끄집어내지 못했다는 나의 견해를 표현하는 것이 나의 의무라고 생각한다.

F) 가장 불안한 전개는 반대로 압도적인 증거 앞에서조차 오레이디는 자신의 그릇된 신념을 지키고 그 내용을 강요하고 있는 것으로 지금 나타나고 있다는 점이다.이것은 의제 편집이며 적절하지 않다.나의 주장은 군정은 주정부의 기관이며, 이러한 주장은 여러 출처의 지지를 받고 있으며, 지방정부와 주정부의 대학원 수준의 연구에서 배운 것이다.여기 내 주장을 뒷받침하는 몇 가지 출처가 있다: (앨라바마, 캘리포니아, 콜로라도, 델라웨어, 플로리다, 일리노이, 켄터키, 메릴랜드, 미시건, 미네소타, 네바다, 뉴저지, 뉴욕, 노스캐롤라이나, 텍사스, 버지니아, 위스콘신)게다가 NACO 웹사이트 자체에는 "...초기 주의 구성들은 일반적으로 주의 무력으로 개념화된 카운티 정부를 구성한다"고 명시되어 있다.오르레이디는 이 증거를 살펴보았고, 그것을 받아들이고 배우기는커녕 부정론에 매달리고 있으며1 자신의 엉뚱한 해석으로 자신의 견해를 합리화하려 하고 있다2.가장 최근에 그녀는 미국의 카운티 정부로부터 상당한 양의 내용을 삭제했는데, 이것은 완전히 객관적인 정보지만, 이것은 그녀의 의제와 모순된다.

H) 그녀는 개인적으로 나에 대해 글을 올렸는데, 이것은 진행 중인 어떤 논의와도 관련이 없다.

G)오레이디는 앞으로도 계속 나를 사냥할 뜻을 밝혔다.

나는 증거가 발생함에 따라 군정의 모든 뉘앙스와 편차를 설명할 용의가 있다.그러나 어느 순간 나는 주제 금지가 오레이디에게 순서일 것이라고 생각한다.나는 상호 존중하는 환경에서 일할 수 있어야 해.합리적이고 성숙한 편집자들이 개입할 수 있을까?— Gregbard가 추가한 사전 서명되지 않은 의견(대화 • 기여)

나는 단지 너의 텍스트 벽에 몇 개의 코멘트를 가지고 있다.첫째로, 그렇게 많은 비난에 대해, 차이점이 거의 없다.둘째, 오레이디의 토크 페이지를 힐끔힐끔 쳐다보면, 당신의 의견은 다소 편파적으로 보인다.셋째, 몇 가지 기사를 살펴봤는데, 내 생각에는 엉망진창이다.방금 당신이 만든 미국 카운티 정부는 아주 큰 기사에 대한 하나의 출처를 가지고 있다.그리고, 꽤 오래 전에 만들어진 미국 지방정부가 있다.몇 가지 문제점들을 제쳐두고, 왜 당신이 당신의 기사를 작성해야 하는지, 특히 오랜 기간 동안 존재해 온 또 다른 기사인 카운티(미국)를 감안할 때, 나는 명확하지 않다.게다가, 당신이 여기 있는 누군가를 신고할 때, 당신은 그들에게 통지해야 한다. 나는 당신을 위해 그렇게 했다.--Bb23 (대화) 01:14, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

오레이디는 제재할 만한 행동을 하지 않았고, 확실히 주제 금지를 받을 만한 행동을 하지 않았다.[좋아, 이 디프는 손목을 긋는 것이 마땅해. 그리고 하나는 적절히 투여될 거야.하지만 그 너머로는 어떤 의제나 음모, 심각한 위법행위에 대한 증거가 보이지 않는다.당신 자신의 행동은 훨씬 더 호의적인 것으로 보인다(예: 다른 편집자들의 논평을 반복적으로 "도움이 안 된다"고 무시하는 것).매닝 (대화) 2013년 4월 29일 01:17 (UTC)[응답]

손목을 긋는 것은 당연하고 정당하게 인정/수용된다.기록을 위해, 나는 그렉바드가 카운티가 사실상 주 정부 기관이라는 그의 주장을 지지하기 위해 제공하는 몇 가지 출처를 조사했고, 나는 사용자:Orlady/County by state(동명 사용자 페이지 뒤에 구조화). --Orady (대화) 01:57, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

원래의 포스터는 오레이디를 이 게시물[1]에서 거짓말쟁이라고 불렀는데, 나는 그들이 그렇게 하기를 원하지 않을 경우 (선호하는) 코멘트를 치거나 그것을 지지해 줄 것을 요청한다.NE Ent 02:08, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

다른 편집자들은 미국의 지방 정부의 성격과 파생에 관한 그의 이론과 그의 주장을 뒷받침하기 위한 범주의 이용과 구조와 관련하여 그레바드의 소유권과 건방진 행동에 대해 나에게 우려를 표했다.그는 "내가 협조를 요청했는데 당신이 주지 않았기 때문에" 카테고리를 놓고 편집전을 벌일 자격이 있다고 주장하는 것으로 보인다.[2] 아크로테리온 (대화) 02:30, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• "... 넌 그럴 자격이 있는 태도를 가지고 있어.그리고 NE Ent가 제공한 링크에서 "당신 자신의 신념에 대해 최고의 자신감을 가지고 있다는 것은 매우 분명하다"고 말했다.WP가 있을 수 있다는 것을 감지하고 있다.근처에 부메랑.— 체드 : ?02:37, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
  • 나는 이 사건이 인바운드 WP를 주연으로 하는 것처럼 보인다는 것에 동의한다.부메랑. - 2013년 4월 29일 05:17 (UTC)[응답]

그래서 문제는, 어떻게 해야 하는가 입니다.Gregbard가 이 특정 영역에 참여하는 것이 더 넓은 합의로 보일 것 같은 것에 맞서 싸우는 동안에도 순전히 긍정적인 것인가?크리스 커닝햄 (사용자:thumperward) (대화) 08:58, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

주: 그레바드는 현재 그렉바드의 토크 페이지 이 섹션에서 나에 대해 말한 것과 같은 종류의 것들을 앨런슨에게 말하고 있다. --오레이디 (토크) 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

Gregbard에 대한 제안된 주제 금지

• 셰쉬...좋아 나는 위에서 주어진 대부분의 인용문을 읽었고 솔직히 그레바드의 견해는 (내 주장은 카운티 정부는 주 정부의 기관이라는 것이다) 꽤...특유의공평하게 말하자면, 나는 거의 무지한 상태에서 이 주제에 대해 말하고 있지만, 그렇다 하더라도, 그가 제공한 어떤 것도 눈에 띄게 그의 입장을 지지하는 것 같지 않다.앨라배마 주의 예는 공유 비용에 대한 법적 분쟁이다...그리고 음, "유형적 실체"들은 독립적인 법적 조치를 취하는 경향이 없다.심지어 NACO 사이트도 합의된 입장을 확인하는 것 같다. (위의 Gregbard의 NACO 인용문은 국가 헌법 초안이 작성되었을 때 상황이 어떻게 돌아왔는지에 대해 이야기하고 있었다. 그리고 그것은 오늘날 상황이 어떻게 다른지를 대조하는 것이다.)토론에 참여한 여러 정당 중 자신의 입장에 동의하는 정당을 찾지 못했다.
• 그럼에도 불구하고, 우리는 콘텐츠 문제를 다스리기 위해 여기 있는 것이 아니다.그래서... 내가 보는 바로는 컨센서스를 따르기를 심각하게 꺼리는 사람이고, 리플을 하고 나서 승리를 주장하는 사람이고, WP는 분명히 주요 WP를 가지고 있다.자기만의 문제들, 그리고 자기 길을 막는 사람에게는 꽤 미개한 사람.결과적으로, 나는 어떤 지방 정부 관련 기사에 대해서도 그렉바드에 대한 주제 금지를 권하고 싶은 마음이 충분히 들 것이다.매닝(대화) 2013년 4월 29일 10시 58분(UTC)[응답]
• 특히 다양한 대화 페이지에서 기여도를 살펴봄으로써, 나는 이것을 지지할 수 있다.— Ched : ?? 17:01, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 - 머리 회전이 필요 없음.Sjones23 경 (토크 기여) 2013년 4월 29일 17:06 (UTC)[응답하라]
• 최근 편집된 Boogerpatrol (대화) 17:51, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]에 따라 관련 변경이 지속적으로 이루어지는 것으로 보이므로 지원
• 코멘트 너희들은 스스로를 부끄러워해야 한다.나는 이 지역 사회의 성숙된 구성원들에게 상황을 보고하기 위해 선의로 이곳에 왔다.이곳의 기후는 학회 원로원이라기보다는 교도소 마당과 더 비슷하다.부메랑, 정말.내가 어떤 공정하고 합리적인 우주에서든 높이 평가받을 수 있는 소외된 지역에 많은 노력을 기울였다는 사실을 기록으로 남겨두고, 나는 그 주제에 대해 특별한 지식이나 경험이 없는 사람들에게 즉각 조롱과 괴롭힘을 당하게 되었다.나는 더 넓은 지역사회에 상황을 보고했고, 논리와 비판적 사고가 우세하다기보다 그들은 자아와 인격에 빠져들었다.나는 대략 12개의 참고자료를 제공했는데, 그 중 액면가로 취해진 것은 내 결론을 뒷받침해 주고, 내 주장을 뒷받침해 주는 강력한 논거가운데 어떤 것이 바로 그것이다.가장 단순하고 가장 합리적인 해석을 받아들이기보다는 그 분야의 전문지식에 대한 주장이 전혀 없는 미성숙한 사람의 엉뚱한 난해한 합리화를 받아들이는 쪽을 택한 것이다.나는 방 안의 성숙한 어른이라는 내 주장을 고수한다.

• 심지어 그녀의 미숙함에 대한 나의 성숙한 반응조차도 미숙함으로 해석되고 있다.오레이디의 발언은 실제 문제를 다루지 않고 오히려 내가 성숙하게 응답을 거부한 자신에 대한 공격이었다는 점에서 도움이 되지 않았다.이러한 논의는 미래에는 누구나 언제든지 개방적이고 읽을 수 있다.내가 무지한 자에게서 물러서지 않았다는 것을, 무지한 자들이 앞으로 나아갔다는 것을 기록으로 보여 주옵소서.위키백과 입니다.실패.그렉 바드 (대화) 2013년 4월 29일 18:14 (UTC)[응답]

당신은 그 문제에 대한 심판을 요청했다.그것은 제공되었다.나는 이전에 오레이디나 다른 참가자들을 알지 못했기 때문에 어떤 개인에 대한 편견이 없었다.나는 다른 참가자의 결론을 검토하지 않았다.그러나 나는 당신의 모든 추천서를 검토했고, 그 중 어떤 근거로든 당신의 결론을 지지하는지 알 수 없었다(위에서 논의한 바와 같이).당신이 위에서 제공한 NACO 참조는 특히 그것과 모순된다.아무도 너를 비웃거나 학대하지 않았지만, 너는 너와 동의하지 않는 모든 사람들을 학대하고 조롱했어.나는 방 안의 성숙한 어른이라는 내 주장을 고수한다.네가 원하는 어떤 청구도 환영해, 그것은 우리의 집단적인 결정에 영향을 미치지 않을 거야.매닝(토크) 04:01, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

"성숙한 사람은 절대적으로만 생각하지 않고, 감정적으로 깊이 동요해도 객관적일 수 있고, 모든 사람과 사물에 선과 악이 모두 있다는 것을 배웠으며, 겸손하게 걷고 자비롭게 대하는 사람이다." -- 71.139.157.86 (토크) 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC) 18:36, 2013년 4월 29일 (화)

• 아래 3개월 버전보다 이 버전을 더 쉽게 지원하십시오.시민성 문제, WP:소유권 문제, 그리고 명백한 박해 콤플렉스는 섞일 때 다소 고약한 칵테일을 만든다.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• 그렉바드가 왜 독자들에게 위키피디아 토크에 대해 알려주고 있는지 잘 모르겠다.지방 정부에 대한 제안된 금지 주제에 대한 위키프로젝트 철학.그 과정에서 왜 다른 사람의 댓글을 편집해야 한다고 느꼈는지도 모르겠다.아주 이상하다.—톰 모리스 (대화) 15:57, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

WP의 형태처럼 보인다.선거운동. --Orady (대화) 18:41, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원: 지원 주제 금지 및 송어 곁가지 주문.니츠히프트36 (대화) 18:55, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지지 - 주어진 차이점과 편집자의 의견 모두 문제가 있다는 것을 확실히 보여주는데, 불행히도 문제는 희망적으로 해결하기 위해 이와 같은 것을 필요로 한다.3개월로 한정하는 것으로는 충분치 않다고 생각하는데, 미리 정해진 짧은 기간이 어떤 것도 고칠 수 있는 것이라고 생각하지 않고, 무기한 주제 금지가 더 적절할 것 같기 때문이다(그 무기한이라는 것을 강조하는 것은 무한함을 의미하지 않는다).- 스도호스트 21:44, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대: 나는 이것이 관리자들이 우글거리는 곳에서 내 위치를 독특하게 만든다는 것을 안다.Orlady는 그 주제가 트래픽이 거의 없고 Gregbard가 그것에 기여하고 있다는 것을 인정한다.프로젝트 손상에 대한 의혹은 구체적으로 검토하도록 제안하며, AN/I는 내용 검토가 필요하기 때문에 그 대상이 아니다.요게시 칸드케 (대화) 05:48, 2013년 5월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대해. 내가 이걸 보고 있는데 엄청나게 많은 열이 발생했어. 그게 주제 금지를 결정하는 가장 좋은 조건은 아니라고 생각해.그레바드는 그동안 일어난 일에 대해 감정적으로 반응했지만, "철기가 뜨거울 때 때리기"가 우리가 여기서 일하는 방식이 되어서는 안 된다.기사 내용에 대한 공감대가 그대로인 지금 당장은 금지의 절박한 필요성을 느끼지 못하기 때문에, 모든 사람들이 다시 자리를 잡으면 상황이 어떻게 전개되는지 알 수 있고, 문제가 지속된다면 이 문제를 전면적으로 재검토할 수 있을 것이라고 보잉은 말했다.제베디 (대화) 06:00, 2013년 5월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
• 어떠한 제재도 반대한다.이 실은 읽기엔 너무 심하지만, 그렉, 네가 뭔가에 대해 옳다고 믿는 것 같구나, 공감대를 얻을 수 없고, 그게 널 많이 화나게 했어.내 제안은 적어도 한 달 동안 주제를 삭제한 다음, 일련의 기사 RfCs 또는 요청된 이동 토론과 함께 그 주제로 돌아가라는 것이다.그러나 우선은 그 상황에서 열기를 내보내야 한다.SlimVirgin 01:34, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 - 경주에서 린친의 밧줄을 다시 잡는다.카라이트 (대화) 14:50, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 --doncram 00:49, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
• 조건부 반대.만일 그렉이 (이 특정 문제에 대해 분명히 그에게 불리하게 작용하는) 합의를 준수하기로 동의하고 실제로 그렇게 한다면, 더 이상 논의할 것이 없다.이 실의 다른 부분에서 합의를 지키지 않기로 구체적으로 합의했기 때문에 명시적인 합의가 필요하다는 점에 유의해야 한다.나는 (대화 페이지에 응모) 이 제재가 너무 가혹하다고 생각하지만, 그렇다고 하더라도, 그가 준수하지 않기로 동의한 대화 페이지 이외의 다른 페이지에서는 무기한 게시물 금지에 반대하지는 않을 것이다. (전치사는 결코 선고를 끝내서는 안 되는 것이다.) — 아서 루빈 (대화) 03:29, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

내 진술에 대해 "합의에 따르지 않는 것에 특별히 동의한다[동의하지 않는다]"고 해석하는 것은 무엇인가?그레그 바드 (대화) 06:31, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

"어떤 종류의 제재도 받아들이지 않을 거야." — 아서 루빈(토크) 02:20, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

어떤 식으로든 제재를 받으면 항소하겠다는 뜻이다.만약 항소해도 그 문제가 내 마음에 들지 않는다면, 나는 기여하는 것을 자제할 것이다.그래서 솔직히 말해서, 이것은 사람들이 그들의 마음을 시궁창에서 벗어나야 하는 문제다.그레그 바드 (대화) 04:00, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지 - 나는 이 논쟁에 대해 방금 전까지 몰랐고 이 편집자를 만난 적이 없다.그렇긴 하지만, 주제 금지는 특히 위의 인용구가 고려되었을 때 충분히 그럴 만해 보인다.우리가 공감대를 바탕으로 한 공동체라고 믿는 편집자라면 누구나 '받아 들이지 않겠다'는 빨간 깃발이 돼야 한다.반대자들은 그것을 고려해야 한다.만약 그것이 나온다면, 이 늦은 날에 준수하기로 하는 협정은 분명히 압박하에 만들어진다.Jusdafax 03:33, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

그 모든 의미는 내가 어떤 식으로든 제재를 받으면 항소하겠다는 것이다.만약 항소해도 그 문제가 내 마음에 들지 않는다면, 나는 기여하는 것을 자제할 것이다.나는 어떤 종류의 제재도 받을 자격이 없으며, 그런 척할 필요도 없다.위키피디아 사람들은 그들의 사용자 권리에 대한 침해에 대해 이의를 제기할 권리뿐만 아니라 의무도 가지고 있다.만약 당신의 표가 단지 이 진술에 근거한다면, 그것은 행정 공동체가 무모하게 행동했다는 나의 주장을 뒷받침할 뿐이다.한 달 넘게 이슈를 일으키고 있는 이용자에게 "도움이 되지 않는다"고 말했다.그래서 3개월 금지가 그 기준에 따라 결정되는 겁니까?맞나?그레그 바드 (대화) 04:00, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

우선, 나는 행정관이 아니며, 몇 년 동안 행정부와 여분의 단추를 가진 사람들에 의한 다양한 권력 남용에 대해 수많은 우려를 표명해 왔다.다른 실패들 중에서도, 여러분은 편집권을 제한하거나 없앤다는 위험에서 위반하는 "근본적 원칙"에 따라 편집하는 다섯 가지 요소를 이해할 수 없는 것 같다.만약 지역사회가 당신을 제재한다면 그것은 합의로 다가올 것이고, 보통은 당신이 나쁘게 "몰입"했다는 것을 의미한다.커뮤니티가 승인한 ArbCom에 대한 주제 금지를 어필하는 것은, 비록 여러분이 시도해볼 자유는 있지만, 제 생각에는, 그들에게서 들을 수 있을 것 같지는 않다.그리고 만약 당신이 최근의 한 차례의 발사격에서와 같이 백과사전의 핵심 가치들을 계속해서 무시하고 폄하한다면, 나는 당신이 겸손의 지혜를 얻을 때까지 주제 금지가 아니라 무기한 차단을 요구하겠다.주의를 기울이다.Jusdafax 05:27, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 어떻게 "감정받았는지 정확히 말할 수 있겠니?"내가 어떻게 다섯 개의 기둥 중 한 개라도 버린 거야!?콘텐츠 문제에 대한 공감대가 한 가지 문제지만 징계 제재는 적법한 절차를 거쳐야 한다.그래서 내게는 권리뿐만 아니라 이 문제에 도전할 의무도 있다.제안된 금지는 극도로 가벼운 범죄로 매우 가혹하다. 나는 그것이 나의 결백을 유지한다.이 사건의 진상을 철저히 조사해 주시오나는 어떤 정책도 위반하지 않았고, 분쟁에 대한 참여를 요청하기 위해 ANI/I에 성실하게 왔고, 사람들은 그것이 어떤 합리적이고 성숙한 일처럼 "부메랑"을 던지고 있다.나는 그 미친 제안이 나온 이후로 편집을 중단했다.그러니 나에게 어떤 행동을 취해도 정당한 이유가 없고, 만약 합의가 이루어진다면, 그것은 그 과정에 의문을 제기하게 될 것이다.내 방어를 위해 온다는 생각은 그 자체로 매우 부도덕하다.그것은 괴롭힘과 학대다.어떤 사람들은 그것이 어떻게든 어떤 것을 정당화하는 것처럼 그것을 "관리자에 의한 자살"이라고 부르고 있다.그 비유는 적절하지 않다. 왜냐하면 나는 손을 잡고 있기 때문이다.만약 지역사회가 어쨌든 총격을 가하기로 결정했다면, 그것은 "관리자에 의한 자살"이 아니라, 남용이다.유추에 일관성을 지킨다면 총과 배지가 빼앗기는 상황이다.그레그 바드 (대화) 06:57, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 5월 8일자 Gregbard의 상기 코멘트에 근거한 지원.비리다타스 (대화) 04:14, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 이 금지 논의는 그레바드가 ANI 스레드에서 어떤 실제적인 혼란보다 표현을 잘 선택했다는 것에 더 근거한 것으로 보인다; 그들이 그 호소가 성공할 가능성에 상관없이 제재에 항소할 것이라고 말하는 것은 방해가 되지 않는다.NE Ent 09:39, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

위에 대한 대체 제안

• 한숨 자, I WP:Gregbard가 하려고 하는 것에 대한 AGF.하지만 그의 방법은 터무니없다.내가 보고 싶은 것은 다음과 같다.

• 3개월의 주제 변경 금지, 대체로 해석된다.그는 정부 관련 기사의 대화 페이지에서 변경사항이나 추가 가능성을 계속 논의할 수 있다.Gregbard는 또한 그 3개월 동안 시민권 가석방 대상이 된다.필자의 견해로는 "선택적"이지만, CONESSGENCES가 진정 무엇을 의미하는지, 그리고 이 프로젝트가 여러 과정과 정책, 공동체성을 통해 전체적으로 어떻게 작용하는지 더 잘 알기 위해 그에게 멘토링을 권하고 싶다(✉→BWilkins←✎✎) 21:16, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원닥터 제임스 (대화 · 기여 · 이메일) (내 페이지에 회신하는 경우) 21:43, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]
• 지원 - 카운티 정부가 주 정부의 기관이라는 주장은 명백히 터무니없는 것이며, 그가 자신의 입장을 바꾸기를 거절할 뿐만 아니라 그것을 방어하기 위해 다른 편집자들을 공격하고 있다는 사실이 극도로 우려된다. - 부시 레인저 22:29, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

동의해. --Orady (대화) 22:52, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 내 WP:관련된 관점에서는 이것이 올바른 방향처럼 보이지만, 몇 가지 수정사항으로 볼 때론 다음과 같다.

1. 주제 금지사항은 기사뿐만 아니라 템플리트 및 카테고리 공간의 페이지에도 적용되어야 한다.최근 논쟁의 많은 부분이 그러한 공간에서 발생했기 때문에 나는 이것을 제안한다.
2. 제안된 분류 프로젝트의 경우, 적절한 대화 페이지 또는 프로젝트 페이지에서 제안에 대한 합의가 이루어지면(그렉바드가 아닌 사람에 의해 결정됨) Gregbard는 정부 관련 페이지를 편집하여 카테고리에 추가할 수 있다.오해를 피하기 위해, Gregbard가 그러한 분류 편집을 허가하는 합의는 (일부 다른 사용자가) 토크 페이지 논의의 결론의 일부로 기록되어야 한다.나는 분류가 최근 정부와 관련하여 Gregbard의 주안점이 되었고 분류 작업의 상당 부분이 생산적이고 논란의 여지가 없기 때문에 이것을 제안한다. --Orady (대화) 22:52, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

첫 번째 페이지에는 동의하지만, 아니오... 대화하는 것 외에는 그가 그 페이지를 편집하는 것을 허락하지 마십시오.그렇게 봉투를 밀어넣으면 나중에 문제가 생길 뿐이다(✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:57, 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC)[응답]

• 오레이디의 조건으로 지원하십시오.Gregbard는 고의적이고 파괴적이지만 생산적일 수 있다.브링크스터넷 (대화) 2013년 4월 29일 (UTC) 23:14 (응답)
• 코멘트 나는 내가 큰 기여를 한 주제 영역에서 나를 금지시키자는 이 갑작스런 비판단적인 제안에 앞서 절대 경고를 받지 않았다.심지어 오레이디에 대한 나의 원래 게시물조차도 그 문제를 기록에 남기기 위한 것이었다.내가 무슨 짓을 해서 그런 경솔하고 엄중한 대응을 한단 말인가.그 문제는 그녀를 경솔하게 금지함으로써 쉽게 해결될 수 있었다.나는 어떤 정책도 위반하지 않았으니, 이것은 정치적인 문제에 해당된다.나는 지방 정부 분야에서 60개 이상의 기사를 시작했다.만약 내가 금지된다면, 나는 즉시 항소할 것이다.이런 터무니없는 조바심으로 내 시간이나 다른 사람을 낭비하지 마라.나로서는 이곳 상어 탱크 사고방식에 충격을 받아 편집을 중단했다.너희들은 부끄러운 줄 알아야 한다.합리적이고 점잖은 사람들은 우리가 마음대로 쓸 수 있는 도구가 많지 않기 때문에 나는 내 말밖에 할 말이 없다.나에게 행정력을 사용한다면 당신은 괴롭히는 사람이고, 그럴 자격이 없다.그레그 바드 (대화) 04:20, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• ANI에 무언가를 보고하는 것은 결코 "기록에 올리는 것"이 아니다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 04:42, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• (충돌 편집)그가 한 말.또한 사람들을 괴롭히는 사람이라고 비난하는 것은 당신의 사건에 도움이 되지 않는다; '나는 즉시 항소할 것이다'와 '시간을 낭비하지 말아라'는 것도 당신의 입장에 도움이 되는 말은 아니다.여기서 문제의 사실은, 그렉, 여기서 당신의 주장을 검토한 후 - 당신이 계속 주장하는 것이 당신이 오해할 가능성조차 없이 옳다고 주장하면서, 다른 모든 사람들이 당신을 논쟁하고, 고려되고 있음에도 불구하고 - 그것은 전적으로 근거가 없다는 것이다.'국가는 주정부의 기관이다'와 같이 검증할 수 없는 주장을 한 다음, 앞서 말한 '내가 옳기 때문에 옳다'는 행동을 계속하면서 자신을 부르는 사람들을 개인적으로 공격한다면, 사람들이 이 프로젝트에 순긍정적인지 궁금해하기 시작할 때 놀라서는 안 된다.당신이 편집에서 5대 기둥에 있는 정책을 따르기를 거부한다면 당신의 "거대한 기여"는 문제가 되지 않는다.나는 당신이 막대기를 내려놓고, 당신이 틀렸다는 것을 받아들이고, 해산물을 먹고, 나아가야 한다고 강력히 제안하고 싶다 - 만약 당신이 위에 있는 것처럼 계속한다면, 주제 금지는 불가피하다. - 부시레인저 04:54, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]

• 안녕 그렉 - 전에 우연히 마주친 적이 있어(어디서...) - 난 이 일에 관여하지도 않았고, 카운티 정부의 정의에 대해서도 신경을 쓸 수도 없고, 행정관도 아니고, 투표도 하지 않을 거야.나는 단지 두 가지를 말하고 싶었다. (1) Read WP:Boomerang.나는 전에 이런 일이 일어나는 것을 본 적이 있다 - ANI에 어떤 것을 가져오더라도, 당신이 하는 모든 일은 똑같이 면밀히 조사된다.결과로 나타나는 어떤 행동에도 경고가 필요하지 않다 (2) 당신의 좌절감을 알 수 있지만, 당신의 편집 중 일부에서는 정말로 공감대를 형성하는 접근법을 취하고 있지 않다.네 말이 맞을지 모르지만, 그런 접근으로는 이길 수 없을지도 모른다.잠시 휴식을 취하고, 다른 주제 영역으로 가서, 위키피디아에서 벗어나 다른 것을 할 수도 있다.네가 돌아왔을 때 그것은 여전히 여기 있을 것이다.무엇인가에 대해 격분할 때마다, 나는 결국 여기서 후회해 왔고, 좀 더 부드럽게 일을 하려고 할 때마다 일이 더 잘 풀렸다.몇 가지 생각뿐입니다.환호 --오비완 케노비 (토크) 04:48, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 현명한 말들이야, 그건 그렇고. 주의를 기울여야 한다. - 부시 레인저 04:54, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답하라]

다른 각도로 해볼게.Gregbard - 우리("관리자")는 단 하나의 안건만을 가지고 있다 - 프로젝트를 보호하고 강화해야 한다.프로젝트가 직접 이익을 보지 않는 한 우리는 어떤 개인도 지지하지 않는다.당신은 AN/I에 오는 것이 오레이디의 행동을 검사하기 위해 행정기관만 자극할 것이라고 믿었을 것이다.그러나 그렇지 않았다 - 우리는 항상 전체 상황을 조사했고, 그리고 나서 우리는 전체 프로젝트에 최선이라고 믿는 것을 하려고 노력한다.우리는 항상 그것을 올바르게 이해하지는 못하고, 분명히 많은 비판에 직면하지만, 그것이 전적으로 우리에게 동기를 부여하고 우리의 행동을 지시하는 것이다.

나는 당신이 그 프로젝트가 당신의 기여로 큰 이익을 얻고 있다고 꽤 강하게 믿고 있다는 것을 안다.그러나 당신의 안건("진실 제시")과 우리의 안건("프로젝트 보존")은 현재 직접적인 충돌에 직면해 있다.당신은 어떤 정책도 위반하지 않았다고 위에 진술하지만, 나는 당신이 우리의 가장 큰 정책들 중 두 가지를 명백히 위반했다고 자신 있게 말할 수 있다. - Civility와 Consensus.

그래서, 진실을 밝히는 당신의 접근은 "우리가 어떻게 일을 하느냐"에 크게 반하는 것이다. - 오대목을 통해서 말이다.너는 우리의 과정을 비판해도 좋다.하지만 그 모든 결점에도 불구하고, 우리의 과정은 효과가 있고, 우리는 위키피디아를 증거물로 가지고 있다.그러므로 위에서 주어진 부시 레인저와 오비완 케노비의 충고를 살펴봐라-그것은 충분히 주의를 기울일 가치가 있다.매닝(토크) 05:32, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

만약 그레바드가 자발적으로 이 영역에 참여하는 것을 중단한다면, 적어도 지금으로서는 여기서 끝장이다. (합의의 결과, 관리자의 역할, ANI의 목적에 대한 그의 오해는 다른 곳에서 그에게 불리하게 작용할 수도 있지만, 그것은 다른 날을 위한 것이다.)크리스 커닝햄 (사용자:thumperward) (대화) 09:35, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

그렉바드가 가장 최근 이 토크 페이지(이 페이지에서 말한 것보다 더 늦음)에서 한 발언이 어떤 징후라면 자발적으로 이 지역을 그만둔다고는 생각하지 않는다. --오레이디(토크) 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC) 16:26, 2013년 4월 30일 (화)

이상에 근거해 보면, 논의와 협상이 실제로 성과를 거두지 못하고 있는 것은 분명해 보인다.권한이 없는 관리자가 이 토론을 검토하고 결정을 내릴 수 있는가?매닝(대화) 21:32, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지원 나는 그렉바드를 대하면서 오레이디가 참아왔던 많은 것을 경험했다.GB가 공감대가 궁극적인 진실에 대한 그의 해석과 상충될 수 있다는 것을 인식하지 못하는 것은 공동체의 일부로서 함께 일할 수 없게 만들었다.군과 지방정부 기사의 정리와 개편의 여지가 있지만, 원천자료가 특이하게 해석되고 합의점을 찾지 못해 이들 지역은 이전보다 더 난장판이 되고 있다.성찰과 관찰의 기간이 도움이 될 것이다.앨런슨 (대화) 21:39, 2013년 4월 30일 (UTC)[응답]
• Gredbard가 우연히 옳았다는 것이 어떤 차이를 만드는가?카운티 정부는 주 정부의 연장선이다.아니면 그게 중요한가?단지 약간의 극단적인 과장된 표현을 사용한다면, 충분히 노력한다면, 해가 동쪽에서 뜨고 서쪽에서 지는 것에 대한 공감대를 찾을 수 있을 것이다.하지만 우리 모두는 해가 뜨거나 지지 않는다는 것을 안다.지구가 빙빙 돈다.태양이 뜨고 지는 것을 믿게 하는 것은 단순히 우리의 인식이다.군청도 마찬가지다.우리는 그것을 한 가지 방식으로 인식하지만, 실제로는 내가 알고 있는 모든 주에서 주정부의 연장선상에 있다.레드드바론 (대화)20:06, 2013년 5월 3일 (UTC)[응답하라]
  • 아니, 여기까지 가면 누가 옳고 누가 그른지는 중요하지 않다.만약 누군가가 논쟁의 특정 측면이 옳다는 것을 쉽게 알 수 있는 쉽게 이용할 수 있는 참조를 지적할 수 있다면, 물론 공동체는 그러한 올바른 승리를 선호할 것이다.그러나 이 문제가 그렇게 쉽게 해결될 수 없다는 것은 분명하며, 협력적인 접근법은 "모든 피드백에 감사한다.당연히 내가 옳다고 보여질 것이라는 것은 알고 있지만, 그 합의는 나에게 불리하다고 생각되므로, 그 모든 문제는 그만둘 것이다." 요누니크(토크) 01:14, 2013년 5월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
    • 음, 쉽게 참조할 수 있는가?간단하고 평판이 좋은 소식통인데, "우리 국가 정부가 수립되었을 때 헌법 제정자들은 지방정부에 대한 지원을 하지 않았다.오히려 그들은 그 문제를 미국에 맡겼다.그 후, 초기 국가는 일반적으로 카운티 정부를 국가의 팔로서 개념화했다."-전국 군 협회; 그런 것?그런 참고자료를 찾는데 약 30초가 걸린다.나는 정말 이 큰 실수를 이해할 수 없다.어쩌면 그 문제는 위키 페이지와는 전혀 관련이 없는 것인지도 모른다.어쩌면 중요한 건 개성에 관한 거겠지?내 말은 셰익스피어가 "여자가 경멸하는 것과 같은 분노는 없을 것이다"라고 썼을 때 그가 옳았다는 것은 꽤 명백하다는 것이다.당신은 그레그바드가 그 지혜를 잊고 과잉반응을 해서 두 사람이 함께 서로 과잉반응하면서 긴장이 고조되었다고 생각하는가?그렉이 실제로 무례한 게 아니라 그냥 무시하는 거였어그처럼 단순하고 명백한 실수에 대한 무지함을 경멸하여, 어느 1학년 학생이라도 알아야 할 것이다.대부분의 사람들이 가질 수 있는 반응이다.나의 이전의 예를 이용해서 떠오르는 태양과 지는 태양을 사용했어.만약 편집자가 실제로 태양이 동쪽에서 뜨고 서쪽에서 지는 지구 주위를 돌고 있다는 것에 동의한다면, 그것은 과학 분야의 교육받은 사람이라면 누구나 무시한 채 그것을 되돌릴 가능성이 매우 높은 반응일 것이다.편집자들은 많은 위키페이지에서 항상 그렇게 한다.그래야죠.그러나 어떤 사람들은 무례하거나 무례하지 않을 때 그것을 불쾌하게 여길 것이다.바보 같은 실수를 고치고 있어.왜 위키백과가 애초에 이렇게까지 확대되도록 내버려 두었을까?그렉이 말한 것으로 바꿀 위키 관리자를 찾아봐.그는 옳다.And then take the time to explain it in a way that is not scornful, so the "consensus coalition" don't go crazy getting "revenge" for perceived insults.68.229.213.209 (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Sorry, I forgot to log in so the signature is an IP Redddbaron (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • 당신이 묘사하는 것처럼 그렇게 쉽지는 않다. 당신이 인용한 그 참고문헌의 바로 다음 단락은 어떻게 지방정부가 매우 자율적인 것으로 바뀌었는지에 대해 논하고 있다.나는 이 중 어느 것도 성격에 관한 것이 아니라고 생각한다.나로서는 그렉바드의 주장이 그가 제시하는 어떤 참고인들로부터 어떻게 뒷받침되고 있는지 도저히 알 수가 없다(그리고 나는 그 어떤 참고인들 하나하나가 다 조사해 보았다).나는 사실의 정확성에 근거하여 설득당할 용의가 있지만, 지금까지 내가 보여준 모든 것은 일치된 입장을 지지한다.매닝(토크) 05:06, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
• Gregbard가 짧은 기간 동안 정부 주제에 대해 페이지를 언급하도록 제한하고, 우리의 합의된 정신에 더 밀접하게 부합하는 접근법을 장려하려는 생각을 지지할 수 있다. -- Boing! (대화) Zebedee (대화) 06:07, 2013년 5월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

  사실, 아니, 나는 어떤 제재도 현 시점에서 상황을 더 악화시킬 뿐이고, 나는 그 프로젝트에 손해가 될 가능성은 없다고 본다. - 우리는 잠시 동안 자발적인 해제가 필요하다. - 보잉! 제베디가 말했다. 15:29, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 반대: 나는 그가 가지고 있고 그가 그 프로젝트에 계속 손해를 입힐 것이라는 증거가 없는 어떤 행동도 반대한다.그를 비판하는 사람들을 "무표한" 자신들을 부끄러워하지 않는다고 부르는 것과 같은, 그의 행동과 무관하게, 그는 그것을 제거하는 것이 그의 사건을 더 악화시킬 뿐이기 때문에 잘 할 수 있을 것이다.요게시 칸드케 (대화) 11:36, 2013년 5월 4일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대해. 몇 주 동안 그가 이 일에서 벗어나길 바라지만, 설득에 의해서가 아니라.SlimVirgin 01:37, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 지지 이것은 내가 잘 아는 분야가 아니다.그러나 국가기관이 되는 것과 국가의 권한에 속하는 것은 차이가 있다는 것이 나의 이해다.딜런의 법칙에 따르면, 지방정부는 국가의 권한 아래 있고 주정부가 연방정부로부터 가지고 있는 것과 같은 연방주의 보호를 가지고 있지 않지만, 그것은 지방정부가 주정부라는 것을 의미하지는 않는다(그리고 일부 관할구역은 딜런의 규칙을 따르지 않을 수도 있지만, 오히려 쿨리의 법칙을 따를 수도 있다).군이 '지방정부'인지 아닌지는 대부분의 경우 대답할 가치가 없는 의미론적 질문이지만, 일반적으로 나는 국가정부가 지방정부라고 생각한다는 인상을 받는다.어쨌든 미국의 법을 일반화하는 것은 상당히 어렵고 매우 신중하게 이루어져야 한다.Orlady가 User:Gregbard가 가지고 있는 자료들은 정말 그럴 만한 것이 못 된다.콜로라도의 경우, 만약 그레바드가 법률 검토 기사나 교과서를 사용했다면, 상황을 설명하기 시작할 수 있을 것 같다: 시작은 국가 및 지방 정부로서 긴급 관리: 카운티를 인용하는 출처를 살펴보거나 21일에 카운티에 대한 연구 수행에 접근하는 것일 수 있다.Century: 새로운 의제 및 데이터베이스 고려사항 또는 카운티 정부: 지방정부 과정의 "잊혀진" 주제?추가 논평으로, '기관'이라는 단어를 생각해 보고 대리점의 법칙을 고려하라.국가기관은 말 그대로 국가의 대리인으로, 그 주체는 주의 주지사(그리고 궁극적으로 주의 인구)이며 국가 전체를 대표하는 입법부다.반면에, 군들은 전형적으로 지역 단위로 그들만의 선거를 치른다.II (t - c) 01:35, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 - 여전히 문제가 있는 행동을 조기에 보고하기에는 너무 심각한 결과.기록에 의하면, @Gregbard: 카운티는 주정부의 기관이 아니라 주영토의 독립적인 행정 구역이다.각 카운티에는 고유의 헌장과 내규가 있다.군 행정구조는 장소마다 다르다.카운티는 주법의 적용을 받는다.이것은 모두 자명하다. 만약 이것이 당신이 하고 있는 일이라면, 현실에 대한 참신한 재해석을 시도하지 마라.Carrite (대화) 14:57, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대 군과 주 사이의 관계는 "파리스는 프랑스에 있다"는 종류의 것이 아니며 가정이 아닌 믿을 만한 출처에 의해 가장 잘 결정되며, 사실 주마다 다를 수 있다.NE Ent 23:19, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
• 반대. --doncram 00:46, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
• 조건부 반대.만일 그렉이 (이 특정 문제에 대해 분명히 그에게 불리하게 작용하는) 합의를 준수하기로 동의하고 실제로 그렇게 한다면, 더 이상 논의할 것이 없다.이 실의 다른 부분에서 합의를 지키지 않기로 구체적으로 합의했기 때문에 명시적인 합의가 필요하다는 점에 유의해야 한다.— 아서 루빈 (대화) 03:24, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]
• 네 엔트는 약간 복잡하다는 것이 옳다. 왜냐하면 모든 사람들은 주 정부가 단일 국가이고 연합하지 않는다는 것에 동의하는 것처럼 보이기 때문이다. 반면에, 카운티를 지방으로 분류하는 합의는 동의하는 것처럼 보이고 카운티의 다른 중요한 특징들을 다루는 것처럼 보인다.따라서, 합의를 따르십시오.알란스코트워커 (대화) 11시 5분, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자 남용

나의 추천 및 최종 의견

좋아, 생산적으로 여기까지 왔으니 이게 마지막 코멘트가 될 거야.그렉바드는 이상에 근거해 "내가 옳고, 다른 모든 사람이 틀렸다"는 식으로 요약되는 그의 입장에 전적으로 전념하는 것 같다.그를 생산적인 논의에 참여시키려는 우리의 집단적 시도는 대부분 실패했다(위, 그리고 여기 참조).NE Ent가 위에서 관찰한 바와 같이, 적어도 이 주제에 관한 한 GregBard는 합의된 모델을 "획득"하지 않는 것으로 보인다.이 예에서 그는 "합의에 의해 굴복할 것"이라고 선언하지만, 계속해서 이전 논의에서 그의 관점에 부합하는 것으로 나타난 합의점을 잘못 전달한다(모든 범주를 "주정부"에 배치함).

내 생각으로는(관리인이 아닌 편집자로만 말하는 것) 그의 언급 가운데 그 반대의 주장을 거듭했음에도 불구하고 그의 지위에 지지를 주는 사람은 아무도 없다.NACO의 예는 그의 주장과 완전히 상반되는 것 같다. - 페이지에는 (그렉바드가 언급했듯이, "국가의 팔"로서) 카운티 정부의 원래 공식과 현재의 배치, 그리고..."1차대전, 인구증가, 교외개발 이후 정부개혁운동으로 지방정부의 역할이 강화되었다.... "구조의 변화, 국가로부터의 더 큰 자율성, 증가하는 수입, 그리고 더 강한 정치적 책임감이 군정의 새로운 시대를 열었다."누군가가 그의 추리에 의문을 제기하는 여러 경우 동안, 그 반응은 "명백하다"거나 "나는 교육을 받은 사람이니까, 너는 내가 말하는 것을 따라야 한다"는 것이다.말할 필요도 없이, 이러한 반응 유형들 중 어느 것도 "우리가 어떻게 일을 하는지"를 반영하지 못한다.

따라서 그렉바드가 파괴적인 행동을 하고 있다는 것이 (관리자로서) 나의 평가다. 공정하게 보면 그와 같이 파괴적인 행동을 하려는 의도적인 의도는 없지만 말이다.긍정적인 측면으로, 그는 이번 AN/I 토론이 그의 활동에 초점을 맞추기 시작한 이후 군과 관련된 어떠한 기사도 편집하지 않았다.이것이 현 상태를 유지한다면, 이 실은 더 이상의 조치 없이 닫힐 수 있다.그러나, 만약 파괴적인 편집이 재개된다면, 나는 위의 논의에 따라 일정 기간 동안 주제 금지가 필요할 것이라고 믿는다.나는 다른 행정관이 그런 결심을 하도록 할 것이다.

다른 문제에 - 그레바드는 오레이디에게 징벌적 조치를 취하도록 거듭 요청했다.나와 여러 명의 행정관들이 오레이디의 행동을 검토했는데, 나는 한 사건에서 오레이디의 부적절한 행동에 대해 질책했다(그녀가 논쟁 없이 받아들인 문책).다른 사람들은 물론 그녀의 행동을 자유롭게 검토할 수 있지만, 나는 여기에 다른 어떤 행동도 할 수 있다고 생각하지 않는다.적어도 당분간은 그레그바드가 그녀에 대해 상당한 반감을 갖고 있다는 것이 분명하기 때문에 나는 그들 두 사람이 가능한 한 상호작용을 자제할 것을 권고한다.나는 또한 오레이디가 그렉바드의 편집 내용을 더 이상 되돌리는 것을 자제할 것을 제안한다.대신 그들을 관리자(예: 나 또는 적극적인 역할을 맡으려는 다른 관리자)의 주의를 환기시키십시오.

이쯤에서 내가 할 수 있는 말은 그것밖에 없다.만약 그 토론이 나중에 끝난다면, 다른 행정관은 그들의 재량에 따라 이 토론을 종결시킬 수 있다.계속된다면 논평은 자제하겠다.행운을 빈다.매닝(토크) 07:00, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• • 반대 이 제안은 그레바드에 대해 어떠한 실제적인 조치도 취하지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 전혀 정당화되지 않은 오레이디에 대한 되돌리기 금지도 이상하게 포함하고 있다.이것은 위험할 정도로 피해자를 비난(더 나쁘게는 박해)할 뻔했다.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• • • 나는 제안이라는 단어가 어떻게 '반전 금지'를 구성하는지 잘 모르겠다.참고로, 오레이디는 사실 원래 불만사항의 주제였고, 따라서 마지막 단락(분명히 조치할 수 있는 것이 없다는 것을 나타낸다.)매닝(토크) 18:18, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
      • 나는 그레바드가 나에 대해 '고려할 만한 적개심'을 갖는다는 것은 그레바드와 교류하거나 그의 편집 내용을 더 이상 되돌리는 것을 삼가야 한다는 뜻이라는 제안에 대해 좋지 않은 감정을 갖고 있다고 말해야겠다.그 효과로, 내가 그의 희망에 따라야 한다고 제안하는 것은, 사용자들이 이에 동의하지 않거나 경고를 하거나 행정 조치를 취하는 모든 사용자들에게 "나는 당신에 대해 상당한 반감을 가지고 있으니, 당신은 나에게서 떨어져 있는 것이 좋을 것"이라고 선언하는 것만으로, 기사와 편집에 대한 소유권을 선언할 수 있다고 말하는 것이다.Gregbard의 "더 이상 나에게 연락하지 말라" 선언(첫 번째는 그의 토크 페이지와 그 다음 나의 토크 페이지)은 사실 내가 WP 외부에서 카테고리를 비워서 삭제하지 말라고 경고한 것에 대한 그의 반응이었다.CFD 공정.경고 메시지를 받을 때마다 경고 메시지를 게시하여 경고한 사용자로부터 향후 상호 작용으로부터 자신을 면제해야 한다고 말하는가? --Orady (대화) 20:49, 2013년 5월 1일(UTC)[응답]
        • 오레이디, 그것은 여러분과 같은 고도로 숙련된 편집자가 이런 특정한 상황에 고용하는 선택적인 단기 전술로서 의미되었다. 그 이상은 아니다.제발 더 이상 그것에 대해 읽어 들이지 마- 이상한 이유 때문에 카발사는 여전히 내 변덕에 따라 정책을 지시하는 것을 허락하지 않는다.매닝 (대화) 22:43, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 어떤 종류의 제재도 받아들이지 않을 것이다.토론 도중에 일어서지 않고, 공감대를 선언하고, 무언가를 되돌리는 마지막 사람은 3개월 동안 금지된다.나는 처음부터 결백을 주장해 왔고, 그것으로부터 흔들리지 않았다.그러나 이곳의 상어탱크는 그들이 틀릴 수도 있다는 바로 그 생각을 불쾌하게 여기며 물러서지 않는다.그건 행정적인 남용이다.나의 이해에 대해 나를 향한 관리자들의 논평은 완전히 망각되어 있다.나는 2006년부터 편집자로 일하고 있다.나는 7만 번이 넘는 기부를 했다.내가 만든 모든 콘텐츠와 조직들이 있다.나는 Wikimedia를 대표하여 입법, 집행, 사법, 외교적 역량을 발휘했다.누가 나를 가리키며 내가 단지 합의 과정을 이해하지 못한다고 말하는 것은 이해할 수 없다.이 문제는 며칠 전에 겨우 시작되었다.그저 일어서서 합의가 존재한다고 선언하는 것은 참을 수 없다.확실히 어떤 논의도 이 시점에서도 아직 종결되지 않았다!나는 매우 공정한 사람이다. 만약 내가 어떤 종류의 제재를 정당화하기 위해 어떤 일을 했다면 나는 그것을 인정할 수 있을 것이다.사실 나는 과거에 있어왔다.이 경우에는 제재에 응하지 않겠다.이 시점에서 나는 사과해야 할 의무가 있다고 믿고 있으며, 정치적 현실이 그것을 받든 말든, 나는 어떤 제재의 기간 동안 내내 그것을 요구할 것이다.나는 이 문제를 내가 확인할 수 있는 모든 장소, 즉 중재 위원회, 이사회, 심지어 필요하다면 언론까지 모든 장소에서 극화시킬 것이다.나는 이런 무례한 행동을 하기에는 너무 오래 있었다.제재라는 생각은 버려라.마침표."결단" "합리적" "성격적" "성격적" "치욕적"과 같은 용어를 사용해 왔다.그런 용어를 사용하는 사람은 나밖에 없는 것 같다.지금 나는 또 다른 용어를 사용하고 있다: "양심"이다.그래서 만일 아무도 여기서 잘못하고 있다고 말하지 않는다면, 그것은 그들에게 영원히 수치스러운 일이 될 것이다.이게 내가 가진 전부야. 내 말.내가 자신을 방어하려고 시도해야 한다는 것을 불쾌하게 여기는 태도인 것 같다.그건 공정하지도 않고 점잖지도 않은 과정이야.자신을 존중하고 자제하라.당신의 능력을 사용함으로써 생기는 자아 만족을 포기하라.제발 가차없이 미루고, 잠시 생각해 보아라. 이것이 여러분 자신들에게 큰 모욕이 되지 않는다는 것을.그레그 바드 (대화) 15:23, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 사실, 만약 지역사회가 당신에게 제재를 가하기로 결정한다면, 당신이 "수용"하든 아니든 그것은 무관하다.당신은 제재에 따라 편집하거나 하지 않을 것이고, 만약 당신이 하지 않는다면, 사이트 금지까지 포함해서, 더 멀리 그리고 더 과감한 제재를 가할 것이다.이것을 고려해 볼 때, 여러분의 비누상자에서 내려서 위에서 정확히 무슨 말이 하고 있는지 생각해보는 것이 좋을지도 모른다.비욘드 마이 켄 (토크) 16:20, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

누가 이 Greg Bard 편집본을 보고 무슨 일이 일어나고 있는지 알아낼 수 있을까?밑바닥에는 몇 가지 잠재적인 탐사가 있지만, 기괴한 파괴 행위도 진행되고 있는 것 같다.매닝(토크) 19:20, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 빌리지 펌프에서 물어봤던 사용자 토크 페이지 피해와 비슷한데?왜 새로운 편집이 이전의 페이지 내용에 무작위로 보이는 오류를 도입하는가?그레바드는 자신의 컴퓨터에 문제가 있다고 비난하며 사과했다.하지만 멈추지 않고 있다.(지난 며칠 동안 그가 편집한 다른 페이지에서도 보았다.)그 대화의 마지막 게시물은 그렉이 자신의 컴퓨터에 악성코드를 가지고 있을지도 모른다는 제안이었다. --Orady (대화) 19:49, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

아, 당연하다.고마워.매닝(토크) 03:01, 2013년 5월 2일 (UTC)[응답]

• (갈등 편집) @ 그렉.BMK가 한 말...솔직히 말하자면?내가 상황을 감시할 시간이 있다면?내가 벌써 막았을 거야넌 새로운 사람이 아니야.너는 지금쯤 규칙을 알아야 한다.그 프로그램에 참여하든지, 아니면 그 결과를 처리하든지.— Ched : ? 19:51, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 그렉, 나는 이 모든 것을 통틀어 내가 할 수 있는 한 선의로 행동하려고 노력했지만, 위에 있는 당신의 마지막 발언 후에, 충분하다. 그리고 나는 단지 그만둬라, 라고만 말할 수 있다.당신이 제재를 "수용"하든 말든, BMK가 언급했듯이, 완전히 무관한 것이든, 만약 제재를 받는다면, 당신은 그것을 받아들일 것이고, 그렇지 않으면 당신은 그것을 지지할 것이다.당신의 논평은 만약 당신이 당신의 뜻을 이해하지 못한다면 백과사전을 방해할 것을 약속한다 - 이것은 위키피디아가 화를 내며 "당신은 내 규칙에 따라 연주할 것이다, 그렇지 않으면 내가 내 블록을 집어들고 집에 갈 것이다"라고 말하는 것과 같다.우리가 편집자를 잃기는 싫지만 위키피디아는 당신이 필요하지 않다 - 만약 내가 위의 토론에서 이미 지적하지 않았다면, 당신은 이미 POSTy 위협, 내가 듣지 못한 것의 서사적인 수준, 비누상자, 그리고 일반적인 방해에 대해 변명할 것이다. 당신이 여기서 말하는 모든 논평들이 당신이 진실을 강요하기 위해 여기 있다는 것을 점점 더 분명히 하고 있지만, 당신이 진실을 구축하기 위해 여기에 있다는 것을 더 분명히 하기 때문이다. 백과사전, 적어도 이 문제에서는, 그리고 당신은 당신이 가입할 때, 그리고 당신이 'submit' 버튼을 누를 때마다, 모든 문제에 있어서, 당신이 동의한 공동체 행동과 코드를 준수해야 한다.확실히 해두자. 위의 것과 같은 한 가지 더 큰 소리로, 이런 종류의 행동이 위키피디아에 전적으로 찬성한다는 것을 깨닫기 전까지 당신은 차단될 것이다. - 부시레인저 21:30, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]
• 안녕 그렉나는 걸레도 없고, 여전히 어떤 행동에도 투표하지 않을 것이지만, 다만 몇 가지 관찰을 하고 싶었을 뿐이다.이 시점에서 옳고 그름은 더 이상 중요하지 않고, 디프는 더 이상 중요하지 않다.이곳의 관리자들은 분명히 인내심을 잃고 있고, 곧 어느 순간에는 단단하든 부드럽든 망치가 내려올 것이다.내가 그것을 읽었을 때, 그들의 POV는 간단히 말해서, 그들은 너와 함께 끝냈어 - 이제 충분해.몇몇은 기회가 주어지면 지금 당장 너를 방해할 것이다.이 법정이 아니라, 이 모든 것은 어느 정도 합의된 기반 위에서 자원봉사자들에 의해 운영되며, 어느 순간 사람들은 그냥 끝난다.

OTOH, 당신의 POV로부터, 당신은 분명히 궁지에 몰렸고, 당신의 결백을 너무나 확신하고 있기 때문에, 진술하는 대로, 당신은 이 문제를 대법원과 언론과 짐보 그리고 다른 모든 것에 가져올 것이다.문제는, 무엇 때문에?이상적인 최종 상태는 어떤가?만약 그 모든 과정이 계획대로 진행된다면 어떻게 될까?어떤 큰 재판과 미디어 쇼가 짐보가 당신에게 의에 대한 금상을 수여하고 당신에게 악의를 가진 모든 사람들이 사과하고 위키 사랑을 보내면서 끝날 것이라고 생각하는가?그렇진 않겠죠.이 실에 들른 비실력자들은 한번 보고, 몇 가지 차이점을 읽고, "새벽"을 정했다.하지만, 이 행정관들은 변호사가 아니며, 이것은 재판이 아니며, 나는 모든 행정관들이 당신을 차단하기 위한 판단이 시간이 다 되어 변호사들과 다른 사람들을 제공했을 때 완전히 틀렸다는 것이 증명될 수 있다고 생각한다.하지만 IT는 중요하지 않다 - 중요한 것은 여기와 지금이다.

수많은 기여(70k 편집)에 대해 감사를 표한다.그것은 위키에게 많은 것이다. 굉장하다!그리고 나는 우리가 너를 지킬 방법을 찾을 수 있기를 바란다 - 나는 여전히 AGF이다.너처럼 고집이 센 몇몇 편집자들과는 그저 좀 안 좋은 사업에 빠진 것 같아.어쩌면 사람들은 당신에게 미개하고, 어쩌면 당신이 타이핑한 것을 잘못 읽었을 수도 있고, 어쩌면 그들은 단지 출처를 이해하지 못할 수도 있다.하지만 어느 순간, 그것은 중요한 것이 된다.무슨 이유에서건 부메랑이 네 쪽으로 휘몰아쳤다.

내가 예전에 나 자신에 대해 가졌던 통찰력은, 당신이 옳을 수도 있고 이길 수도 있는 상황이 있다는 것이었습니다.원하는 게 뭐야?나는 종종 네가 그랬던 것처럼 분개하고, 내가 옳다고 느꼈고, 그들이 틀렸다는 것을 느꼈고, 그 다음엔 계속 누르고, 그리고 종종 지는 거야(예: 내가 원하는 것을 얻지 못해) - 적어도 나는 옳게 유지했지, 그렇지?그것은 얕은 종류의 승리다.화가 가라앉고 세심한 성찰 후에, 나는 종종 나 역시 실수를 저질렀다는 것을 발견했다; 나 역시 너무 지나쳤다.그리고 궁극적으로, 그것은 중요하지 않다.그래서 이제 나는 내가 옳았다는 것을 어떻게 증명할 수 있을까 하는 생각을 해보려고 한다.

그래서 때로는 자존심을 삼키거나 신선한 공기를 마시거나 다른 곳에서 편집을 시작하거나 휴식을 취하는 것이 좋다.만약 그렇게 한다면, "좋아, 알겠어, 다른 일을 하고 좋은 시민이 되기 위해 노력할 거야"라는 짧은 메시지를 남기고, 그렇게 하기 시작하면, 망치가 떨어지지 않을 수도 있고, 아직 기회가 남아 있고, 지역사회가 여러분을 환영할 거야.오레이디를 피하느니, 솔직히 나는 냉정 기간이 지난 후에 그녀와 함께 일할 수 있는 무언가를 찾으려고 노력할 것이다 - 나는 그녀가 훌륭하고 경험이 풍부한 편집자임을 알게 되었다.여기 사람들은 회복력이 있고, 언젠가 당신과의 전쟁을 편집할 수 있고, 그 다음엔 추밀리가 기사를 공동편집할 수 있다.겸손과 비열함이 미덕이라는 것을 알게 될 것이다.

그래서, 내가 할 말은 그게 다야.나는 더 많은 시민 편집자가 되고 싶고, 계속 노력하며, 계속 망치고 있다.하지만 나는 계속 배운다.달라이 라마의 말처럼 "가능한 한 친절하게 대하라.언제나 가능하다." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (토크) 22:07, 2013년 5월 1일 (UTC)[응답]

• 설명:나는 이 문제를 내가 확인할 수 있는 모든 장소, 즉 중재 위원회, 이사회, 심지어 필요하다면 언론까지 모든 장소에서 극화시킬 것이다. 나는 이런 무례한 행동을 하기에는 너무 오래 있었다. 제재라는 생각은 버려라. 마침표.그 진술은 성숙도의 예가 아니다. 내 말은 그들은 7만 번의 편집을 했고 7년 동안 존재해왔다.)요게시 칸드케 (대화) 11시 43분, 2013년 5월 4일 (UTC)[응답]

합리적이고 점잖은 사람은 절대 받아서는 안 되는 권위주의적 성숙론을 택하고, 행정가도 당연히 받아서는 안 된다.나는 이 문제에 관심을 가질 권리가 있다.그 제안은 3일밖에 안 된 그들의 의견을 누군가에게 "도움이 되지 않는다" "합의는 존중하지 않겠다"고 말했기 때문에 나를 3개월 동안 금지하자는 것이다.이 모든 것이 예고도 없이 왔고, 나를 금지하자는 미친 제안 이후, 나는 이 적대적이고 학대적인 환경 때문에 아무것도 편집하지 않았다.나는 분명히 그 사안의 결과를 결정할 수 있는 힘을 가진 사람들보다 그 사안을 더 심각하게 받아들인다.자기 자신을 방어하기보다 몸을 굴리고 죽는 것은 성숙함의 척도가 아니다.그레그 바드 (대화) 05:49, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

WP를 읽어보십시오.포인트 및 WP:디바 - 2013년_{One ping only} 5월 5일 07:25 (UTC)[응답]

그렉 바드의 금지에 대한 제안은 지역사회에서 금지의 범위에 속하는 주제에 대한 당신의 편집이 건설적이지 않다는 것을 인식하기 때문이다.그것은 너의 코멘트를 위한 것이 아니다.위키피디아에서 행해진 잘못된 인식에 대해 "실생활"에서 조치를 취하겠다는 위협은 나에게 성숙하지 못한 것처럼 보인다.나는 새로운 편집자들이 말하는 것을 보았다. 나는 그것이 70,000개의 오래된 편집자들로부터 나온 것이라는 것에 놀랐다.나는 당신이 여기서 편집자들을 불렀던 "이름들"을 삭제해야 한다고 생각한다. 그리고 다른 편집자들이 그 주제에 대한 당신의 기여를 판단하도록 해야 한다고 약속한다.위키피디아의 컨센서스 형성 과정을 믿어야 한다. 만약 당신의 아이디어가 좋다면, 그 날이 올 것이다.요게시 칸드케 (대화) 03:51, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

그레그바드의 불친절함

괴롭힘(2차 경고)

괴롭힘

사용자:Jentri2390 노골적인 카피vio 및 프로모션

Jentri2390(토크 · 기여 · 삭제된 기여 · 로그 · 필터 로그 · 블록 사용자 · 블록 로그) - 반복적으로 직선 카피비오(straight copyvio)로 기사를 작성했다.지금까지 기사 공간에 세 권의 복사본과 사용자 페이지.§FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:02, 2013년 5월 8일(UTC)[응답]

사용자의 대화 페이지에 추가된 수기 메시지.어떻게 되는지 보자..-셔츠58 (토크) 12:04, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

아나스타시아 인터내셔널

논란이 되고 있는 한 데이트 에이전시의 기사다.최근 COI 편집자 User에 의한 대규모 화이트워싱과 함께 심각한 COI 및 POV 편집의 대상이 되고 있다.Iri2111과 User:Mcbrooks, 둘 다 회사 경영에 관여하고 있는 사람들(실명은 여기서 언급하지 않겠다, 비록 그들이 실행한 여러 SPI에서 키워냈지만.

어제, 아직 그 기사를 또 다시 미백한 후, 나는 그것을 기본적인 사실들과 믿을 수 있게 소스가 된 어떤 것(즉, 일차적인 출처가 아닌)으로 되짚어 보았다.사용자:Iri2111은 오늘 thye 기사를 다시 편집했는데, 그들의 편집 요약에는 내가 경쟁 회사의 CEO라고 적혀 있었다.(아이러니컬하게도 이전에 부정적인 정보를 덧붙이던 편집자가 나를 아나스타시아에서 일한다고 고발했다!!)나는 이 편집 요약을 다시 작성했고, 편집자를 최종 정리했다.나는 즉각적인 블록을 고려하고 있었지만 WP에 대해 우려했다.관련됨.더 많은 눈길 바라며, 만약 파괴적인 편집에 대해 차단하고 싶은 사람이 있다면, 그것도 부적절한 IMO가 아닐 것이다.블랙 카이트 (대화) 09:45, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 경고를 남겼다.너는 더 이상 나쁜 행동을 하지 않도록 자유롭게 차단해야 한다.시이(토크) 11:31, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

아일랜드 독립 전쟁 및 기타 기사 혼란

User talk:MrFalalala는 5월 1일 편집 전쟁과 혼란으로 짧은 블록을 받았고 User talk:92.7.12.36으로 돌아왔다.여기와 토크 페이지의 편집된 역사는 그 문제를 보여준다.이 사람은 그의 증조부가 마이클 콜린스를 죽였다는 주장을 포함한 임무의 편집자다.이것은 스코틀랜드 이슈를 포함하여 장기간에 걸쳐 진행되어 왔다.---눈이 내린 13:36, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

자유 국가는 독립적이지 않았다. 왜냐하면 영국은 유럽 전쟁에서 영국 해군의 선박에 연료를 보급하기 위해 사용될 조약 항구를 여전히 보유하고 있기 때문에, 아일랜드는 적기와 잠수함의 표적이 되었다.나의 증조할아버지 데니스 "소니" 오닐은 1922년 영국 협력자 마이클 콜린스를 저격했다. 왜냐하면 그 조약은 영국으로부터의 독립과 같지 않기 때문이다.수천 명의 다른 공화당원들처럼 그는 진정한 독립이 이루어질 때까지 전쟁을 계속하기를 원했다. (92.7.12.36 (대화) 13:47, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

이 위원회는 내용 문제를 결정하거나 아일랜드 남북전쟁을 재연하거나 진실을 밀어붙일 장소가 아니다.그것은 사용자 행동을 다루기 위한 것이며, 지금까지 당신의 제안은 더 많은 블록들이 순서가 잡힐 수 있다는 것이다.Timrollpickering (대화) 14:04, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

위키피디아는 우리가 독창적인 연구를 받아들인 곳이 아니다. IRWolfie- (대화) 14:57, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

편집 전쟁이 계속되다 보니 한 명의 사용자로부터 2주 동안 반보호 기사로 기사를 내주었다.IP 변경을 막지 못할 블록을 나눠주는 것보다 더 안전해 보였다.캔터베리 테일 토크 15:33, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

이 사용자가 편집 전쟁에 참여한 기타 문서/페이지:토크:블리츠, 블리츠, 1943년 벵골 기근, 아일랜드의 칸막이, 토크:2014년 스코틀랜드 독립 국민투표와 마이클 콜린스(이리쉬 지도자).그의 POV-pushing의 매우 명확한 예는 전혀 관련이 없는 글에서 찾을 수 있다.팔티 타워: 독일군.배너톡 16:32, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

준보호대 고마워그 말은 여러 기사들을 놓고 팔랄라 씨를 한 번 본 것이 분명하다고 생각한다는 것이다.---눈이 내린 22:48, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나도 동의해.이에 따라 나는 일주일 동안 무제한으로 명명된 계정과 IP를 차단했다.만약 이것이 가혹하게 느껴진다면, 지금 당장 우리에게 필요한 것은 편집 전쟁을 벌이는 아일랜드 민족주의자들이다.필요한 경우 Arbcom 제한사항도 있을 수 있다. --John (대화) 08:51, 2013년 5월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

불행히도 사용자의 IP 주소는 매일 변경되고 있으며, 이 동안 사용했던 내역을 확인하고 있다.캔터베리 테일 토크 15:55, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

타리카브죠투의 뉴스 오용에

사용자:어두운 빛

User:Darkness Shines는 내가 출처의 총체적인 오보로 삭제한 후, 같은 자료를 영국 파키스탄인 기사에 반복적으로 삽입했다.구체적으로, 이 기사는 2001년 브래드포드에서 "이 도시의 대다수의 백인 인구와 눈에 보이는 소수 민족들 사이에 폭동이 있었다"고 주장했다.인용한 출처 중 어느 누구도 다음과 같이 진술하지 않는다: [7][8][9].(민족에 관계없이) 인구의 '주요'는 폭동에 가담하지 않았다.폭동의 초기 발단은 파시스트 BNP와 NF 외부인들에 의한 행진이었고, (대부분 백인) 반파시스트들에 의한 반대시위였다.나중에 인종에 의해 주도된 소요가 있었지만, 이러한 사건을 단순한 민족 갈등으로 제시하는 것은 완전히 오해의 소지가 있으며, 특정 소수 민족에 관한 기사에 그러한 내용을 포함시키는 것은 매우 의심스럽다.위키백과 정책에 대한 이러한 명확하고 근본적인 위반(즉, 중립성과 출처를 정확하게 나타내는 것)을 감안할 때, 적절한 조치가 취해지도록 요청할 수 있다.Andy TheGrump (talk) 08:50, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

지루한 소식통들은 이런 말을 하는가?왜 그래, 그래 그들은 그래.어둠을 비춘다 (토크) 08:57, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

더 엉성하게 소싱 - 비록 네가 이전의 반전이 무효라는 것을 인정해서 기쁘지만.이제 왜 영국 파키스탄에 관한 기사가 이 문제를 다루어야 하는지 설명해 주시겠습니까?당신은 그러한 지역적 사건들을 지적하는 다른 인종에 관한 기사들을 지적할 수 있는가?Andy TheGrump (talk) 09:04, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

출처는 괜찮고, 나는 아무것도 인정하지 않는다. 나는 당신이 삭제한 내용에 대한 참조를 추가했다.왜 영국 파키스탄에 관한 기사가 이 기사를 다루어야 하는지에 대해서는, 아시아 청년들의 폭동이 대부분 영국 파키스탄 사람들이었기 때문이라고 생각한다.하지만 그것은 콘텐츠 논쟁이기 때문에 여기엔 아무데도 없다. 사실 이 모든 실마리가 앤디를 괴롭히는 당신의 일상적인 드라마일 뿐이다.어둠은 빛난다(토크) 09:16, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

WP를 사용하십시오.컨텐츠 분쟁에 대한 DRN.바살리스크립트^{inspect damage} _berate09:20, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

출처를 잘못 알리는 것은 콘텐츠 논쟁이 아니다.Andy TheGrump (talk) 09:24, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

이미 편집자가 3RR 이하가 되었으니, 조심해서 논의해 주시오.앤디의 지적에 동의했다.파이잔 -얘기하자! 2013년 10시 52분, 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

참고: Darkness Shines는 이제 '영국 문학의 문화 전쟁', '협상 위험: 영국 파키스탄의 유전학 경험' 등의 제목의 구글의 주제 밖의 자료를 인용하여 논란이 되고 있는 자료의 포함을 정당화 하고 있다. WP의 명백한 위반:NPOV, 일반 콘텐츠에 대한 출처를 선택하지 않고 저자의 의견을 제시하기 위해 출처를 선택했다는 점에서 (인신공격 제거)그는 토크페이지에서 전개되고 있는 합의를 받아들이지 않고 있으며, 다른 사람들의 논평과 상관없이 그 내용을 포함시킬 것이라고 주장하고 있다.나는 다크나이트가 이전에 "멈춰달라는 요청이 빗발치는데도 불구하고 Pakistani POV를 추진하는 것"으로 차단되었다는 점에 주목하며, [11] 이 시점에서 주제 금지가 더 적절할 수 있다고 제안한다. 왜냐하면 그는 특히 그의 POV 푸싱이 환영받지 못한다는 메시지를 받지 못하기 때문이다.Andy TheGrump (대화) 17:52, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• ATG는 이미 WP를 위반하여 내가 인종차별주의자임을 암시하는 그의 통상적인 예비 입장을 사용하기 시작했다.NPA. BTW, 그 블록 고지는 WP인 관리자에 의해 제공되었다.관련되고 말도 안 되는 소리야어둠을 비춘다(토크) 18:05, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]
• BTW, ATG가 변화를 위해 출처를 살펴본다면 좋을 것이다.영국 문학의 문화 전쟁: Tracy J. Prince가 쓴 다문화주의와 국가 정체성과 그녀는 영국 파키스탄인과 폭동에 대해 직접 글을 쓴다.어둠을 비춘다(토크) 18:15, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

목적에 맞게 체리픽 재료를 선택할 수 있다는 사실이 그러한 체리픽킹이 WP:NPOV 위반이라는 사실을 바꾸지는 않는다.우연하게도 나는 너를 인종차별주의자라고 부르지 않았다(그리고 나는 실제로 네가 인종차별주의자라고 생각하지 않는다.하지만 나는 당신의 블록 로그에 사용된 것과 같은 언어를 사용했는데, 그곳에서 당신은 "Anti-Pakistani POV pushing"에 관여한다고 묘사되었다.네가 자명하게 그랬고 지금도 그래Andy TheGrump (talk) 18:39, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

'반파키스탄 POV 추진'은 인종차별의 고발이 아니다. - 부시 레인저_{One ping only} 20:54, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

인신공격이지만 그렇다고 말한 적은 없다.그러나 이것은 내가 인종차별주의자라는 것을 가장 확실히 암시한다. 그리고 위에서 "그의 명백한 반파키스탄 어젠다를 숙청하라"고 한 것은 나를 공격하는 것이다.그리고 앤디가 그런 낮은 전술에 의지한 것이 이번이 처음이 아니기 때문에 나는 그에 대한 신뢰가 부족하다고 느낀다, 이상하다.어둠을 비춘다(토크) 21:30, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

앤디에 대한 DS의 이 논평은 어떨까? "사실 이 모든 실물은 앤디를 괴롭히는 당신의 일상적인 드라마일 뿐이야." "인신공격 아니냐?"

• 논평: 대다수의 백인은 백인을 의미하지 않는다.또한 당신은 그러한 지역적 사건들을 지적하는 다른 인종에 대한 기사들을 지적할 수 있는가? OSEish처럼 들린다.요게시 칸드케 (대화) 18:51, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]
• 다크나이트라이즈는 POV를 밀어붙이는 데 반복적으로 문제가 발생했으며, 때로는 출처를 잘못 나타내기도 하지만 극단적인 진술로 약한 출처를 선택하는 경우가 더 많았다.파키스탄에서의 강간 역사는 골칫거리다.DS는 가정폭력 통계를 DYK 대기열에서 빼낸 강간 통계로 잘못 표기했다.내 경험상, DS는 마치 반파키스탄 POV를 추진하는 것처럼 쓰고 있다; 나는 DS가 친파키스탄이나 심지어 소프트페이드 방향에서 실수를 한 경우를 기억하지 못한다.키퍼.울포위츠 22:09, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 편집한 거 다 확인했어?[12] [13] 파키스탄의 편집자 마4d 지원.파키스탄 영어의 기사 삭제[14]를 구함. 대다수의 유지들이 내가 가서 자료를 찾아낸 후에 나왔다.삭제 조항/파키스탄 진다바드[15] 필요한 출처를 찾아 나섰다.그래, 난 반 파키스탄인이라 친파키스탄 정서까지 만들었어어둠은 빛난다(토크) 22:30, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답하라]

해결책은 간단하다: 파키스탄이나 파키스탄과 관련된 모든 기사에 대한 무기한 토픽 금지, 대체로 해석된다.---Ⅱ и 22:31, 2013년 5월 5일 (UTC)[응답]

• 이것은 명백히 콘텐츠 논쟁이며, 콘텐츠 상대자를 제거하기 위해 다시 한번 ANI에 가져왔다.나의 가장 좋은 소망 (대화) 13:34, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

그래, 어둠의 빛은 POV를 밀친 죄라고 확신할 수 없어.그러나, 이 불평의 파일러는 실제로 POV를 밀고 전쟁을 편집하는 일에 종사하고 있다.예를 들어, 그는 토론[16]을 요청하는 편집 요약[16]과 함께 많은 양의 잘 소싱된 텍스트를 반복적으로 삭제했지만, 이 기사 토크 페이지[17]에 대한 자신의 논평은 의미 있는 토론으로 적합하지 않다.나의 가장 좋은 소망 (대화) 14:17, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

자료를 복원하기 전에 직접 '의미 있는 논의'에 참여하셨나요?아니. 어쨌든, 내가 피해자를 비난하는 글에서 명백한 코트랙 자료를 삭제한 것에 대해 실마리를 찾고 싶다면, 그렇게 하시오. 하지만 헛소문으로 모든 사람의 시간을 낭비하는 것을 그만두라는 말을 듣는다고 해도 놀라지 마십시오.Andy TheGrump (talk) 14:23, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

여기 문제가 있다.잘 소싱되고 눈에 띄는 피해자들의 비난 사례는 피해자들의 비난에 관한 기사에 해당한다고 합리적으로 주장할 수 있다.기사에 속하는 다른 기고자[18]의 이 선한 신앙 작업을 제거함으로써 갈등을 일으킨다.단순히 코트랙을 제거하는 것으로 편집 내용을 "설명"함으로써(미안하지만, 이것은 전혀 설득력이 없다), 충돌을 증가시킨다.어둠의 빛과의 갈등도 같은 시나리오를 따른 거겠죠?충분하고 명확한 증거 없이 누군가를 ANI로 데려옴으로써, 당신은 그 분쟁에 훨씬 더 많은 사람들을 참여시킨다.그렇게 하는 것은 방해가 된다.나의 가장 좋은 소망 (대화) 15:04, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

이 토론을 무산시키려는 시도는 파괴적이다.'피해자 비난' 기사로 자료를 복원하기 전에 대화 페이지 토론에 참여하지 못한 경우: 그렇게 하십시오.나는 여기서 이 비합리성에 대해 더 이상 논의할 생각이 없다.Andy TheGrump (talk) 15:24, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 (ANI에서 자주 일어나는 일이긴 하지만) 피해자를 비난하는 것이 아니라, 내가 본 대로 행동 문제에 대해 말하는 것이다.얼마나 많은 ANI 스레드가 실패했고, 얼마나 많은 스레드가 성공했는가?다음은 검색 결과 입니다.나의 가장 좋은 소망 (대화) 16:13, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

"비정상적인 견해는 중요하지 않다"

영국 파키스탄에 분쟁 물질 포함에 대한 지지를 얻지 못한 채 기사(지금까지 7명이 논평했다: 5명은 포함을 반대했고, 2명만 지지했다)는 다크나이트.샤인즈는 토크 페이지 토론의 심판과 배심원들에게 기름을 부으며 반대자들의 의견을 "그들의 견해는 중요하지 않다"고 일축했다.[19] 나는 이러한 일방적인 '권위' 선언에 대해 자발적인 기여자들의 의견을 보고 싶다.정말 위키피디아가 이렇게 작동하는 걸까?Andy TheGrump (talk) 15:20, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 쓴 것을 잘못 전하지 마십시오."아니, 그들의 견해는 중요하지 않다. 그들은 그 내용을 제외시킬 어떤 이유도 정책에서 주지 않았다."그리고 그것은 정책이다. 당신은 왜 그것이 배제되어야 하는지에 대한 정책 내에서 이유를 제시하지 않고서는 기사에 내용을 포함시킬 수 없다.어둠은 빛난다(토크) 15:24, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

여기에는 몇 가지 정책이 관련되어 있다: 아마도 가장 중요한 것은 WP:NPOV일 것이다. 당신은 왜 유의한 소수 민족에 관한 기사가 2001년에 며칠 동안 북부 영어 마을에서 있었던 사건과 관련된 자료를 포함해야 하는지에 대해 설명하는데 특이하게 실패했다.Andy TheGrump (talk) 15:28, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

기사토크 페이지에서 많이 설명해 드렸다."폭동에 연루된 사람들은 대부분 파키스탄 출신"이라는 소식통과 이에 대한 당신의 반응은 어떠세요?나는 그것을 잘못 전달하고 맥락에서 그것을 가져가고 있다.그것은 전혀 문맥에서 벗어나는 것이 불가능하다.다시 말하지만, 이것은 토론을 두고 드라마로 이기고 싶은 콘텐츠 논쟁이다.이것은 그것이 무엇인지를 위해 폐쇄될 필요가 있다.어둠은 빛난다(토크) 15:35, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 이미 문제의 출처가 '폭동에 관여된' 사람들을 언급할 때, 그것은 활동적인 참여자들뿐만 아니라 지역 사회 전반을 지칭하는 것이라는 점을 분명히 하고 있다는 점을 지적한 바 있다(그리고 당신도 잘 알다시피 모든 관련자들이 현지인은 아니었다).너는 너의 목적에 맞게 구절 하나를 골라내고 있다.어쨌든, 영국 파키스탄인이었던 브래드포드 폭도들의 정확한 비율에 관한 이 문제는 다소 요점에서 벗어나 있다. - 진짜 문제는 브래드포드 폭동이 기사에 포함될 만한 가치가 있는지 여부다.그리고 그 점에 관해서, 기사에 포함시킬 수 있는 자격이 있는지 없는지를 당신 혼자 결정할 수 있다는 당신의 주장은 내용상의 논쟁이 아니다.Andy TheGrump (대화) 15:53, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

이건 절대 용납할 수 없어.그 콘텐츠는 기사의 중립적인 관점을 위반하기 때문에 그것이 얼마나 잘 조달되었든 상관없는 것이기 때문에 거기에 속하지 않는다."그들의 견해는 중요하지 않다"고 말하는 것은 내 마음에 인신공격이다.이미 되돌린 것으로 알고 있지만, 거기서 보면 내가 직접 제거할 것이다.--출발자 15:47, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

브래드포드에 살고 있는 영국 파키스탄인에 관한 기사 섹션에 브래드포드에서 폭동을 일으킨 영국 파키스탄인에 관한 몇 줄이 있는 것은 어떻게 무관한가?기사 토크 페이지를 자유롭게 사용하십시오.어둠은 빛난다(토크) 15:50, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

여기서 당신이 왜 누구의 견해와 관련이 있는지 결정할 권리를 주장하는지에 대해 자유롭게 설명하십시오.Andy TheGrump (talk) 15:55, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 이미 정책 내에서 논쟁도 들을 필요도 없고 들을 필요도 없다.AFD와 똑같아BTW는 영국계 아프리카계 카리브족 사람들이 자신들과 관련된 모든 폭동을 언급하는 것에 대해 의문을 제기한다.어둠은 빛난다(토크) 16:03, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

"정책 내에서 논쟁도 없고, 경청해도 소용없다"다시 한번 어둠은 누구의 관점이 중요한지를 결정할 권리를 주장한다...Andy TheGrump (talk) 16:17, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

그럼 이제 당신은 정책을 따르는 것이 잘못되었다고 생각하는 겁니까?그리고 정책 때문에 감정적인 논쟁을 하는 사람들에게 반응하는 데 내 시간을 낭비하지 않는 것은 나쁜 일인가?나는 정책을 따른다. 만약 편집자가 ILICKIT 또는 IDONTLICKIT이라고 말하기로 선택한다면 나는 그들을 무시할 것이다.그 토크 페이지에서 정책을 인용하려고 한 유일한 편집자는 너뿐이야. 다른 사람들이 거절한다면, 나는 그들의 주장에 신경 쓰지 않을 거야.어둠은 빛난다(토크) 16:22, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

너희 둘 사이에선 야가 많으면 많을수록 이 실이 따라오기가 더 어려워진다.여기서 또 뭘 찾고 있는 거지?Doc talk 16:27, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 앤디가 주제 금지를 추구하고 있다고 믿는다.어둠을 비춘다(토크) 16:32, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

내가 뭘 노리는 거지?최소한, 다크나이트 라이트는 그가 NPOV를 구성하는 것의 유일한 결정권자가 아니라는 것을 확실히 말해준다. (그는 현재 2001년에 며칠 동안 북부 영국 도시에서 일어나는 사건에 대해 논의하지 않기 때문에 영국 파키스탄 기사에 POV 태그를 달았다.)그 외에도, 나는 DS가 파키스탄과 관련된 전반적인 기사를 편집하는 데 적합한지 자문할 필요가 있다고 생각한다. 그는 그러한 기사에 부정적인 자료를 추가하는 것을 좋아하고, 포함이 의심될 때 다른 사람들의 의견을 고려하지 않는 경향이 있는 것 같다.그는 또한 정보원이 사실 말하지 않는 말을 한다고 주장하는 버릇이 있는 것 같다.그러니까, 나는 주제 금지가 적절하다고 생각해.Andy TheGrump (talk) 16:36, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

적어도 일주일간의 중단, 편집자의 시간 낭비, 그리고 기사의 NPOV를 위반하는 것. 왜냐하면 그것은 그가 얼마나 많은 시간을 낭비하고 있는지와 6개월의 주제 금지였기 때문이다.--런치볼러 17:06, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

내가 대체 어떻게 일주일이나 네 시간을 낭비한 거야?너는 이 콘텐츠 논쟁에 막 말려들었을 뿐이다.내가 NPOV를 어떻게 위반하고 있는가?잘 참조된 내용을 기사에 추가하는 것은 NPOV 위반이 아니며, 삭제하는 것이다.어둠은 빛난다(토크) 17:23, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

1. 우리의 시간 = 모든 편집자의 시간, 만약 당신이 이 줄기의 모든 코멘트를 요약한다면. 보시오?잘못된 출처.
2. 당신이 기사에 추가한 것은 너무 심하게 편향되어 있어서 기사에 포함될 수 없다.사이트에 올려야 한다면 행사 기사에 붙여 놓아라.그것이 얼마나 잘 언급되었는지는 중요하지 않다 - 그것은 백과사전이 아니다.이제 막대를 내려놓고 죽은 말에서 물러난다.--런치볼러 17:33, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

ivote 단계로 옮기고, "jibber jabber"를 끝내면, 더 빨리 어딘가로 갈지도 모른다.독톡 16:42, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

네, 제발..--런치볼러 17:06, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 앤디가 위에서 세 가지 점을 지적했다고 생각한다.(1) "그는 부정적인 소재를 추가하는 것을 좋아하는 것 같다."NPOV나 BLP를 명백히 위반하지 않는 한, 잘 소싱된 "부정적인" 자료를 어떤 기사에 첨가하는 것은 문제가 되지 않는다.나는 그것을 보지 않는다. (2) "다른 사람의 의견을 고려하는 데 실패"양쪽에서 분명히 이견이 있다.3) 출처를 잘못 해석하는 것은 출처를 언급하면서 명백히 출처에 없는 내용을 배치하는 것을 의미한다.이것은 심각한 비난이다.이것은 몇 가지 차이점을 가지고 증명하기 쉬워야 한다.불행히도 위의 차이점들은 설득력 있어 보이지 않는다.나의 가장 좋은 소망 (대화) 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC) 17:12, 6 (답)

구체적으로?브래드포드에서 일어난 폭동의 대다수가 영국계 파키스탄인이라고 진술한 자료를 요청했었습니다.DS는 성별과 빈곤의 국제 핸드북: 개념, 연구, 정책, p275를 인용했다.브래드포드에서 일어난 폭동의 대다수가 영국인 파키스탄인이라고 간단히 말하지 않는다.[21] 기사토크 페이지에는 DS가 문장의 일부를 잘못 인용하는 추가적인 예가 있다.불행하게도, 나는 DS와 같은 구글에서 만든 스냅핏만 보고 있기 때문에, 전체 문장을 인용할 수는 없지만, DS quouts Royotous Civilies: 다문화가정 영국에서의 민족 분쟁(p.75)은 "경찰과 싸우는 다분히 영국인 파키스탄 남성들의 무리"(수도 A에 주목, 이것이 문장의 시작임을 암시)라고 했다.[22] 구글이 우리에게 보여준 것(완전하지 않은, 명백하게)에서 DS는 전에 있었던 것을 생략했다: "...도심에서의 시위운동은 주로 경찰과 싸우는 영국 파키스탄 남성들의 무리가 되었다." DS가 하는 방식에서 불완전한 문장을 사실의 주장으로 사용하는 것은 도저히 불가능하다.다른 곳에서는, DS가 폭도들의 대다수가 영국인 파키스탄인이라는 주장을 지지하기 위해 체포되어 기소된 현지인들의 비율에 관한 성명서를 사용하고 있는데, 이 진술은 출처가 밝히지 않고 있다.[23] DS가 잘 알고 있듯이(외부에서 많은 것을 들여온 파시스트 행진과 반시위가 있었다) 관련자 모두가 국지적인 것은 아니었으며, 폭도의 비율이 체포되고 기소된 비율과 동일하다고 간단히 가정할 수는 없다.여기서 진짜 문제는 DS가 출처를 찾고 나서 저자의 견해를 대변하는 것이 아니라 미리 결정된 의견을 뒷받침하기 위한 '소스'를 찾기 위해 구글 마이닝에 나선다는 것이다.중립적인 관점을 제공하려 한다면 끔찍할 정도로 나쁜 관행은...Andy TheGrump (talk) 17:50, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

앤디, 또 내가 한 말을 잘못 전했구나.현지인이 아닌 시위대 대다수가 떠났다는 것을 충분히 알고 있다"고 나는 토크 페이지의 출처를 인용하고 인용했다.그리고 BTW는 "도심에서의 데모는 주로 경찰과 싸우는 영국 파키스탄 남성들의 무리가 되었다"고 분명히 문제의 편집을 지지하고 있다.'폭동자 대다수의 주장을 지지하기 위해 체포되어 기소된 현지인' 중 어느 누구도 분쟁 중인 내용의 출처로 이용되어야 한다고 말한 것은 아니다, 체포된 사람들 대다수가 BP라는 것은 (당신이 요청한) 사례다. 물론 네가 이 드라마 축제를 시작하기 전에 편집을 끝내도록 나를 떠났다면 이 모든 것은 분명할 것이다. 시간낭비라서 여기에 다시 올리지 않을거야. 어둠을 비춘다(토크) 18:06, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

나는 대부분의 비로카인들이 어느 시점에 떠났다는 것을 알고 있다(또는 적어도 가정할 때), 나는 그들 중 아무도 그들이 떠나기 전에 폭동에 연루되지 않았다고 생각할 이유가 없다.당신이 완전히 읽지도 않은 문장에서 인용하는 것은 어떤 것도 뒷받침할 수 없다.그리고 내가 체포되는 사람들의 비율에 관한 정보를 정확히 어디서 요구했는가?Andy TheGrump (talk) 18:34, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

라이엇다우스 시민은 "도시 중심가에서 열린 반 나치 연맹 시위에서 인종적으로 다양한 남녀 군중이 된 것은 주로 경찰과 싸우는 영국 파키스탄 남성 군중이 되었다"고 말했다.다문화 영국에서의 민족 분쟁 p73 나는 그것을 전부 읽었고, 그것을 당신에게 인용했다.어둠을 비춘다(토크) 18:38, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답하라]

그것은 여전히 특정 지역사회의 전반적인 폭도들의 비율에 관한 일반적인 주장을 지지하지 않는다.그것은 백인 젊은이들이 아시아 소유의 기업을 공격했을 때와 같은 이후의 사건들에 대해서는 아무런 언급도 하지 않고 있다.한 시점과 관련된 서술은 며칠에 걸친 일련의 사건들을 일반화하는 데 사용될 수 없다.Andy TheGrump (talk) 19:18, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 전체 실에서 단 한 점만 본다.누군가와 콘텐츠 분쟁이 있음 - ANI로 데려가서 상대를 금지시켜 분쟁을 해결하려 한다.(음, ANI를 잘 활용한다. 아니?) OrangeRelow (대화) 17:44, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

어둠에 대한 주제 금지빛나다

쿠르간 가설에 관한 익명 IP

모바일 편집

최근 모바일 편집 건수가 갑자기 급증한 것일까, 아니면 내가 우연히 알아차린 것일 뿐일까?최근에 RC 순찰은 별로 안 했으니까, 아마 항상 이렇겠지.그러한 편집의 압도적 다수가 (약 90~95%) 공공 기물 파손인 것처럼 보인다는 것 외에는 나는 정말로 그것을 문제 삼지 않을 것이다.위키백과를 더 쉽게 편집하고 싶은 건 좋지만, 반달리즘을 더 쉽게 만들 필요는 없어. --봉와리어(토크) 23:35, 2013년 5월 6일 (UTC)[응답]

나도 같은 급상승이 눈에 띄었다.아마도 태깅으로 인해 좀 더 눈에 띄거나 인터페이스로 변경하여 더 흔하게 만든 것이었을 것이다.--악마의 옹호자_{tlk. cntrb.} 01:01, 2013년 5월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

이것도 궁금했다.태그 시스템의 변경은 타당하다.지금까지 내 감시 목록에 이런 식으로 태그된 것들은 모두 반달리즘이었다.바라건대 그것은 바뀌길 바란다.마넷DTAK 01:05, 2013년 5월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

나는 안드로이드 폰에서 WP를 자주 찾는데, 지난 며칠 동안 UI가 모든 섹션 헤더 옆에 편집 링크를 포함하도록 업데이트되었다.이전에 나는 en을 사용해야 했다.en.m이 아니라 en.m.편집하려면 wikipedia.org.이제 모바일 사이트에서 바로 편집 기능에 액세스할 수 있어.아직 테스트해 본 적은 없지만, 모바일 편집에서 새로운 기능이 급증하고 있는 이유일 겁니다.— Cymru.lass가 추가한 선행 서명 의견(토크 • 기여) 03:22, 2013년 5월 7일(UTC)[응답]

사이므루.라스가 알아냈을 거야나 역시 안드로이드로 편집하는 경우가 많고, 편집을 할 수 없어 모바일 사이트를 사용해 본 적이 없다.드로이드 RAZR에 있는 표준 사이트를 막 올렸어모바일 사이트가 지금 편집을 받아들인다면 모바일 편집이 늘어난 것은 논리적으로 볼 수 있다.컬렌렛³²⁸ 2013년 5월 7일 03:31, 7 (UTC) 토론하자[응답]

내 드로이드 장치에 변화가 있는 것 같진 않지만, 이건 정말 차이를 만들 거야.모바일로 편집하는 것은 매우 어렵다. 길이가 긴 섹션, 테이블, 정보 상자, 기타 영역은 거의 불가능하다.모바일 사이트에 접속해 해당 인터페이스를 통해 편집할 수 있다면 훨씬 쉬워질 것이다. -68.107.178 (대화) 03:45, 2013년 5월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

궁금해서 그러는데, 그 많은 IP를 조사하고 있는 거야?브리티시 텔레콤은 IPs I rv(이것은 내가 무엇보다 순찰하는 시대의 함수)의 대부분을 차지하는 것 같고, 그들은 항상 IP 홉을 한다...버라이즌(NA에서 안드로이드 사용자의 대다수가 그런 것 같다) IP는 아주 작은 부분이다.그냥 궁금해서.섀도잼 (대화) 09:38, 2013년 5월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

방금 돌아가서 확인해보니 어제 두 사람 중 한 명은 영국의 아빙돈에서 왔고 다른 한 명은 미국의 위스콘신에서 왔다.매넷D 토크 15:24, 2013년 5월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

FWIW, 오늘은 모바일 편집이 전혀 없는 것 같아. --봉와리어 (토크) 21:12, 2013년 5월 7일 (UTC)[응답]

개발업자들은 지난 몇 달 동안 분명히 모바일 버전의 웹사이트를 엉망으로 만들고 있다.가장 오랫동안 모바일 인터페이스로 편집하는 것은 거의 불가능했다.그러나 지난 몇 주 동안 각 기사의 토크 페이지에 대한 매우 두드러진 링크가 있는 것처럼 편집 버튼이 다시 등장했다.나는 Cymru.lass의 이론을 지지한다. p.s. 만약 devs가 이것을 읽고 있다고 말한다면, 그들은 그것에 서명할 수 있는 옵션을 추가할 수 있을까? 모바일 돛단배 (대화) 22:07, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]에서 하루에 한 번 로그인하는 것은 정말 짜증난다.

사용자:슬로우킹4

User_talk:슬로우킹4

다른 관리자 편집자가 이 사용자에 대한 다음 단계를 제안(또는 수행)하시겠습니까?그들은 우리의 비자유적 이미지 정책, 즉 WP를 따르지 않을 것이라고 상당히 분명하게 말하고 있다.NPA. 나는 내가 너무 관여했다고 생각하지 않지만, 더 많은 제안이 환영할 것이다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 21:40, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

관리자만?그것은 내가 사용자들이 두 가지 정책을 모두 따르기로 동의할 때까지 방어막을 제안했을 수 있는 유감스러운 원인이다.NE Ent 22:14, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

정말 사과할게내가 왜 그걸 썼는지 모르겠어.고정하다.블랙 카이트 (토크) 22:17, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

예의를 지키는 것은 까다로운 문제일 수 있고, 잘 마무리되지 않을 것 같은 문제일 수 있다.반면에 비자유 이미지에 대한 우리의 정책은 매우 집행 가능하다.비자유 이미지에 대한 관련 정책을 준수하지 않을 경우, 허용되지 않는다는 것이 완전히 이해될 때까지 블록 증가와 함께 시행하십시오.그의 마지막 블록은 2013년 4월 17일에 48시간 동안이었고 그 이후에는 이미지와 관련된 문제에 대한 약 15개의 공지가 더 있었기 때문에 그의 업로드는 훑어볼 필요가 있다.안녕, — MoeEpsilon 22:18, 2013년 5월 8일(UTC)[응답]

전에 이 사용자 이름을 본 기억이 어렴풋이 나지만, 어떤 맥락에서 어떤 실마리를 찾을 수 없다. 나는 분명 무권력자니까, 내가 처리할게.나이튼드 (대화) 23:17, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

무기한 차단됨; 나는 NFCC 문제를 일차적으로 만들었지만, 나는 NPA도 반드시 참고하도록 했다.나이튼드 (대화) 23:28, 2013년 5월 8일 (UTC)[응답]

• NE Ent는 올바른 아이디어를 가지고 있으며 나는 Nytend의 블록을 전적으로 지지한다.슬로우킹4는 프로젝트 목적이 아닌 자신의 목적을 위해 이곳에 온 것으로 보인다. --auburn pilot talk 00:51, 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

범주:메리 호크스워스

사용자로부터 문서가 이동됨:실수로 카테고리 네임스페이스로 Genandpoli1414를 옮기고, 나는 그것을 올바른 장소로 옮길 수 없다.관리자가 그것을 고칠 수 있을까?고마워요.사라지2177 (대화) 11:35, 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

아니, 불가능해. 이동 탭도 없고.Mary Hawkesworth로 복사/붙여넣기 작업을 해야겠어. 중요한 편집이 한 번밖에 없었기 때문에 훨씬 쉬울 거야.나이튼드 (대화) 11시 50분, 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

RevDel

RevDel 권한을 가진 사람에게 이러한 [24] 중 몇 가지를 수리하도록 할 수 있을까?사용자가 차단되어도 알림을 표시해야 하는지 잘 모르십니까?헬 인 어 버킷(토크) 14:30, 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

섬섬 포섬

아리아니즘과 다른 헛소리

난 더 이상 이 문제를 다루고 싶지 않아. 그리고 내가 AIV를 시도한다면 어쨌든 여기로 오라는 말을 듣게 될 것 같아.교정인(토크 · 기여)이 나와 함께 붉은 기를 게양하고 있다. 시간을 내어 자신의 기여를 확인하는 사람은 누구나 즉시 이해할 것이라고 확신한다(아리아/백인/"아다미치") 인종 관련 기사에 대한 터무니없는 변화, 피의 명예훼손에서 "거짓말"이라는 단어 삭제, 특정 개인이 유태인이라는 강제적인 진술 등.기독교 정체성에 5RR을 쳤다.WP:DNFT 및 WP에 따라 사용자에게 내가 여기에 게시하고 있음을 통지할 생각은 없다.IAR. Evanh2008 14:23, 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자가 ANI에 이미 있는 줄 모르고 편집 워링[30]을 보고했다는 점에 유의하십시오.이러한 편집은 분명히 여러 가지 이유로 문제가 있다.건배, 돈 바드 (토크) 15:06, 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 나는 48시간 동안 그것들을 차단했다. 왜냐하면 이 편집 전쟁이 경계를 훨씬 벗어나기 때문이다. 그 동안 당신은 나머지 부분을 분류해서 이것이 전쟁, 독창적인 연구, 비누상자, 소화가 안 되는 문장 쓰기, 그리고 가식적인 편집의 무기한 블록이 필요한지 볼 수 있다.드레이미스 (대화) 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC) 16:15 (답변)

항정신병 약물에 관한 여러 기사에서 사용자 편집 전쟁

우리는 현재 "항정신병 약물은 사악하다"라는 주제로 많은 기사를 편집하는 만드라구아라는 새로운 편집자가 있다.지금까지 관련된 기사들은 정신 질환, 항정신병, 사상 장애, 전두엽 장애 등이다.편집된 내용은 제대로 소싱되지 않고 노골적으로 중립적이지 않다.그것들이 제거되거나 다른 편집자들에 의해 수정될 때, 만드라과는 되돌리거나 되돌리는 것과 같은 새로운 편집을 한다.다른 편집자를 테러리즘으로 고발하는 등 논의 시도는 백지화되거나 적대에 부딪친다.여러 편집자의 수많은 토크 페이지 경고는 무시되었다.편집자는 또한 수많은 로그아웃 편집 작업을 해 왔으며, 오리 삭푸펫인 Missilelost(토크 · 기여)를 만들었다.나는 만드라과에게 이 불만을 통지할 것이다.루이496 (대화) 15:40, 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

• 두 개의 계정이 방해받지 않고 IP 편집을 조사하고 있다.고마워요.드레이미스 (토크) 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC) 15:59 [응답]

빠른 답변 고마워.적어도 지금은 이 문제가 해결된 것 같다.루이496 (토크) 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC) 16:19, 9 [응답]

참고로, 나는 두 개의 명백한 IP 양말도 태그했다. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 2013년 5월 9일 (UTC)[응답]

사용자:타이보는 계속 나를 반 기독교인으로 숭배한다.

Please complete a move

It is a mess. In the end, I'd like to have:

• page Template:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C with current content (main) CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C
• page (main) CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C to have content Template:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C plus content (to be provided)
• page List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension C to be a redirect to (main) CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C

Keep whatever history can be saved. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think we can do this by reverting CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C to my last edit version, once the template gets the content that is currently there. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear lord, this is so screwed up now. After editing by JPaestpreornJeolhlna, CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C now appears correct, but I actually cannot determine where the actual chart information is stored, since the transcluded template {{CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C}} just redirects back to the article it's transcluded in. But somehow it contains the right content. Can an experienced please admin jump down the rabbit hole and figure out what the heck happened? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I've got the content sorted out, but attribution still needs to be checked. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same goals in mind—and was, indeed, trying to help. — J~Pæst 01:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the moving has made things really confused; I've fully protected it for the moment. Nobody's been editing in bad faith; this is purely to ensure that just one person is working on it, since edit conflicts and move conflicts right now might cause big problems. Please ping me instantly upon finding any mistakes or thinking of anything specific that I should do. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you've checked it out and we haven't managed to completely destroy attribution, then I think we're fine. I don't think that anyone was acting with any sort of bad faith; indeed, we were all trying to fix the same problem, but ended up getting caught up in the loop of all these stupid things. I'm going to start up a conversation at talk:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C about which templates and articles we actually need – the problem seems to be that we have about three extraneous locations for the content, so nobody actually knows where it's located. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand; the only reason I protected was to ensure that we didn't accidentally make that loop even worse. Think of it as a good-faith edit war, with nobody at fault :-) I'm marginally confused about where we want things to end up, so I'll comment at the talk page you mention. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency (see Category:Unicode charts), "List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension D" must be moved to "Template:Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension D" as soon as possible. DePiep has been messing with some of these should-be templates lately… — J~Pæst 02:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's worry about the Cs now and the Ds later. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I started the mess-up. Sorry I caused you all this trouble. Best thing I could think of afterwards is: don't touch the keyboard for a while. Thanks for cleaning up, sorry for starting it. -DePiep (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do my kemetic.org links get deleted?

User:CourtofLaw

Mass speedy image deletions without due process or rationale

Off-wiki legal threat from blocked user User:Maxschweitzer

The CfD result regarding American women novelists ignored at Amanda Filipacchi

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists
• Amanda Filipacchi
• Obiwankenobi and The Devil's Advocate

The above-linked CfD was closed as;

“

The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature. {{All included}} and/or {{Distinguished subcategory}} should be added to the latter so that this does not happen again. Can someone with AWB or a similar tool do this soon, given the frighteningly large amount of media coverage focused on these categories and related discussion?

”

I did just that at the Amanda Filipacchi article...IMO there was no reason to wait for the bot script to come about in order to address some of the more high-profile articles of this debacle...but was reverted once by Obiwan, and again by TDA. So rather than perpetuate an edit war, admin intervention will apparently be needed to enforce a consensus decision and prevent disruption by these two users. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this myself. It takes a hell of a lot of gall to claim of a just-closed CFD that " this is a losing a battle" [36]. Picking the article most certain to cause outrage as the locus of this defiance is approximately as WP:POINTy as putting that article up for deletion, and just as futile. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been no decision against categorizing by century. People in Category:20th-century American novelists and Category:21st-century American novelists do not need to be in the overall Category:American novelists. There is absolutely no reason for such duplication. Anyway, Filipacchi is on List of American novelists, where if someone really wanted to marginzalize her they could fairly easily, as has been done in the past by removing Stephanie Meyer from that list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • • We've established loads of reasons for duplication, and who is that keeps claiming we can't have duplication? That's not true. Eventually, the duplication will be removed through technical means, but for now, stop diffusing the categories. This obsession with unhelpful tasks that piss people off needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion on the matter at this point is entirely irrelevant. These BLPs are to be categorized back into Category:American novelists and Category:American women novelists, that's all there is to it. What you choose to do after the fact regarding 20th, 21st century or any other categorizes is academic. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the decision is that we will not remove articles from Category:American novelists to place them in Category:American women novelists. There is no decision against moving them to Category:20th-century American novelists or Category:American historical novelists. Those are legitmate diffusing categories and there is absolutely no reason not to diffuse. If you think we should not have Category:20th-century American novelists, you are free to take it to a CfD, but while it exists it is a 100% legitimate diffusion category, and there is no reason to fight diffusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your interpretation of the matter is so divorced from reality that we're either in "I'm not listening" or "Just plain doesn't get it" territory. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Suggest you diffuse the other 4,000 American novelists into their respective century sub-categories first before you do Filipacchi. Otherwise the unavoidable impression is that you are unpleasantly and indefensibly obsessed with the category her biography is in. Walk away, drop the stick. Andreas JN466 10:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment(edit conflict):I've been watching this whole fiasco from the sidelines. Seeing this pop up at the bottom of the noticeboard made me think of a scene from a painting (or perhaps a movie, it was quite a while ago) I saw. Attila and his horde were advancing down a hill upon an unsuspecting settlement. With this huge debacle, and the following media storm, I can only imagine in horror the Chinese fire drill that will result. All while this plays in the background. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of this. At any rate abstracting the principle of the CFD result (i.e., don't diffuse people by gender, race, or anything else likely to set off the "ghetto" accusations) and then getting on with doing anything else but this what everyone needs to do, at least for a couple of weeks. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop diffusing the goddamn categories. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello friendly denizens of ANI, and allow me to apologize in advance for having been partially responsible for bringing what is basically a content dispute here. The reason I felt it might be worthwhile coming before you is an interesting point of policy - how does community consensus interact with guidance, in this case, this particular guidance: Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, which states "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below."

We have a very crisp and specific example here in the guise of a famous novelist that launched a storm of epic proportions against our little wiki-ship - I think Ms. Filipacchi has actually done us a lot of good, ultimately, by pushing us to think hard about what categorization means, and how we might be giving an impression of sexism or racism, and why we need to do better. So, thanks to her for that.

Now, we have a CFD, which closes as "keep + merge" - meaning, all women novelists would be also bubbled up to Category:American novelists.

That much is clear, and is currently being done. However, here is where it gets fuzzy - what happens next? I can map out a few possible scenarios:

1. community consensus was firm and clear, and all women novelists shall forever remain American novelists - not to be diffused. The community, unfortunately, was mum on a few other points - like, what about men?

a)In the interest of fairness, should all male novelists, even those that have been diffused to deep subcats, bubble up to American novelists too? Then that basically suggests the following conclusion: henceforth, in the American novelists tree, all categories are non-diffusing, and we bubble up the whole shebang (Note for the record: there are 3000 novelists not in the head cat today, so get your bots ready) I'm not sure if the community said that, but maybe they did.

b) Or, should all male novelists be treated as before, eligible to be diffused. If this is the case, then we have a stranger situation - in a few months time, after the gnomes are done diffusing all of the men, there will be only women left in American novelists. Ah, the irony!

Either way, if you take this to its conclusion, you end up in two strange worlds (1) Where everyone is in American novelists or (2) where only women are in American novelists. I'm not sure either is desirable. Remember, before this whole debacle started, Category:American novelists was tagged with a template that asked people to diffuse - so clearly consensus leading up to this was that the cat should be diffused.

1. Here's another option - community consensus was that women novelists should be bubbled up, and then henceforth treated like their male colleagues. If this is the case, then diffusion to a by-century cat once they're there (which I did, and have done to several other bios, male and female, that have hit my watchlist), is perfectly reasonable. (For the record, this is my own personal position)

A counter-argument could be made here as follows - That's all fine and good Obi, but (a) I don't like the century cats or (b) the century cats should be non-diffusing. But I haven't heard anyone make either of those arguments.

1. A third option is what I might call Filipacchi-exceptionalism. The argument here is (and this has already been made above)is that this bio is now so famous, and she was so dismayed at not being in the American novelist cat, that we should keep her there, no matter what. The other women and men can be diffused, no-one will care - but she must stay. There may be good reasons for this, having to do with reputation, letting-storms-blow-over, not-poking-a-lion-with-a-stick (esp when she has a NY times pulpit), etc.
2. A fourth option, which we might call the ostrich option, is to say "there is so much media around this, let's just give in, stick them all in American novelists, and hope the attention goes away" - then after a few months, we can get back to categorizing and diffusing the way we always did (remembering, of course, to not diffuse gendered categories). So the community then says, don't touch anyone in American novelists for a month or a year, then back to business.

So that's my brief analysis of this story. I welcome your thoughts, and I'm sure there are other options/interpretations, and I will of course abide by whatever you want us to do here, but please be very clear on the guidance - going forward, what exactly is allowed in terms of diffusion from American novelists - can everyone be diffused? only men? Everyone but Filipacchi? Everyone but that specific set of women who were in the American women novelists category as of May 2? And does the guidance decided here affect other categories, like Category:French novelists or Category:Polish poets, etc.? Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should not be categorizing and diffusing, as that makes it impossible to find anything. Wikipedia:Categorization is a guideline and its current implementation does not work. We need to take categorization tasks out of the hands of obsesive editors and make them completely automated. You guys had your chance and you blew it. Now, step away. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 ^^ Exactly this. The obsession with arbitrary "too big" limits on categories leading to increasingly useless "diffusion" just makes the category system useless as anything other than a self perpetuating plaything. Categorise every thing for everything that it is (which we deem notable enough). An author goes in "Authors". US people go in "US People", etc... Each category record reflects a single data point for a single item. Then use the intersects to search. If that means some articles have hundreds of categories, or some categories contain (god forbid) tens of thousands of things, then so be it. That's how the world we are documenting is structured. We should record all of the data as it is, and allow it to be searched in any way based on this data. The technical issues of how this information is displayed and searched will need to be solved, but trying to guess the result of any potential search by creating a zillion over specific ghettoised "subcategories" as we do now is unachievable. They aren't categories at all, they are search terms... I'm not even going to touch on the potential it includes and perpetuates for "attack/slur categories", but the impact of that is far from negligible. Begoon ^talk 04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, indeed - this approach around high-level facets is definitely the way we should be going. But we're not at a bar all having beers together - TDA and I have been dragged before ANI to receive a smack-down. Has the community, e.g. the broad consensus, changed? Did some big RFC somewhere say "no more diffusion, no more specific categories"? I'd love to end up there, but we aren't there yet, so sanctioning us for not fulfilling that utopia right now seems a bit over eager. Let it be known that as we push for category intersections, I am all over that and even made a prototype of it at Category:Nigerian novelists. But that's not yet the consensus path as far as I know. Cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems well and good so long as you are talking about individual people who can be subject to fairly simple classifications like you describe. However, you are still going to need those more specific sub-cats to cover subjects of more specific interest where you can't have some straight-forward intersection. Surely you aren't suggesting we shouldn't have Category:Kennedy family or that it can be easily addressed with some intersection of other widely-used categories. How about Category:William Shakespeare or ones about events such as Category:World War II? Maybe what people are suggesting can limit the amount of diffusion necessary, but there would still need to be quite a bit of it in order for categories to serve their desired purpose.--The Devil's Advocate_{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can have a category "Kennedy Family". It's an additional data point concerning the articles you include in it. Provided it's deemed notable you create it and add it to all articles concerned. What you don't do is remove the members of your new category from other categories they belong to, like "TV miniseries", "People", Women or "US Presidents". Same goes for "World War II" and your Shakespeare example. As ObiWan says, though, this is probably the wrong place for this big discussion - I just wanted to agree with Viriditas' point, and maybe expand on it a bit. Begoon ^talk 05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas raised his personal opinion that is unsupported by any consensus here as though it somehow has relevance. Adding sub-categories and removing parent categories is not suddenly prohibited. What this really amounts to is that the Amanda Filipacchi article is getting special attention because she was in the press on this issue. Even now this sort of category switch happening on another article generally would and does occur without incidence. No policy or consensus is actually being violated as replacing a broader gender-neutral category with a more specific gender-neutral category is not the same as "ghettoizing" novelists by gender. It is, in fact, a compromise measure that has not been rejected by any consensus.--The Devil's Advocate_{tlk. cntrb.} 06:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be prohibited when obsessive editors engage in disruptive category diffusion that brings the entire mainstream media down on us and instead of listening to their criticism, attacks them in response and continues on their merry, obsessive way. No, I'm sorry, but you guys need to stop this unusual obsession with category diffusion and find something useful to do. Wikipedia isn't therapy. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we're pretty clear on your POV here. I will take your recommendation under consideration. That said, when the mainstream media gets it wrong, as they did in the main this time, I usually just feel free to ignore them - beaucoup de bruit pour rien. Is wikipedia's clunky categorization system really the front line of the sexism problem in the world? I mean, if we solve that, have we made a big dent in the problems that women face in the world? No.

In the meantime, do you have any actual violations that merit sanction here? I do note that JPL was proposed for a categories topic ban just a few days ago, and was closed in a pretty snowy fashion. Personally, I've probably categorized < 100 bios in the past week or so, so I'm not exactly an obsessive machine, and I'm almost positive I haven't ghettoized anyone. In fact, I de-ghettoized Maya Angelou, who was a feature article candidate but her categorization was besmirched in the media - I fixed that. :)

Also, since you seem to be a fan of an all-inclusive Category:American novelists category, can we count on you to volunteer to start bubbling the 3000 bios up the tree? I mean, do you actually care enough to do something about it, or are you more the rock-throwing type? (I kid :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact is that plenty of men and women were not included in the main category at the outset of this because they were included in non-gendered sub-categories of American novelists. Just look at any number of sub-categories and you will see both men and women who are not included in American novelists because they are included in a gender-neutral subcat. I don't think the intention of the CfD was that every single person in every sub-category of American novelists (currently 6792 people) be added to the American novelists category.--The Devil's Advocate_{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, just exactly what is wrong with that? With alpha sortable menu options at the top, I can find exactly what I'm looking for anyway. If we had a well designed category system, we wouldn't be diffusing anything, and frankly, all of this effort spend diffusing categories can be better spent improving articles. Let the bots deal with the categories. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas. Allow me to invite you to view a prototype I created here: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - would love your input and feedback. For the record, I agree, it would be great if we could get to some sort of category intersection, and have larger head cats. However, we're not there yet - we have a prototype that could be evolved, and wikidata is on it's way - but until then, I don't recall community consensus to rescind the guidance for categorization - so why should we stop paying attention to it? Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This assumes you know the novelist's name or that you are even looking for a specific novelist. I think Obi's addition of Catscan to the top of the category page was actually a very good way of addressing the desire for a single comprehensive list without having some big clutter of entries. Until there is an actual function that would, with the same or greater level of ease, serve the same purpose as creating more specific sub-categories then we should work with the current system. The objection was that women were being systematically moved out of the parent category to a gender-specific sub-category, but not men. We do not have that situation as plenty of men are in these sub-categories and not the parent category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another question for V (and others advocating full membership in American novelists) - should we also consider bubbling this all up to American writers? That way, we can see all writers, no matter what type, in one category. Then, we could move all the writers up another level, so that we can see all writers, artists, etc, all in one place, for convenience? Diffusion is there for a reason, and until we have a better category system, we'll be in big trouble if we start un-diffusing large trees - as it's not clear where to stop. Is Category:American novelists an exception to all rules now? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should all be upmerged to Category:Humans. Or perhaps that's discriminatory to some famous apes, so Category:Apes would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only people who should be "bubbled up" are people who were excluded from a generic category based on race, gender, sexuality or religion. If American novelists end up being diffused from Category:American novelists to century categories, then I suggest Wikipedia would be wise to start with the men, as otherwise outside observers are very likely to get the wrong impression whenever the American novelists category is removed from a female writer's biography. You want to be able to point to hundreds of diffusing edits to male novelists' biographies (i.e. edits removing Category:American novelists from the article, and replacing it with a category like 20th-century American novelists) that were made under the exact same rationale. AndreasJN466 11:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you would not want to "start" with any specific gender as if the category becomes entirely female that could raise questions as well or if someone sees an editor in the process of depopulating an exclusively female version of the category they may only see an editor systematically removing women without catching on that the men are already gone. Perhaps we should avoid Filipacchi for some time until it becomes abundantly obvious that no gender or individual is being targeted. If people see her removed from the category and then notice or are told that the category is otherwise empty, it would make things a lot less contentious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this isn't (on one level at least) all that hard. Given the outcome of the CFD, any solution to whatever categorization problem there is which takes the "women X" out of "X people" is going to be unsatisfactory. If the guideline says otherwise, then it's time to talk about changing it. And if we can't come to a consensus about that, it's time to rethink the whole categorization mechanism (and I'm personally betting that we'll get to that eventually). But however any of that goes, ostensibly mechanical application of anyone's interpretation of the guideline against the explicitly stated outcome of the CFD, at the article which is the locus of the original complaint, is a Reichstag-class level of WP:POINTy behavior. Taking the person's article who is rattling our cage in the media and making it an object example of one's defiance is deserving of a vacation, and a forced vacation if one doesn't back down. Right here don't need to discuss to the bitter end, or even any further, whatever solution needs to be worked out, but anyone who diffuses that particular article needs to be blocked if they go at it again. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There are nearly 4,000 novelists to diffuse from Category:American novelists (if that is indeed what is going to be done). Why anyone would want to start with Filipacchi beats me. You can diffuse her when the vast majority of men have been diffused, otherwise it will just look like more petty harassment and revenge editing. AndreasJN466 10:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but having diffused all the 17th 18th and 19th century American Novelists the 20th century list is going to be so much smaller and more manageable, and won't have anywhere near 4000 items. John lilburne (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the CFD ruling apply only to American novelists? What about Americans in other professions? What about novelists of other nationalities? Categorisation should be consistent across the entire system, having special rules just for Americans or Novelists is completely unacceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dito women. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The ruling is the ruling. Apply it with common sense either directly or by analogy when needed. There is an incredible lack of common sense on display by anyone advocating that Filapacchi need be an initial target of removal from Category:American novelists yet again.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The CFD ruling applies narrowly to the issue of American novelists, that being the set of categories under specific discussion here. But I think it serves as a useful precedent for other, similar categories - and that this issue shows in general that we need to revise the Category guidelines. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My read of the consensus at the CFD is clear, and I'm having a hard time seeing how overrulling that consensus is not a prime example of Disruptive Editing. Could someone explain how a guideline trumps a specific CFD? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I didn't even really pay much attention to the CfD when it was happening so I really didn't look at the result. Looking at it now, I don't read the consensus as being "no article can be removed from the parent category when moved to a gender-neutral sub-category" but more as "no article can be removed from the parent category just to be moved to a gendered sub-category" and I feel the changes being made were consistent with that principle. To Jayen's point above, I don't actually think anyone was "starting" with the Filipacchi article as many other articles for male and female novelists were getting moved to those gender-neutral sub-categories. It is instead that people only noticed the change on the Filipacchi article because more people were looking at the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire point of the debate was that removing female novelists from the main category was somehow interpreted as saying that they were not actual for-reals American novelists. The result of the discussion was that the articles removed from that main category should be put back into that category, while the articles for female novelists should remain at the subcategory as well. OK, so is the subject of this article an American novelist? Yup. Is the subject of this article a female American novelist? Yup. So now I'm asking you to please revert your edit here and restore the main category to the article, in conformance to the consensus at CFD of which you are now aware. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, the edit was already reverted. However, looking over the votes in the CfD, I would say the consensus was that the American women novelists category issue was a problem because women were removed from the parent category, while men remained. Most calls for a merge or restoring articles to the parent category specifically justified it on the basis of the parent category becoming exclusively male. As noted, moving men and women out of the parent category is not creating that issue. I do not think one should take the admin finding of consensus as indicative of the actual community perspective. To me it seems as though moving all articles in the American novelists category, without regard for gender, to gender-neutral sub-categories is perfectly respecting the major objections raised in the CfD, even if it doesn't fit the letter of the admin's closing statement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Both men and women should be upmerged to the parent. Equal opportunity categorization is the only solution. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise

Thanks to all above for their thoughtful comments - I've learned a lot, and I appreciate better why this has caused an uproar. To me, it seems to be an issue mostly of timing and scale, not of principle - e.g. I'm not sure people think Category:American novelists should *never* be diffused, just that we shouldn't start by diffusing to non-gendered cats women who have written articles about wikipedia. Fair enough. So that said, here is my proposed compromise:

• No more women can be diffused out of Category:American novelists to a non-gendered century-specific cat (e.g. Category:19th-century American novelists or to a non-gendered genre cat like Category:American romantic fiction writers) until there are at least 1000 men, including 10 Pulitzer prize winning men, that have been moved out of the head category first. I noted above that I've already moved Hemingway - I will go after Faulkner next. In addition, for Filipacchi specifically, we should keep her in the head cat for at least one month regardless of what happens - after which point she can be diffused as long as there are at least 3 (male or female) Nobel prize in literature winners in the same category as her. In this way, she will remain in the head cat at least until this all blows over. Finally, a (self-imposed) wet minnow to Obiwan as a way of helping him get a clue. I welcome your thoughts and modifications to the above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be conflating two issues. The consensus was that female American novelists should be in both the category for American novelists and the subcategory for female American novelists. All of the other issues surrounding century-specific categories, diffusion, etc, are subordinate to that consensus. Suggesting that we comply with that consensus "until this all blows over" is rubbish - have an RFC and come up with a better solution, then. But the CFD result should not just be handwaved away. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ultra. I totally appreciate where you're coming from. However, as noted above, if we take that specific interpretation of consensus to its logical conclusion, we end up with an odd result. (I note that the consensus never ruled on whether post-facto diffusion to non-gendered sub cats was allowable or not - the consensus was mum on that issue, so it's really an interpretation you're putting forth).

If it is allowed to diffuse men in Category:American novelists to century-or genre-specific sub-cats, but the women are untouchable, then the result after a few months will be that Category:American novelists will only contain women. That would be a rich irony indeed - and perhaps, frankly, deserved :) But do you understand why this is not desirable or logical? On the other hand, if it's also *not* allowed to diffuse men, then that means, logically, all cats under Category:American novelists have now become non-diffusing, and to be fair, we have to bubble up everyone who's not currently in the parent - around 3000 bios. My response here may be helpful in understanding why that is not desirable either ==> Category_talk:American_novelists#By_century_sub-cats. Best regards, and appreciate your contributions here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • That compromise sounds eminently sensible to me. (At least, if there are subsequent arguments about whether diffusion is sensible or not, these arguments will be carried out on the backs of male writers.) Andreas JN466 23:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, uh, why is having a very big category a bad thing?

Let me first admit that I have not read all of discussion about this, but I will ask my question anyway and perhaps someone can point me to the answer - why is having 6700 (or 10000, or more) listings in a category a bad thing? If readers of WP see that a person is in the category "People from Earth" and in "People from Africa" (or "People from Mali" etc), what does it matter how many entries the main category has? I think it is clear from the media reports that readers have been confused and upset by the diffusion of categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not only are readers upset, editors are too (well, I am). And the media has it right, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great question - and I think it points to a fundamental flaw and confusion with the way the current system works. There are two ways of fixing what you're asking for:

1. Alternative 1: Put everyone in every category all the way up the chain. This would mean, all American politicians would be in Category:American politicians, as well as in any specific cats below, and in the more generic cats all the way up the tree, such as Category:American political people, Category:American people by occupation, Category:People_by_nationality_and_occupation, Category:People_by_nationality, Category:People, Category:Humans,Category:Hominina,Category:Homininae, Category:North_American_people, Category:People_of_the_Americas, Category:People_by_region, and so on. To implement this in a generic fashion, we'd literally have to add dozens or, depending on depth and complexity of parenting, hundreds of categories to every single page in the wiki.

Take a look at Category:People - can you see how easy it is to find those in need of better categorization? a few entries, sit there, waiting to be sub-catted. What would happen if People had 500,000 entries? How could you find the ones in need of a better cat?

Even if you went to the page Category:American politicians, there would literally be tens of thousands of entries competing for your attention. If you wanted to find someone who wasn't yet put into a more specific category, you'd have to read all of the bios, one by one. So it would basically be impossible to find articles in need of diffusing/sub-categorization.

It would also be extremely brittle. Suppose someone comes along and wants to create a new category, called Category:People from North Africa. In the current system, it would just mean adding the top level cats, Category:Algerian people and Category:Tunisian people and so on to Category:People from North Africa. But if you're not diffusing, you now have to edit every single bio, tens and tens of thousands of them, in order to get the full complete set visible in Category:People from North Africa. So a 5 minute edit today to create a potentially useful category would turn into weeks or months worth of work.

Finally for the reader, it would become meaningless - Category:People would have 500,000 entries, Category:Humans would have 500,000 entries - what would the point be?

1. Alternative 2: Don't put everyone in every category up the chain, continue to diffuse, but have the option, when needed, to "display" everyone in all sub-cats of a given cat recursively. I gave some examples of how to do this elsewhere, but go to Category:American novelists and click the link at the top for an example. I think #2 is the better option. It would be nice if they just built this into the wiki. May be you can try to make that happen? This isn't the forum, right here, though. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, the problem with categories that have many listings is that there would be many listings in the categories? And that would be silly because readers would not want to see that someone is from the US, they would prefer to know that someone is from Queens (because Queens is such an important borough of New York city that it is globally recognized)? (By the way, I'm not suggesting that we put every article into every category "all the way up the chain", but I'm sure tools could be created to painlessly handle that situation if that were the case.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DC, I've tried to explain, and obviously failed. If you want to swing by my talk page I am willing to try again - but it's a waste of space to discuss the theory and practice of hierarchical categorization and taxonomies, the challenges of non-diffusing categories, and how this might influence a given search here any more. Sorry.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First off, this discussion belongs somewhere other than ANI. Second, there are two answers to your titular question:

1. It isn't.
2. It depends on what the category is and how big it is. Once you get 10K articles, it's unnavigable or meaningless. I think a bigger question is, "why are articles in daughter categories automatically removed from mother categories" pbp 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a category being "unnavigable" is an odd one. Do readers go to categories to find things, or do they see categories at the bottom of the article they are reading? I suspect it is the latter. Even if a category is too large to conveniently browse, it can be used in searches. And those searches would return the results that I think our readers expect. If I am looking for the article on a novelist whose name I cannot recall, am I likely to know that Herman Melville is not an "American novelist", but is an "American male novelist" "American men novelist" or a "19th-century American novelist"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The author of Moby-Dick was actually categorized as both a "male writer" and a "men novelists". But not a straight novelist (pun not really intended). As though that's what people are looking for! This is now theatre of the absurd and if I were writing for the press would have a field day. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Melville was an american who, among other things, wrote novels in the 19th century. So, he is in category Category:19th-century American novelists. What part of "19th-century American novelists" do you not understand? Try this - take your finger and cover up the word "19th-century" - see that? Wow - he now looks like an American novelist. Read WP:Categorization again please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, this discussion has got me at the point where I believe that anybody in any subcategory of American novelist should also be in the mother category! Just like Louis Armstrong isn't just a jazz cornetist, he's an American musician, and as such, he should be in the parent category pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - people who are depopulating categories without understanding that our best American novelists now are no longer categorized as novelists really need to step back and stop now. Please pick one centralized place to discuss and wait for consensus to develop. I feel very very strongly about this - am not happy to see the novelist taken out of Faulkener, Twain, Hemingway, Hathworne, etc (that's as far as I got on my watchlist). I'm willing to take a block or a ban for this - that's how strongly I feel. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree! There seems to be an insatiable need for some editors to somehow show they were "right" but emptying out a category that doesn't *have* to be emptied. Jumping in and taking Twain, Hemingway, etc., out of American novelists? Sheesh. It reminds me of the famous punk lyric "I want to be stereotyped. I want to be classified."[37] Please, someone in the press, if anyone is still writing about this, work that quote into your pithy observations. The Workhouse Category Editor isn't sexist or racist, they just crave order.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one was "taken out" - they were simply classified into a more specific categorization by century. We do this all over the wiki - just look at the Category:Poets tree. ==> Category:20th-century American novelists - most of the letters in that name spell A M E R I C A N N O V E L I S T S. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Hemingway is relegated as a mere writer and his achievement of writing novels has been removed. It's wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs or it didn't happen. Please don't make accusations that you can't back up. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[38]. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. Did you scroll down, and look through the list of categories he is in? Even after my edit, he remained safely in Category:20th-century American novelists. Can you please stop with the bogus accusations???? I didn't remove a single bio from "American novelists", I just moved some to "X century american novelists" - which is again a rather humdrum thing called category diffusion that happens ALL THE TIME.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, there is a 20th-century American novelists category that was added when the American novelists category was removed. However, it was added lower down where the American novelists category was originally so it is not as visible. I fixed that to keep the listing alphabetical and so that category is now more prominent.--The Devil's Advocate_{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now that it's sorted I see what's been done. My diffs are set so as not to show the entire page - so, nope, didn't see it. It's really confusing though and still not being done consistently. The women are being kept in the American novelists category but the men not. I'd still like to see a centralized discussion brought to a wikiproject - either novels or literature - and see it mentioned there and garner input. Having discussions all over the place, on barely watched cat pages and on individual talk pages isn't helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TruthKeeper. Like you, I am for consistency, and if you see an edit I've made which is not consistent, please let me know (on my talk plz) - I am actually quite careful about these, especially now. If you just read diffs, and don't look at the full category list, you may not understand the full reasoning/scope of the changes. Secondly, as to why are women being kept and men moved, I hope you realize that I and TDA have today been dragged before ANI - that's this thread - for the crime of moving our intrepid NY times columnist from Category:American novelists to Category:20th-century American novelists - I suppose one might say we "ghettoized" her by century. That is our crime, and we await judgement. The atmosphere has become so poisonous that as of now, I am no longer going to touch any women novelist bios, I'm just going to be fixing men going forward. I targeted a few big names though on purpose, per BRD - it gets a discussion going. You don't want to start with bios nobody knows, do all this work to diffuse, then find out consensus has moved in the other way. Better to go after whales, and deal with the fallout - that's why your watchlist is lighting up. Now, the question before you, given your reverts to date is (1) Do you like/don't like the by-century american novelist cats. If you don't like them, bring them to CFD, that's the centralized place, and the community can decide to delete them. If you're ok with them, you'd then have to find a way to either (a) accept that they are diffusing, which will mean that in a few months time, there will be ZERO bios in Category:American novelists (all having been diffused) - looks at Category:Poets for an example or (b) argue somehow that, like gender/ethnic categories, these by-century-cats should *also* be non-diffusing. But that will be a harder argument to make, as we have diffusing-by-century-writer-cats all over this tree, it's common practice, so I'm not sure why an exception would be made here. Finally, I would appreciate an apology for the bogus accusation, I'm a big fan of Papa and would never knowingly do him harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should serve as an illustration of the problem here. Was Ernest Hemingway removed from the category "American novelists"? A common sense answer would be yes, because Hemingway is no longer in that category (having been removed in this edit). Obiwankenobi says no, presumably because subcategories are logically included in parent categories. While I understand the reasoning, the fact remains that when a reader looks at the bottom of the page, they will not find "American novelists" (although they will find both "20th-centuy American novelists" and "20th-century American writers", even though "20th-centuy American novelists" is a subcategory of "20th-century American writers". Ask a Wikipedia reader if Hemingway is in the category "American novelists", what do you think they will say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phew - finally someone gets it. Thanks DC. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and ask a reader if Obama is in the category "American politicians" - what will they say?? Or ask the same reader if Hemingway is in the category Category:Novelists or Category:Short story writers or Category:American writers - same answer! In almost all cases, we categorize based on the most specific category(ies) for that person. That's the system. If you want to change it, go for it - but you have to change the guidance first, not battle it out article by article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with having people in both general and specific categories? pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's take an example - Ernest Hemingway. He was a novelist, short story writer, etc. So we stick him in Category:American short story writers. But why not go more general - and stick him in Category:Short story writers. We can get more general, and stick him in Category:Writers, and then up and up and up till he's in Category:Human. The problem is recursion - where do you stop? How generic is generic enough? As you go up the tree, any parent category will likely be valid - so I could edit war and say "Hemingway wasn't just an American novelist, he was a novelist, so he deserves to be in Category:Novelists. Others could make the same argument for higher level categories. The result would be a mess. Now, there are certain exceptions - for example, Novelist is a special type of writer ,but we stick Papa in both cats because he was known and DEFINED as a novelist, and he was known and DEFINED as a writer. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a sec there. If Hemingway is in Category:Novelists then he should not be placed in Category:Writers because Novelists is in Category:Fiction writers which is in Category:Writers by genre which is in Writers, so, by your logic above, Hemingway is already in Writers (because Novelists is a subcategory of a subcategory of Writers). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an area that's a bit wonky. For a moment, ignore the whole "american" thing - let's just deal in the abstract. Let's say he is in a specific sub-category of writers, as a novelist. If he only wrote novels, that would be fine - and if someone said "give me all the writers", I would also give you Hemingway, because he is a type-of-writer. Just like if someone said, give me a fruit, and you gave them an apple, because apple is a type-of-fruit. However, "writer" is not just a container - it is also a title that is applied to people - we have Category:Writers from New York for example - we don't have Category:Short story writers from New York or Category:Novelists from New York - so you end up putting him in some writers cats as well, because he was a journalist, short story writer, essayist, and so on. So, for various reasons, he ends up in some writers cats, some cats like short story cats, and two novelist cats - but they should all be siblings or cousins. This is a particularity of this writing tree, and the fact that writers is not fully diffusing - e.g. you can't always diffuse someone down, except by century, and there are lots of ancillary trees that only use the 'writer' moniker. It's the same with novelists - as currently structured, it's only partially diffusing, with the exception of the by-century cats, which do fully diffuse. I think that may be the crux of misunderstanding here - some of the genre categories do not fully diffuse based on the person (for example, if you wrote science fiction and romance and "general" novels, then you'd be placed in sci-fi, romance, + novelist - but then you'd be diffused from novelist to novelist-by-century. Perhaps we should rename the head cat to Category:American novelists not yet diffused, which would reflect a bit better the current setup. Anyway, if you want to discuss this particular point further, please come to my talk page... cheers,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put Hemingway back as it was for many years and would like the page to be locked please until this resolved - where ever, whenever that happens. I'm tired of this; tired of being talked down to, tired of reading walls of text of why we have to diffuse, (we don't imo), sick of it all. I don't see that the edit warring will stop. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

Declaration to start with - I'm the one who used AWB to implement the outcome of the CFD. My interpretation was that all in Category:American women novelists should be added to Category:American novelists as a starting point but to be absolutely frank the CFD is a classic example of a very messy discussion because it's formally only actually about one individual category but many people were making points pertinent to either the broader tree and/or the entire category system as it's currently arranged. It certainly doesn't help when many contributors seem to have been under the impression that all American novelists were already directly in Category:American novelists and only women were diffused (not helped by some poor researched media articles). And this makes a mess if people aren't aware of what arrangements and categories they are and aren't reviewing. That particular discussion was only about Category:American women novelists - it didn't take in other categories and as they weren't tagged people either watching them or the relevant projects (and the media attention was not universal) so I'm not sure that has been decided beyond that women novelists should not solely be in that category. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should "three-way intersection" categories even exist? "Category:Nationality Gender Occupation" or "Category:Ethnicity Occupation Location" etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the same sense that we go down the list in categorizations, the American novelist section should be the finite spot, but it is possible to go down to male and female novelists (as it seems was half-done), but you can keep categorizing down to state, province, town if you really wanted to. But where to draw the line, when it becomes an issue? Or do we have to re-think our entire system? What about Wikidata? Many things mean well, but it is impossible for every editor to be on the same page and due to the nature of Wikipedia, a single interested person can be unchallenged for even large moves in obscure editing spaces. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can this just be closed and policy discussion resume in appropriate location?

There's a pretty clear consensus that the removal of Filipacchi from the broader category was inappropriate. None of the related issues are suitable for resolution here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not convinced yet we have a consensus. Her presence, and the presence of all of the other bios in Category:American novelists needs resolution - are they ever allowed to be diffused, and if so to which categories? Or if not, why not? I proposed a compromise above. If they're *never* allowed to be moved, that causes other problems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that discussion is why I suggested an RFC - to clarify precisely that question. But until then, the articles in American Women Novelists need to also be in American Novelists. Period. Full Stop. Dispute the CFD consensus at DRV, or start an RFC to clarify the issue of diffusion in general, or as it relates to this category in particular, or send WP:CATEGORIES to MFD. All of that is out of scope for ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. we'll just diffuse all the men, and the women will be left in the head cat. Maybe a new article will be written about the irony of that result. :) I'm really not in the mood to open an RFC, I don't even know how to do it - if you open one, just let me know. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No! That makes no sense at all. If consensus is not to diffuse the women (which it is), then the men too should all be upmerged to American novelists instead of being shoved down a level - and this opinion from a woman. Recent edits to writers' biographies really are lacking in consistency and creating a bit of a mess; can we just leave them alone for a while? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, go to the relevant page, make an edit in your favor [39] and then argue for diffusion. This is wrong and frankly disruptive. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, were you watching the media sh*tstorm that just happened? Do you know *why* it happened? It was because we had diffusing gendered cats that should have been non-diffusing. I have a feeling you need to take more time to read diffs, this is like the third time you've accused me of something that is completely false. That edit I made above was to clarify that our guidance and current consensus is that gendered/ethnic/religious/sexuality cats should almost always be NON-DIFFUSING - so I fail to see how that edit is an argument for diffusion. Please read your diffs more carefully going forward and ease up on the bogus and unfounded accusations. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read it wrong. Bleary eyed. Struck. Sorry. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to continue to subvert community consensus

Attention should be drawn to this user talk page section, where the two named parties to this filing intend to "lie low", leave the Filipacchi article alone , and do this genre-fiddling that was rejected at the CfD elsewhere. to quote TDA, "Then when all of the articles but her bio are in gender-neutral sub-cats you can have hers be the last. ".

I believe it may be time to discuss a topic ban for The Devil's Advocate and Obi-Wan Kenobi from any gender/author-oriented categorization discussions. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks inspector gadget. You've uncovered our top secret plan, which is to leave the women novelist bios alone as requested, especially the high profile ones. Sheesh. I have yet to see a community consensus that any sort of diffusion is simply not allowed, but I have said there, and here, and elsewhere, that I'm going to avoid touching women's bios because of the current climate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are hell-bent on diffusing all the things, start an RFC and get consensus to do so. But you can't do that with these categories, and it is WP:POINTy in the extreme to assume that consensus against diffusing one gender equals consensus to diffuse the other. I don't think you are that ignorant of policies 'round here. I am strongly inclined to support Tarc's proposal - every time someone points to a very recent and well-discussed consensus, your response is essentially "nuh-uh". And it is tiresome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ultra. I'm sorry if I sound obtuse, but could you explain more clearly what you mean by "consensus against diffusing one gender"? Where, exactly, in the CfD did you see a consensus that Category:American novelists was no longer a diffusing category - e.g. that moving a male mystery novelist from Category:American novelists to Category:American mystery writers was not permitted anymore? Please provide diffs. Again, my reading of consensus was that women were not to be shunted into a woman-only category, and they should always also be placed in a gender neutral category alongside their male peers. This is not new, this is in fact our guideline, per WP:EGRS. In every edit I've made, I believe I've abided by that consensus, and that guideline. Category:American mystery writers and Category:19th-century American novelists are gender neutral, so no-one is being ghettoized by being placed within. In any case, I've stated I wont touch the "special" bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women for the time being - tensions are too high right now... As for an RFC, do we really need an RFC to ask if we should abide by WP:Categorization and WP:EGRS? If you'd like to change that guideline, maybe you could open an RFC and make some suggestions? I think it's actually pretty good for now. Best regards,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP: SNOW Common Sense Oppose Obviously not going to happen. The users violated no policy at all. Per this edit, TDA was already notified of the thread prior to Obi contacting him, thus the comment was not canvassing. More time should be spent trying to actually dicuss the topic at hand then attempting to drive productive editors out of a topic area. I think User: Tarc's increasingly hostile behavior (prime example) should be called into question, rather. ^{Alles Klar,}Herr Kommisar 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, how does one declare a "snow close" before any voting has actually begun? Or before an actual vote, straw poll, etc..has even been initiated? Did you read WP:SNOW before citing it, because I really do not think you know what it means. Tarc (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Please carefully read posts before commenting on them. I understand that the word "oppose" can appear similar to the word "close", but close was not said anywhere in my comment. However, I want this discussion to remain WP: CIVIL and without any WP: BATTLEGROUND actions. Therefore, do hope that you enjoy the cup of tea that I sent you. ^{Alles Klar,}Herr Kommisar 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I saw that; distinction without a difference. You wrongly cited a WP page that has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever, and quite frankly your "explanation" makes it appear even more unwise. Your input into this matter thus far has been a resounding net negative. Tarc (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck out WP: SNOW in favor of better wording, for personal reasons. I still have serious doubt in your judgement, and I will be happy to disregard your above comments. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 12:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support on a case by case basis. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Lock Filippachi until this whole argument blows over (which it frankly won't until she stops criticizing Wikipedia editors, but, eh, what can we do?) pbp 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope she continues for the foreseeable future. Wikipedians are too insular, too resistant to change, too stubborn, and too narrow-minded. They only seem to do the right thing when they are forced to do it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarc, I have very little interest in making hundreds to thousands of edits to clear out a major category. All I did was say what I think should happen. I have said basically that same thing several times including further up in this discussion. Several other people, including Andreas (you and I both know what his stance on the original issue has been), have talked about such an approach being acceptable. You are basically calling for a topic ban because I made a single revert and you don't like an opinion that other people do like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support topic ban. Obiwankenobi has now moved to novels categories by placing Category:Asian-American novels at CfD as a "test case" without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature; continues to edit war, [40]; has actively edited against consensus formed here as shown at the top of the thread. We will almost certainly need an RfC to settle this issue, but it's best to let the dust settle, move away from it for a while, give people time to give it some thought and figure out what to do going forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature" So, the people who started the CfD on the women's category didn't have an apparent understanding of Women's literature? You can't have it both ways. Either it is proper or not. Silverseren^C 20:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not what I'm saying. Amy Tan is an American, a novelist, Asian-American. I'd categorize her as an American novelist, and now that we have the category (though I think it's unnecessary and is rightfully being upmerged) as a woman novelist. Her novel The Bonesetter's Daughter is rightfully categorized as an American-Asian novel: a novel written by an American about an Asian theme. Deleting that category, and presumably others, will only cause more fuss and we don't need that right now do we? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what nomination of categories for deletion have to do with this ANI. I've nominated several cats for deletion before and after this mess, mostly in an attempt to clean them up and comply with our guidelines. Please AGF. In any case, this particular one on Asian literature I've withdrawn, pending further research to build a better case. Also, you have "edit-warred" as you say on the Hemingway article just as much as I have, so don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. you even said you were willing to be banned in order to maintain your specific set of categories on Papa Hemingway. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• RFC and Categorization freeze — With an attempt to diffuse Category:American novelists to Category:American women novelists blocked by community consensus, several editors are trying to create new categories. As is obvious from this thread, multiple editors have objections to some of these schemes, and there is uncertainty as to how to preserve/create an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists. The details of the categorization scheme to be applied, and which categories are diffusing or are not diffusing is not a matter for AN/I. However, we have some very active categorizers who can't seem to wait for consensus. This Incident appears to be an attempt to ask them to desist. I would suggest that (1) we have this conversation as a RFC on Category talk:American novelists; (2) preliminary conversation on the possible options begin immediately at Category talk:American novelists/Archive 2#Preparing an RFC; (3) No new categories should be created as subcategories of American novelists, and no members of Category talk:American novelists should be removed from the root category, until that discussion is complete; (4) (and here I lack an understanding of protocol for whether I may suggest this; I've edited in Wikipedia arenas where this kind of intervention is more common and hope I'm not overstepping boundaries:) An administrator formally warns all involved editors to not violate step 3, under penalty of a topic ban from American novelists.--Carwil (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you should, or even could with any degree of efficacy, bar people from creating new categories that are sub-categories of American novelists. You are right that ANI isn't for policy discussion and that is because you often can't get meaningful community involvement. Likewise we shouldn't impose such substantive restrictions because a handful of people complain at ANI. Most in the CfD only objected to the consequence of a parent category becoming an all-male category due to a gender-specific sub-cat being created just for women, not the idea of gender-specific cats as a whole, or sub-cats in general. It is wikilawyering to take a literal reading of the admin's close as representative of the community position and then accuse people of going against consensus when they pursue a compromise that honors the community's actual concerns just because it seems to go against the literal reading of the admin's closing comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Are you seriously complaining about the fact that I created American western novelists and American adventure novelists cats? Silverseren^C 05:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• "As is obvious from this thread, multiple editors have objections to some of these schemes, and there is uncertainty as to how to preserve/create an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists."^{[citation needed]} There has never been an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists. Why do people not understand that? The full list of American novelists was NEVER Category:American novelists, any more than we would expect Category:American writers to have a full list of writers or Category:American politicians to have a full list of politicians. The *only* way to get all of them today is recursive enumeration, which, surprise surprise, is now available as a link at the top of Category:American novelists. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TDA, this is not about "winning" or just expanding the Admin's closing into some general law. It's about a pattern of pointless escalation. A subgcategory (Category:American women novelists) is critiqued in the media and brought to CfD, where it fails. Meanwhile, editors create new categories (like Category:American humor novelists, Category:American realism novelists) representing not so-clearly-delineated sets of novelts. Some are brought to CfD. Meanwhile, editors create new categories dividing American novelists by century. This all happens in less than two weeks, while there is vigorous debate about each, and some editors (not necessarily me) are vocally advocating a large root category. Now, these subcats may or may not be the right choice (I tend to think that they fail WP:DEFINING), but they are being rushed into, despite active conversations. What makes this relevant to AN/I is that there's way too much bold and absolutely no willingness to wait for discuss before going on to the next scheme. While active conversations are going on, we have over-eager categorizers moving hundreds of articles. If they would slow down voluntarily, that would also be lovely.

Seren, I'm inviting you to join the discussion. There are multiple ways to divide this category, some of which will diffuse everyone. Some of them involve lots of non-defining characteristics ("satire novelists," "realist novelists," imho) that won't fully diffuse the category anyway. If the scheme leaves behind a residue of novelists in Category:American novelists it will be interpreted by the world as "the real American novelists." That's the tricky problem for us to solve, and it requires discussion. I assume that your new cats, as well as JPL's and Obi-wan's are all in good faith, but the issue has been raised by many and should be discussed before we continue our editing.

Obi-wan, I know that from the experienced editor POV, Category:American novelistsdoes not equate to Complete list of real American novelists. However, this controversy demonstrates very very clearly that (1) there is a public desire for an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists; (2) so long as Category:American novelists has novelists at the root level, people we will think it is that list. If the question is, who are you gonna believe, me or the next random reader who sees/reads about the page, the answer that should guide our development of the site is the random reader. Many people have told you this; stop saying, "I didn't hear that." Also, I think recursive enumeration could be a lovely solution, if we avoid the "residue of real novelists" problem, or explicitly disclaim the idea that the list is the list of all American novelists in providing the link. But again, that's what the RFC is for. Please be willing to put some of the energy you have for editing into crafting a consensus everyone is happy with.--Carwil (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about "winning"? I sure didn't. No one in the media was criticizing sub-categories in general so I don't see how it is escalation to create them so editors can move men and women out of the parent category and into those sub-categories. Editors are trying to boldly resolve the dispute in a way that should satisfy everyone's concerns. So far no one has given a substantive objection to the creation of these sub-categories or their replacement with the parent category on articles. It is basically invoking a misrepresented CfD or complaining about how it makes us look. Should the editors doing that recategorization actualize their intent then it will basically look to outsiders like editors responded to the controversy by pursuing a course of action with categorization that did not emphasize gender and I doubt many who commented in the CfD will see a problem with the result either.--The Devil's Advocate_{tlk. cntrb.} 17:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikilawyering" = adversarial use of wiki policies; thus my reference to "winning." I think there's a productive conversation going on right now. Maybe it will result in subcategories that empty AmN's; maybe there will be some other solution.--Carwil (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carwil, You said "(1) there is a public desire for an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists; (2) so long as Category:American novelists has novelists at the root level, people we will think it is that list". Which is this "public" you are talking about - I assume the general population of people who come to the website? If so, is that "public" also interested in a all-inclusive list of British novelists? And Canadian novelists too? Did you ask them? Or does this public *only* care about American novelists - not journalists, non-fiction writers, chefs, politicians, or any other job under the sun - just this _one_ category, which is more special than ALL the rest. What do you think? Personally, I think consistency is the most important thing - so if we need to create a template that we stick ontop of EVERY CATEGORY that says "the articles below do not represent the complete set of XXX, if you want such a link, please click here", I'm totally fine with that. If Jimmy Wales will stand up and say "media wiki category display does not recursively enumerate categories", that is fine too. If you want to pressure WMF to develop an option to recursively display all sub-cat members on any given category page, FINE - do that. And finally, if you want to say "For certain categories, we don't want them to diffuse, like Category:Presidents of the United States - that is also fine with me. But none of those things have been proposed, and no-one is talking about generic solutions - they are still focused on one special snowflake category - instead of spending time de-ghettoizing, which is what we all should be doing instead of this discussion. Any appeals to "users" should fall on deaf ears if you're not talking about addressing issues in a generic fashion, and not just for this one special cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support topic ban for Obiwankenobi per this edit. There is too much WP:IDHT going on. Set up an RFC and confirm that your position has consensus, or stop disrupting articles in this fashion when that consensus is unclear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The outcome of the original CFD was not as sweeping as some seem to be assuming and it would be wrong to try to enforce anything but the actual close relating to the speciic category. A proper informed discussion is needed for the tree, not a confused mess where people are contributing without understanding what the arrangements and status quo antes are. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I have already stated that I will not be further diffusing the bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women's novelists bios. I think, as Tim states, extending the definition of consensus wildly beyond the original CFD, and then punishing me for violating it, is not very fair. I also note that ~300 bios were diffused out of American novelists in the past few days, and I was not responsible for at least 299 of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchforks down, please

• Given the amount of bickering between the two groups involved in this debate, I would like to kindly ask those involved to step away from the WP: DEADHORSE, have a nice cup of tea, and remember WP: CIVILITY. We're here to discuss the enforcement of a RFC, not to try and synthesize it's results. That's WP: DRN territory. This thread began with a simple call to restore order to this heavily disputed category, and now the debate has spiraled into politicking and ridiculous calls for a topic ban. With this terrible media assault, this is no time to be turning on our fellow editors. These are the kinds of threads that tend to blow up in everyone's face, and someone ends ends up blocked or banned, usually to the detriment of the 'pedia. ^{Alles Klar,}Herr Kommisar 02:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It's definitely not a DEADHORSE, and blaming the media is equivalent to circling the wagons and encouraging groupthink. Yes, the media got the specifics all wrong, but the general problem is recognized as valid. Meanwhile, "our fellow editors" caused the problem, and it's probably time for a few topic bans to be awarded to the more obsessive, IDHT users in our midst. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, it isn't ridiculous at all, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting. We have two editors here who edit-warred against a clear consensus reached at a Categories for Discussion close, that is why I brought this here. Since filing last night, these two have done nothing but politick and browbeat everyone in this conversation, attempting to re-argue the debate that was already over and done with. A topic ban is more than appropriate to call for for otherwise productive editors who cannot seem to avoid disrupting a particular topic. And for the record, I did not weigh in at all in the CfD. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to us then, why issuing a TB to two editors in good standing because they wanted to step away from the project for a breather. What policy does that violate? This is the kind of thing i'm talking about. Making WP: POINTy edits like that only serve to dilute the topic. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One point is that AN/I is not the place to be having a discussion about how we should be categorising articles - having a discussion/argument on policy here only inflames the issue and creates more behaviour problems. AN/I should stick to editor behaviour. And people really need to calm down so that a proper discussion on the policy can be had at the appropriate placedNigel Ish (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it isn't the place for a policy discussion, but a policy discussion is essentially the basis for the filer and those supporting his complaint so it is pertinent. They claim the CfD consensus meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to gender-neutral sub-categories is against the CfD consensus. I would contend that it meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to a gender-specific sub-category is not to be done in a manner that makes the ostensibly gender-neutral category the de-facto category for a specific gender. So, by my estimation, the community consensus was being respected and thus there is no basis for the complaint.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically

We need to diffuse all the men first. Got it. I'll go help out with that then. Silverseren^C 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By that, I mean diffuse them into their novelist specific cats, but not the gender ones. I'm not even touching the men novelists and women novelist cats, just the genre ones and the century ones. Silverseren^C 06:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as they all stay in "American novelists" as well, knock yourself out. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what diffusing means. It means putting them into the multiple specific cats they belong in and not the higher cats. There's absolutely no reason that the American novelists cat should get special treatment in this regard compared to all the other cats, especially since the question again is raised that, why stop there and not keep going higher? And then you run into the problem of having dozens of cats on an article, it looking extremely ugly and also being extremely useless. Silverseren^C 15:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A useful comparison: Category:American novels, which is fully diffused. User:Truthkeeper88opposed diffusion there too, but ultimately consensus was to diffuse. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus appears against diffusion. Again, please stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

consensus is as consensus does. Today, there are over 3000 novelists not in the main cat. Thus up till now, consensus has been pretty clear that diffusion is aok. You've made assertions but have not backed them up. Can you point me to the rfc or other dicsussion that says diffusion - for novelists, or for anyone else - is now not allowed? If you like, start one - but then, i dont see a consensus against diffusion of this or any other cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am only diffusing men and I am not diffusing them into the American male novelists category (which may be deleted soon, from the CfD). So, basically, I am diffusing them the same exact way we have always done, via century and genre. And there is most certainly no current consensus against doing that. So, in short, no. Silverseren^C 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A useful way to determine whether or not to diffuse could be determined by this: is there literature discussing this diffusion? If there are books discussing as a topic American female novelists, by all means we should have a topic on that. If literature discusses American male novelists as American male novelists, then we should have one also. Sometimes literature about a topic puts more emphasis on one gender, and not another, and naturally Wikipedia would go by this. For instance "female incarceration" is treated as a special phenomenon. Most prisons house men and most prisoners are male, and so female prisons and prisoners are treated specially. Therefore I created the article incarceration of women. On this topic it is 100% acceptable to make a "women prisoners" category and devolve women to that category, and not devolve men as male prisoners. But this may not be the same for all topics. Examine the literature and see how it treats gender. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So a decision was reached as a result of wide discussion - "The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature" and this is interpreted to mean that "Category:American novelists" should be "diffused", ie emptied out so that there is nothing in it. I doubt that a single person who supported merging "Category:American women novelists" with ""Category:American novelists" had that in their mind, but the editors who deal with categories just insist that they are going to do what they want, because they understand the system and others do not. This is a ridiculous mess.Smeat75 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Smeat75. there are basically 2 interpretations I can see:

1) all women novelists should always be in American novelists. fine, but this is mum on the men. If men can be diffused, the eventual result is, only women in American novelists - thus absurd. If men can't be diffused, the result is, every single novelist should be in american novelists, meaning, bubble up not only American women novelists, but every single other sub-cat which has been diffused for years. this is also an absurd result from a ruling on a single category.

2) All women novelists should always be in American novelists *OR* a non-gendered sub-cat. This is much more in line with the rest of the tree, everywhere in the wiki, and that's the interpretation some of us have been following.

Note: no-one, anywhere in the CfD, ever challenged the general notion of diffusion - just the idea of diffusing only based on gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I said above is that gender should be diffused based on the distinctions between gender made in literature. Study the literature about American novelists to see how the literature diffuses men and women. For instance, in articles about prisons, the subject of women is diffused from the general body, while the subject of men is not diffused, because men are the default in the prison systems in various countries (in terms of prisoners and guards). "Incarceration of women" is treated as a distinct topic while "incarceration of men" AFAIK is not. So prison-related categories should diffuse women and not diffuse men. However it may be different with novelists. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone has now decided to fight the dispersion of Raymond Chandler on the grounds that Filipacchi has not been dispersed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Someone" is me. Actually, I would describe the situation as "someone has decided to remove everyone from Category:American novelists except for Amanda Filipacchi" given the edit summary on this reversion. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You gotta love this, people get all bent out of shape because someone was moving women out of the American novelists category and into a sub-category and not doing the same to men. So, people start moving men and women out of the American novelists category, but people object when one of the women was the person who pointed out the previous action. As a result people decide to just leave Filipacchi alone and focus on other novelists, yet people object that only she is being given special treatment. Do any of you realize that this is an absurd sequence of events?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DA, you left out a teensy little element in that sequence of absurd, I quite agree, events - there was a wide discussion on the matter and the result was in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, not moving everything out of that category so there is nothing in it. The clear result of the community consensus is being flouted, I do not understand why an admin has not intervened. Smeat75 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "the categories" what was meant was Category:American women novelists, not all sub-categories of Category:American novelists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this. The community consensus was to not move the women out of American novelists and it is being flouted. Treating Filipacchi as sui generis is ridiculous. Thus people decided to start moving only men out. This looks just as stupid as moving only women out. Just imagine if the mens-rights press gets wind of this. There ought to be a moratorium on taking anyone out of American novelists until the policy is figured out. Moving women out of American novelists at this point goes against community consensus, so if the editors who are doing it won't stop someone ought to stop them until the discussion is done. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"so if the editors who are doing it won't stop someone ought to stop them until the discussion is done." You raise a good point - what discussion? Where? We need a proper RFC. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is treating Filipacchie as sui generis - I tried to edit her categories, was reverted and brought before ANI as a result. So if you have an issue with Filipacchi's bio, ask those like Tarc who are defending the sanctity of those categories. Finally, I really want to emphasize again, for the millionth time, that no-body is being classified as a "no-longer-an-american-novelist-but-something-much-worse" - most bios have been placed in Category:20th-century American novelists, which contains the words "American novelists" - so moving a woman (or man) to that cat, which is non-gendered, is a completely different affair than moving someone to Category:American women novelists and not putting them in any *other* cats. It is simply a more specific, by-time category, the sort of diffusion that happens by the thousands every day here on the wiki - anyone in there is still an American novelist, in both word and deed! Before this whole thing blew up, Category:American novelists was a diffusing category - it even had a big tag on the top labeling it as such.

If you think the by-century category should be non-diffusing, or deleted, then bring to CFD. If you want to start an RFC, please be my guest - but don't throw editors under the bus for failing to comply with the as-yet-to-be-determined consensus of an as-not-written RFC on a as-yet-to-be-determined scope! A sample RFC is being drafted at talk here Category:American novelists - I do note though, that the Category:American novels category was fully diffused a few years back, by consensus of the novels wikiproject. In any case, if we do an RFC, I think we have bigger fish to fry - like how do we clean up the endemic ghettoization, which is what the hoopla was about! - rather than worrying so much about whether X is an Category:American novelists or a Category:20th-century American novelists (which was *not* what the hoopla was about), and going on witch-hunts after editors who were in good faith trying to clean up a mess by following long-extant editing guidelines like WP:Categorization. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same wikilawyer logic giving priority to the admin close over the actual community perspective. You look over all the various votes and it is pretty clear that people weren't voting "no moving anything out of the American novelists category", but "we shouldn't move anything out of the American novelists category if it gives one group exclusive representation in the category." In other words, the consensus was against unequal diffusion, not against diffusion in general.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I was not treating Filipacchi differently. I was going through the categorystarting at A, and was partly through C. I was not where near F, that was several pages ahead of me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JPL - a little word to the wise - don't attempt any recategorization/diffusion on Filipacchi's page. I did a single edit, and was brought before ANI as a result. Let someone else deal with it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now Koavf has added Upton Sinclair back to category American novelists, citing the CfD in his edit summary. Wouldn't it be better to call a halt to all this until the best course of action is decided upon? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusing Evidently, Category:American novelists is going to be a container diffused by century, ethnic origin, genre, and sex. So nothing should be in there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you put him back into it? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he added the cat at first to a bunch of articles, sometimes adding it to people who didn't even have it before this began, and then started removing them after a conversation on his talk.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Admin intervention requested. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I just thought I should point out the novelists by century cats are based on when the people had novels published, not when they were born. That is why we have a fairly substantial Category:21st-century American novelists, many of the people in that category are not in the related Category:20th-century American novelists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Viridatas that admin intervention is required to stop edit warring, discussions that go nowhere, and a group of eager editors who are now diffusing although consensus to do so hasn't been established. An RfC has been proposed here: [41], and until it's up and going (if that happens) would like to see all categorization stop until consensus is established. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All categorization? Plz be specific: categorization of special snowflake American novelists? Categorization of other novelists? Novels? Writers? Books? Journalists? Basketball players? What is the scope of your hoped-for-freeze-of-categorization-efforts? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories like Category:20th-century American novelists have never been formally objected to in any way. They are legitimate diffusing candidates, and remove all sorts of problems with overlap isses and how to deal with people who write in multiple genres, some of which lack their own specific categories. Diffusing to these categories solves lots of problems. No one has ever even really put forth an argument against this diffusion. There is no reason not to diffuse.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The only problem is that against consensus, showing an unwillingness to even consider the opposite argument, and making the argument for diffusion while simultaneously denigrating those who might have a legitimate reason to oppose, the diffusion and recategorization has continued. Not a single admin who willingly ran for RfA has said a thing here, but I think it would nice to see someone who's uninvolved, has some understanding of the issue, and can write a tightly focused RfC stand up and lend a hand. As obviously that won't happen, and I continue to find myself smeared on various talk pages, I see no reason to continue. In other words, congrats. You've won. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no consensus this is against. There has never been a discussion of categorizing novelists by century. There is no consensus on the issue. The only consensus is that novelists should not be removed from gender neutral categories to be put in gender specific ones. That says absolutely nothing about the century categories. You are trying to force a discussion to be about an issue that was never even brought up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American women painters

There is a list of American women painters. Please fix it. I don't have time. -Aerolit (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add it here --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#List_of_categories_that_need_to_be_de-ghettoized. It may get fixed by someone. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about User Kaiser von Europa (sources from Nazi Germany and by Nazi war criminals)

User Kaiser von Europa[42] (which means "Emperor of Europe" in German) has been repeatedly inserting publications from Nazi Germany and by Nazi war criminals involved in plunder and ethnic cleansing into articles about Polish cities and history to support his claims about German presence in Polish cities. I discovered during the course of my interaction with him that he is already indefinitely blocked on German wikipedia after engaging in sockpuppetry, pov pushing, and edit warring[43], an there is in fact a whole list of sock-puppets noted on German wiki(including ones where he made claims that modern Germany has right to Polish territory)

Two examples of inserting publication from Nazi Germany into article about Polish city(more can be presented):

• introduction of Der Große Brockhaus, 15th edition, Vol. 18, Leipzig 1934
• Der Große Brockhaus. 15th edition, vol. 20, Leipzig 1935, p. 25

• Example of inserting publication by Nazi war criminals and ideologists supporting ethnic cleansing of Poles and extreme nationalisminsertion of source labeled Ernst Bahr, Wolfgang La Baume, Kurt Forstreuter et al. (1981), pp. 72–73.

The source in question is a reprint of a book from 1966 by former Nazis involved with ethnic cleansing, abuse of Jewish slave labor and war plunder. Kurt Forstreuter is a known Nazi who was responsible for war plunder in Poland, Other people in the book are Erich Keyser who was a Nazi racist ideologist connected with supporting and organizing ethnic cleansing in Central Europe during Second World War and trying to re-invent German nationalism post-War by exploiting Cold War conflict with Eastern Europe. Wolfgang La Baume was responsible for propaganda claiming that most of Poland is German territory. Do note that much more could be added on Nazi background of the authors if needed. Also this is basically a simple reprint of an earlier book by Nazi Erich Weise who was responsible for exploiting Jewish slave labor and plundering Polish archives.

I discovered the background of the authors and list of them by myself-user Kaiser von Europa repeatedly evaded questions to reveal their names when asked on his talk page, instead posting statements like " I strongly recommend that you buy the book(...) The price of the book is only about 15 $, and you would own a really good book from which you could learn quite a lot indeed"[44]

Other actions besides adding Nazi and nationalist literature as source to Polish related articles include for example:

• Inserting claim that Nazi Germany in 1939 "integrated" Polish territories to Germany and removing information that they were occupied by Nazi Germany[45]

• Removing information in the same edit that Polish minority was persectued in German Empire and changing it from "Polish population suffered from heavy Germanization" to the "Polish minority complained about Germanization"

[46]

• Inserting information from 18th century German Protestant source to claim that all inhabitants of a Polish city taken by Prussia were actually Germans even if they spoke Polish language[47]

I have repeatedly asked user to change his stance and use modern, reliable sources instead of Nazis25 April Request,30 April request,1st May request to which he refused and in fact went as far as calling them absolutely reliable sources[48], while restoring sources from Nazi Germany and by known nationalist and Nazi authors(one example[49])

I am afraid the user has so far refused several friendly attempts to cease using Nazi sources and publications on Wikipedia and repeats the behavior that led to his ban on German Wikipedia. I have notified the user about this discussion[50] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has already gone to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, where claims by MyMoloboaccount were already addressed by Herkus Monte [51]. As of the moment of writing, this discussion is intentionally not linked to by the OP.

I know of Der Große Brockhaus and I believe so do most German speakers. It's the German equivalent for Britannica and of highest quality. The year of publication is certainly not perfect, but for legal reasons Google Books cannot make more recent versions accessible. Calling the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie a "Nazi source" is highly inappropriate! --walkee^talkee 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, all the uninvolved users (all two of them) agreed with MyMoloboAccount/OP that this was not a reliable source. While the modern Der Große Brockhaus is a reliable encyclopedia, the editions from the Nazi era, which are the ones Kaiser von Europa used, are, obviously, not reliable.

More fundamentally, the User account Kaiser von Europe has been indefinetly banned from German Wikipedia for exactly this behavior. In particular [52] [53] for spamming unreliable sources and sources which are more than two hundred years old (in violation of WP:PRIMARY), for misrepresenting sources and for making POV claims and edits. Per the linked comment it apparently took quite a while to clean up after this editor. Subsequently Kaiser von Europa ran an extensive sock farm on de-wiki to evade the block with over forty sock puppets identified (in addition to IP addresses) [54].

The bottom line here is that the book edited by the Nazi archivist Erich Weise (who was also in charge of looting Polish archives during WWII and using Jewish slave labor) which Kaiser is spamming into dozens of articles is unreliable and this has been pointed out to Kaiser, here on en-Wiki.

Even more problematically, after Kaiser was questioned about the use of this source/requested not to use it, he began inserting the same source but without attributing it to Erich Weise, for example here [55] (lots more edits of this nature can be provided), in an apparent attempt to hide the association of the source with Erich Weise and make it harder to track down. And then it gets worse. When I asked him not to do this on this talk page he began inserting the same source but now attributing it to the historian Udo Alrnold, claiming that Arnold, not Weise, was the editor of the 1981 "edition" (in actuality, just a reprint of the 1966 work, not a new edition). This is false. Arnold merely wrote a very short blurb in the 1981 reprint stating that it's just an exact replication of the 1966 work. Neither Worldcat, nor google books, nor any library in the world lists Arnold as the editor of the volume. Kaiser willfully and deliberately began misrepresenting the source further (after attempting to obfuscate its origins by omitting Weise's editorship) by attributing it to Arnold. That actually gets us into WP:BLP issues, but nm.

So what we have here is a user pushing an extremist POV, obfuscating and deliberately mischaracterizing sources in pursuit of that objective and completely unwilling to change his behavior. The extensive sock puppetry and long term abuse at German Wikipedia don't exactly inspire hope either.Volunteer Marek 01:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to compare Erich Weise here at en.wp with de:Erich Weise. Note how the German article makes no mentions of war crimes at all, and how the article here reduces Erich Weise to a war criminal. It sure looks like his historical work is widely used by other historicans. I can't form an opinion on this but this content dispute is not for ANI anyway. NPOV probably lies somewhere in between. Now look who is the author of Erich Weise. I have not looked at Kaisers edits but maybe Molobo et al. are on a mission... 80.132.72.31 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to compare Erich Weise here at en.wp with de:Erich Weise - you mean the version that a sockpuppet of Kaiser's POVed [56]? And you are ...? Volunteer Marek 03:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that the German version looks good to me. But neither does your version here. Do you agree that he is used as source by other historians ? 80.132.72.31 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as I was asked i want to add some insights from de-WP.

The User Kaiser von Europa ist indefinitely baned on the German Wikipedia in january 2010. (see log.

He was appealing this ban see here without success.

He afterwards was (and is) using a large group of sock puppets.

It seems after having trouble editing on de he switched to en

(main) reason for the ban; POV-pushing. so it seems to be pretty much the same as here. He will not change that. After some talks he might pretend to change his mind or leave the topic alone; but he simply is waiting a while and probably hoping that the attention gos down.

if you have questions about the ban and actions on de please leave a not on my talk page on de. I'm not the admin who banned him first or had any influence on that ban, but I'm quite familar with him and banned a lot of his sock puppets

...Sicherlich ^Post 06:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a concerted effort by Mymoloboaccount and Volunteer Marek, both identified as a group named WP:EEML. MyMoloboaccount was several times permanently banned in THIS project [57] and Volunteer Marek was topic banned for the WP:EEML scandal under the name Radeksz.

I see that Kaiser is involved in the Copernicus article too and I wonder if it's a coincidence Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount target him. Kaiser fixed the POV-pushing phrase that Copericus spoke Polish "with equal fluency".[58] Copernicus probably had some knowledge of Polish too but "with equal fluency" is an UNDUE opinion.[59] Volunteer Marek reverted it [60] with an edit summary like a threat. Had Volunteer Marek actually analyzed Kaiser's edit, he would have seen him also inserting a pro-Polish argument. On this Wikipedia Kaiser has to clean up after them like a one-eyed does among the blind.

As for the sources used, the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie is a highly reliable source. Calling it a "Nazi source" remains unacceptable. Volunteer Marek's use of sources from Poland under the Communists is happening on a larger scale... --walkee^talkee 12:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being ridiculous.Volunteer Marek 13:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that when Sicherlich above says "He will not change that." that seems to be the case. Kaiser has continued adding the sketchy source in question to multiple articles [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66] (and many others) even during this discussion, and he continues to false present it as edited by another person rather than Erich Weise.Volunteer Marek 00:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. One more time:

• The modern Der Große Brockhaus is a reliable source. The Der Große Brockhaus from the Nazi era (1934 etc) which you insisted on using is not.
• "Handbuch der historischen Stätten" was NOT edited by Udo Arnold. You came up with this lie after it was pointed out that the actual editor, Erich Weise, was a Nazi war criminal. You came up with it because you thought that nobody else had access to that source. [67] As it happens Arnold only wrote a short blurb in the book stating that the 1981 reprint was an exact rendering of the 1966 edition edited by Weise.
• Your von Braun analogy is completely irrelevant.
• You were indef banned from German wikipedia, by German editors, with bona fide "Teutonic" credentials for pushing extremist POV, abusing and misrepresenting sources and making offensive nationalist statements. So your claims of "Teutonophobia" (wtf that's supposed to be) are nonsense.
• You have been engaging in exactly the same behavior on en-wiki that got you banned on de-wiki. And your statement about von Braun pretty much confirms that you are still sock-puppeting extensively in evasion of your ban on de-wiki [68].

Given that Kaiser is still spamming the source by a Nazi historian into multiple articles, as well as abusing WP:PRIMARY (with other sources) and edit warring to keep it there, can someone please deal with this? The longer this takes the longer will it take to clean up this mess (ask folks at German wikipedia about the time wasted cleaning up after Keiser and his socks there).

Volunteer Marek 13:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have the user repeating Nazi propaganda about Polish borders being a crimethe establisment of the Polish Corridor itself could be called a crime, defending Nazi war criminal and Nazi plunder of PolandYou should also refrain from calling Weise a "war criminal"(...) are you unwilling to accept that Weise, when supervising Polish archives, had serious doubts that these documents actually were legal property of Poland? and insinuating that people researching Nazi war crimes have "low motives"If the full truth is told - I do have nothing against it - then the reader is not forced to speculate on possible low motives of the authors of the accusations --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This request has not received any attention in more than 36 hours. Which means it will be archived "as if nothing happened". Still, this is a very serious issue, at least for anyone who takes the "encyclopedia" part of "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" seriously - you got a user who has been indef banned on another Wikipedia project (German Wikipedia) for pushing extremist POV, misrepresenting sources and extensive sock puppeting. After getting banned there he transferred his activities to en-wiki. And he is spamming a source by a Nazi author (that's not a violation of Goodwin's Law - it's an honest to goodness Nazi author we're talking about here) into multiple articles. Is there some reason none of you admins are capable of dealing with this?

Look, I know you guys don't give a shit about content and are only interested in fighting idiotic political Wiki battles and playing insider games and acquiring facebook barnstars but this is exactly the kind of issue that this board is supposed to address. And I understand that you are too lazy to read through a report, click on the diffs and look at it for yourself (and oh my god, it might involve looking up a source or two!!!). But that's not what this site is for. Get your off fucking ass and please somebody deal with this.Volunteer Marek 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last week it was "Wikipedia puts woman writers into a sub-category ghetto" next week (maybe not, maybe it will take a bit longer) it's gonna be "Wikipedia articles are sources to Nazi authors". Have fun with that.Volunteer Marek 03:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That guy is certainly a problem. Maybe people are reluctant to remove him so you can skew it the other way around. 80.132.107.169 (talk) 08:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MyMoloboaccount has asked me as an uninvolved admin to look into this. My response here may be of use/interest to other admins. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, thank you for your comment. I would like to point out that these are definitely sources from Nazi Germany and are not involved in RSN thread you pointed out

• Der Große Brockhaus, 15th edition, Vol. 18, Leipzig 1934
• Der Große Brockhaus. 15th edition, vol. 20, Leipzig 1935

Both are examples of publications used from Nazi Germany by KvE --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass removal of references to soccerdatabase.eu website

• soccerdatabase.eu: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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 • Alexa
• playerhistory.com: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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 • Alexa

Hello. I recently came across an anon editor repeatedly removing references to soccer stats website soccerdatabase.eu with the edit summary "Removed soccerdatabase.eu link. Site is a scam. Please don't add these links". I went to their talk page and suggested that if they had a problem with the site, they take it up with the owners or hosting company rather than disrupting Wikipedia, and also directing them to Wikipedia's help pages.[69] They replied that they owned the site playerhistory.com, of which the other site was a ripoff, and they would continue removing links to it.[70]

While I doubt that either site is a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, I don't think mass removal of links to one of them apparently by the owner of the other is a constructive approach to editing Wikipedia articles. Appreciate someone taking a look. Will go and notify anon of this thread. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do is to open a thread at WP:RSN. If the source does prove to be unreliable, but is used numerous times, then it can go into the Mass Cleanup section. Not that we have completed any of the previous Mass Cleanups, but we did make a start on all of them and there was a distinct improvement. I'm sure that WikiProject Football will have useful things to say. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

109.189.235.57 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I am the one removing the links. I have been in contact with Kevin Rutherford at Wikipedia and will continue the talks with him. Just to make a point. Have a look at the domain, it says soccerdatabase.eu, then look at the logos, all says playehistory.com, then look inside the donate button, it says my email haakon@playerhistory.com. send me an email and i'll answer you to proof it. So please stop adding these links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.235.57 (talk • contribs) [reply]

So it does! I suggest we either delete these, or modify them to point to the original site. -- The Anome (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I am aware, the IP is the owner of the defunct website 'playerhistory.com' (he has a registered account, Polarman (talk · contribs) as well) - and 'soccerdatabase.eu' is nothing more than a mirror site. I believe legal action is being taken against 'soccerdatabase.eu' by the owner of 'playerhistory.com'. GiantSnowman 09:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's delete the lot of them. Perhaps replacing them by {{fact}}, if there are no other sources, might be better than outright removal? -- The Anome (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that approach, if it's clear that the site is one we shouldn't be using. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any remaining links to both 'soccerdatabase.eu' and 'playerhistory.com' should be removed, probably easier to get a bot to do it, and then add to Blacklist to prevent them from being re-added by good-faith editors ignorant of the context. GiantSnowman 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, blacklisting them would be best to avoid editors using as a source, much like falling rain should have been, which sadly still hasn't been blacklisted and is even used to reference population data shown to be grossly inaccurate.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld

This probably needs to move to the bot noticeboard so we can sort this out. GiantSnowman 12:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

11:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)109.189.235.57 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Because of this issue i have taken down the original site to sort all security problems, hopefully by the end of summer the original site will be available again. If a bot can remove both playerhistory links (since they are dead anyway) and soccerdatabase.eu links it's highly appreciated. Will this mean removed in all languages? From what i can see there are 151 links to soccerdatabase in French language.[reply]

No, this will apply to English-language Wikipedia only. GiantSnowman 12:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the IP should take the discussion to meta, to see if we can get a global action that matches the enwiki one? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 54#Playerhistory.com and Soccerdatabase.eu. GiantSnowman 18:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#soccerdatabase.eu. GiantSnowman 18:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

109.189.235.57 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Lukeno94, what can i do to take this global?[reply]

Per WP:COPYLINK, we should not be linking to pages on external sites that violate copyright. If most, if not all of an external site is violating copyright, then I would suggest global blacklisting (i.e., on meta) of the whole site (otherwise blacklisting of the individual documents could be considered).

Is it established here that soccerdatabase.eu is a site that we simply should not be linking to because of such issues?

From an initial scan of the database of the last year-and-a-half, there have been many recorded additions (2418 to all wikis) of this site, some editors have added a huge number of them (one has 728 of them; but that is also true for playerhistory.com, added by someone 574 times) - I presume that the data is really useful and that some editors recognised that, unknowingly of any issues (i.e., I can not quickly identify any 'obvious' spammers - the big 'adder' above seems to be a regular on football pages on a foreign (cs) wiki). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A note that a bot to remove all links to playerhistory.com/soccerdatabase.eu on the English Wikipedia is currently pending approval. Theopolisme (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User Erpert Harassing, Ownership, Canvasing and Policy Shopping Issues

User Erpert has continuously harassed me by posting rude comments, false accusations, erroneous warnings and multiple banning threats to me since my first edit, as well as continued to post about me on multiple pages/sections well after I have tried to end our debate and asked him to stop. He has policy-shopped and canvased his attacks all over, in order to justify his inaccurate and poorly-sourced article (one of several articles by him that have been proposed for deletion). He attacks anyone that disagrees with him and tries to own his original articles. This is not the first time that he's had issues with other contributors, or arguments on notice boards, and I've seen him make similar dismissive comments when other editors make changes to his articles.

It started with my corrections of his original article of Vanilla DeVille [71], which has several inaccuracies and is poorly sourced (it has since been deleted by consensus and then reverted to his user pages by his request). As a new contributor and at first unfamiliar with all policies, I admit that my initial corrections included some text that was too promotional and fell under COI. However, instead of working with me on those edits to make the article better, Erpert blanket deleted every change, including non-controversial edits allowed by COI such as grammatical changes, corrections of inaccuracies for BLPs and the addition of more reliable sources. I welcome feedback and thanked Erpert on his talk page for his original comments [72] and tried to correct my edits. Again, instead of assuming good faith and working with me, he accused me of not reading (on the Vanilla DeVille talk page that has since been deleted) and immediately took the matter to COIN (where he spent more time attacking sources and corrected information instead of COI) [73]. My issue was never with the COI portion of his comments (to which I have identified myself, had my identity confirmed, refrained from any further edits, requested feedback from other editors and offered any COI-compliant assistance I can provide). Besides his abrasive attitude and personal attacks, my problem was with his blanket reverts of all edits, including COI-allowed non-controversial edits, as well as his comments about sources when he was using similar sources (or in some cases the same exact sources) that I had cited. If my sources did not work under the guidelines, the same can be said for most of his sources (which was confirmed by comments from other editors in the article deletion discussion) [74].

Even after I addressed the COI issues, he continued to accuse me of breaking a ridiculous amount of policies and refused to admit any problems with his writing, sources or his actions overall. When the COIN discussion did not work to his liking, he took it to the Admin notice board (archived and cannot find reference), and when he didn't get the response he wanted there, he took the issue to the deletion discussion [75] and related talk pages (all well after I addressed the COI issue). After he brought me up again on the deletion discussion, he erroneously warned me again for responding to his comments [76]. I posted my first warning to him for his continued harassment [77], and asked him to stop posting about me, but instead he ignored the warning and threated and accused me again, this time with vandalism [78]. After chatting with other contributors, I decided to let things cool down, and left the discussion alone for a week or two. In that time he has posted accusations and false statements about me in more locations, simply reinstated his inaccurate text, and continues to use my COI as an excuse for his poorly written article. [79] [80] Overall, he has policy shopped and accused me of breaking policy every he could find ( Wikipedia:BOOMERANG ), denied any mistakes or wrong doing, and has continued to threaten me and post warning after warning on my pages. I have never started a conversation about him, but have only responded to his posts about me (I even tried to stay out of the article deletion discussion until he brought me into it).

As for examples of his civility during this situation:

• "Did you even READ the talk page?" (his second comment to me)
• "Sheesh, grow up."
• "...you're going a little crazy."
• "...I'll also have to conclude that maybe you're not mature enough for Wikipedia."
• "It seems more like you strategically added information in the article right near sources that were already there to give the impression that said information came from those sources."
• "...so you're the one that isn't paying attention."

I believe that Erpert has issues with working together with other contributors and despises anyone changing his work. It seems as if he believes that can write whatever he likes wherever he wishes, but anything I or others post is not allowed. I have admitted my fault with COI and have tried to make amends. I would be happy to put this to rest, but honestly don't think he sees any problem with his behavior. I believe that he should stop using me as an excuse for his mistakes, plus he possibly needs a topic ban, not just due to his continued attacks, but also since so many of his related pornography articles have been recommended for deletion. Stewiedv (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, my God; will you knock it off already? Other users have been explaining the same things I have said to you, and to them you say something like, "Okay, thanks for the help." You can't just say it's a problem when I say it. And for the record, just because I simply mention your name somewhere doesn't mean I'm canvassing or forum-shopping; in fact, considering you started this thread over a week after everything else was over, you're the one canvassing. And as for some of the articles I created in the past being deleted, that happened because I created them back when WP:PORNBIO had more lenient rules (for instance, scene-related nominations alone were allowed for performers in the past). I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but this goes far beyond the scope of your wanting to preserve an article about your wife. I understand you wanting to hype up info about her but you're going about it all wrong.
• One more thing: it's interesting that you claim to be a new editor yet you already know how to make such a thorough AIN report. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? Wanna talk about it?} 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you several times to stay away from me and stop using me to justify your mistakes. I dropped everything and stayed away from wiki for a several days to let this all calm down, and in that time you kept posting falsehoods against me (such as "The article seemed to be fine until the subject's husband showed up and added all the COI edits (and he was an obvious SPA because after he was told about it for the last time, he apparently left Wikipedia)" and you continue to try and use my COI as an excuse to revert to your inaccurate and poorly-sourced article. I'm not trying to save the article at all - I'd rather have it deleted than have it full of incorrect and out of date information. You didn't correct any inaccuracies or poor sources, but simply reverted back to your original text, removing some non-COI verifiable facts and sources. Plus, most of your text is based on a 9 year old interview that came from a user-generated message board. It's also not true that your articles were only deleted in the past. You've had several proposed for deletion in the past couple weeks, including one right now for Alyssa Reece. As for learning how to make a thorough AIN report, that was easy: I just read all of the polices you continuously quoted to me without justification ( Wikipedia:BOOMERANG ) and let your actions provide the rest. Stewiedv (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, your comment above about me politely thanking everyone but you proves my point about how you communicate. Of course I thanked the other contributors because they offered legitimate edits and constructive advice without malice. You have only tried to control, intimidate and threaten in your posts. Stewiedv (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's also not true that your articles were only deleted in the past."

• I clearly said "some of the articles I created in the past"...

"I asked you several times to stay away from me and stop using me to justify your mistakes."

• That's what I said to you. (An established user being harassed by a new user is probably pretty rare, but...)

"You have only tried to control, intimidate and threaten in your posts."

I don't recall controlling, intimidating or threating anyone ever, nor do I ever plan to. If that's what you think I am doing, maybe you're a little oversensitive.

Also, I can guarantee you that I will not get anything close to a topic ban. We may have a disagreement, but that doesn't mean I have done anything wrong; in fact, this discussion should signal to you that I am not the only person that had problems with the later version of the article -- and for the record, I didn't necessarily revert to my version of the article; I reverted to the last version before all your COI edits, which just happened to be the version I last edited (and yes, there is a difference). And on your talk page you said I won't leave you alone, well, all I did was mention the COI problem to people in the WikiProject who weren't aware of the discussion. You can't possibly expect me to walk on eggshells and not even make an unnamed referenced to you because you might get offended.

I'm not even going to comment in this discussion anymore because your behavior has gotten very tiresome. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? Wanna talk about it?} 02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you avoid the glaring points against you, but I will respond to your comments in order:

"I clearly said "some of the articles I created in the past"..."

• You are correct, I misread your original statement, but that doesn't change the fact that you have had numerous articles for deletion, that you did nothing to correct them after the standards changed or that this is not your first issue with other contributors.

"That's what I said to you. (An established user being harassed by a new user is probably pretty rare, but...)"

• I will state again, up until this notice, I have never started a conversation about you but simply replied to your posts about me (or other users comments about this situation, which were mostly in response to your notice board and talk page posts). You continuously post about me and falsely accuse me of every violation you can think of so you can use me as a scapegoat for your poor work. I stayed away for almost two weeks while you continued to post about me.

"I don't recall controlling, intimidating or threating anyone ever, nor do I ever plan to. If that's what you think I am doing, maybe you're a little oversensitive."

• You have tried to control this document, as well as others that you created, since the very beginning, including your refusal to keep a single source or non-COI edit I provided, even when they validated your work. You have tried to threaten and intimidate with multiple bogus warnings, false accusations of breaking every policy that you could find, threats of banning and posts to multiple notice boards and talk pages. You can call me oversensitive if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the facts.

"Also, I can guarantee you that I will not get anything close to a topic ban. We may have a disagreement, but that doesn't mean I have done anything wrong; in fact, this discussion should signal to you that I am not the only person that had problems with the later version of the article -- and for the record, I didn't necessarily revert to my version of the article; I reverted to the last version before all your COI edits, which just happened to be the version I last edited (and yes, there is a difference). And on your talk page you said I won't leave you alone, well, all I did was mention the COI problem to people in the WikiProject who weren't aware of the discussion. You can't possibly expect me to walk on eggshells and not even make an unnamed referenced to you because you might get offended."

• Once again, you're acting like you're an admin. I don't know what the decision will be, but you will not be the one that makes it. True, there were several people that have issues with the article, and some of it were promotional changes that I made (remember, I stopped editing the article once I became aware of the COI issues, which was several weeks ago and before it went to COIN). However, many of the contributors in the discussions also had problems (and still do), with your portions of the article including grammar, facts and sourcing. Bottom line, COI was not the only issue with that document, but instead of trying to work things out and correct it, you hide behind COI and finger point. Plus, there is no difference between reverting to the last version before mine or your version of the article since you were the one that created the original text and were the only major editor prior to my changes. As for you "walking on eggshells" or "mentioning the COI problem to the people...", you seem to be trying to justify your actions. I wouldn't have had a problem If you had said "there were COI and promotional issues with the document", but you didn't. Instead, after I tried to leave the disagreement and asked you to leave me out of it, you said "The article seemed to be fine until the subject's husband showed up and added all the COI edits (and he was an obvious SPA because after he was told about it for the last time, he apparently left Wikipedia)". That doesn't sound like someone trying to stay out of a disagreement to me, but more accusations. Plus, everyone here can read the revisions and history of every page without your assistance.

"I'm not even going to comment in this discussion anymore because your behavior has gotten very tiresome."

• I agree that this has gotten very tiresome, but it is your behavior that is the problem. I hope you stop commenting about this, but unfortunately, you've said the same thing in the past, but some how you keep posting about me on more and more pages. None of this changes the fact that your writings are inaccurate, or that you've been harassing me and trying to use me as an excuse for your edits and actions. Stewiedv (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I referred Stewiedv to OTRS from the COIN dispute. Stewiedv has been confirmed as seen on the editors talk page. The experience of the editor does not matter anymore; Stewiedv is who he claims to be. Whatever the reason for the experience is moot. Moving on, Bbth of you are emotionally involved and need to step back and breathe. The issue as I mentioned before should go to the WP:BLPN and it will be out of BOTH your hands as to what happens. Stewiedv should explain the factual errors clearly, for the intention is for good. Does anyone else remember the Phillip Roth matter? While WP:ABOUTSELF covers self-disclosed material, if there is some evidence to the contrary we should be open about addressing it. No more fighting, Stewiedv should be allowed to be heard and raise the objections. The community (not just Erpert) will decide whether or not to act on those issues in accordance with policy. Okay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ChrisGualtieri for your input. I will review the BLPN board and procedures as you have suggested and respond accordingly. Stewiedv (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, I have requested assistance with the article on the BLPN board. [81] While it doesn't address Erpert's inappropriate behavior, I hope it will help end the situation with the document itself. Stewiedv (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Will any admin please do something to get this user to leave me alone? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? Wanna talk about it?} 07:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you repeatedly over the past several weeks to leave me alone and stop posting about me all over the place (hence the harassment notice above), yet you continue to do so. Even in the article discussion, you couldn't keep the conversation about the document, but again made it personal by attacking and bringing our argument into it. I have never posted in any of your other articles or in discussions outside the ones you started about me. I stepped away from our disagreement and took a break from wiki as a whole, but you still kept posting about it. For the last time, if you want me to stop replying to defend myself from your personal attacks, STOP POSTING ABOUT ME. Stewiedv (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:68.231.15.56

This is an extreme case at this stage. See here. I think "yesterday" would have been adequate. The user is engaged in long-term harassment, the merciless hounding of others for no apparent reason, typically involving the use of "puppet" in edit summaries to attack other editors, constantly reverting for the most pedantic of reasons. The deception, disruption and violation of community standards and policies as referred to in PUPPET actually describes their own conduct rather well. When told to stop they delete responses and warnings, shout, throw strops, call others liars, etc - it's completely ridiculous what they're allowed to get away with. Just look at the talk page - calling people vandals who aren't, advice to read CIVIL, completed with "Given the way you interact with others and the snide remarks you've made in your edit summaries, sooner or later, someone is going to take issue with it." Well I am. This person has only recently been reported. At that stage they were referred to NPA, to AGF, told about dynamic IPs, and to "Stop your personal attacks, or you risk being blocked by an admin." Well they've continued as before, as they've been doing all along. They were blocked for this in January. I can see no way of way of dealing with this person. To make matters worse they are an IP themselves, and make a complete mockery of HUMAN and give the rest of us a bad name. Quite frankly I would not want to meet them in the street. I certainly have no desire to contribute any further while they continue as they are. --86.40.192.203 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the user above is a sockpuppet vandal whom endlessly changes his IP to avoid ban - this is as opposed to my own IP which I have used for over 5,000 edits - that he came over here to complain only proves that he will attempt to decieve endlessly - in 2 days from now his IP will vanish again and a new vandal IP will be created - thus 86.40.192.203 is just a ghost that wont exist in 2 days--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

his sentence above "the merciless hounding of others for no apparent reason" is at best laughable since he is the main vandal i see each day changing his IP each day to avoid ban - and "apparent reason" is he continues to vandalise wiki which he well knows he is doing--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i like the laugh above how he says that "another?" user previously "quote - unquote" reported me as a bad user when it was 86.40.107.69 which traceroutes to the same guy = prove of sockpuppetry since he has made a statement that he is someone different but is just trying to create subterfuge of his real IP address--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i see above that the bad user sockpuppet as tells of an incident where i go banned - it is true - another sockpuppet used multiple account IP's to create a war that an admin falsely believed - meanwhile that puppet continued to vandalize wiki will i was banned--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and again i ask if you 86.40.192.203 - are you not all of these different puppets that traceroute to the same location

86.40.111.203
80.116.73.145
86.40.194.82
86.40.107.69

--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-admin comment: interesting how an IP doesn't realize another user may well be a dynamic IP... and from the evidence shown here, that seems to be the case. Also, didn't we have an IP on here a couple of weeks back, with the same modus operandi of calling another IP a sockpuppeter without any evidence whatsoever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no we are the two from before - he came on here and tried to get me banned before - if you look back you will see that he says repeatedly that he IS NOT THE OTHER IPS that i listed thus it is not that he is a dynamic Ip that HE is saying - and yet i say it is a dynamic IP as a means of sockpuppetry - the this same dynamic Ip repeatedly vandalizes wiki and yet if you ask him if he is all those other IPs he says no he is not - yet they all trace to the same location--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never seen anywhere any evidence of inappropriate conduct of the IP you say is "repeatedly" vandalizing Wikipedia. In fact, at least on this current IP, I can see some very good contributions. You, however, constantly make baseless allegations, some of which are ludicrous. Read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and stop making frivolous accusations against people here without evidence, backed up by diffs. People don't usually choose to have dynamic IPs, so bear that in mind. To the OP of this thread: I suggest you get an account, as it'll keep all your contributions in one place, and will stop this IP from being able to accuse you of socking without any evidence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just reverted some outing here - revealing of personal information - try it again and you will be blocked immediately. GiantSnowman 09:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, it's me again. I've been compelled once more to respond to the most sickening of slurs this person can come up with. I see I have a different number now again so I suppose that's another crime. Well I haven't asked for that and don't know how to stop it. The place where I edit doesn't leave the computers on all night - that might have something to do with it. That and the likelihood of others using the same IPs. If I'm obliged to have an account you can remove "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" claim from your home page - sometimes it is not easy to have accounts and passwords for every website, what with everything going on around me. If it has to be that difficult I just won't bother. I also won't bother if this IP continues to fire these outrageous remarks at me about things I know nothing about and cannot have done. I have never been banned unless I've completely lost my memory. I don't go around deliberately provoking others. I don't make wild accusations or call others "liar", "vandal", "puppet", "ghost", the list just goes on and on. Sometimes I think it's possible I might be wrong - this person doesn't, they're always right. I have even had the decency to refer to them as "they" since, unlike them, I am not certain I am dealing with a male editor. And for what I hope is the last time - though it is like whispering into a gale force storm and expecting to be heard - I am not all the above. How can I be? I've checked one of them at random and it isn't even in the same country. I can't even see anything obviously "bad" in any of them. As for outing, quite a new low, but it sounds just like what this person would do so can't say I'm surprised. If it involved name and date of birth as they claim here I don't know who they've outed because I don't distribute these details and can't recall ever having done so. If I wanted Facebook I would have gone to Facebook. It is interesting that the user thinks they know all about sockpuppetry (when the evidence suggests they don't), yet claim in that same edit to another user to never have heard of outing. This is worrying, sad, dangerous, discouraging and sets off so many alarms regarding my ability to be an able contributor to Wikipedia, particularly as so much of what they do is so hostile to others. This is a clear case of an IP who, for some incomprehensible reason, wants to OWN various sections of Wikipedia, including Portal:Current events, and is prepared to scream murder until they've seen off any rival, either by scaring them away or having them banned. Either way this is bad for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not NOTBATTLEGROUND. How many more policies is this person going to be allowed to flout? --86.40.105.31 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, that's a lot of words. At any rate, I have warned the other (static) IP: this has gone on for long enough and it's silly, disruptive, and insulting. Any next violation (I specified sock accusations and false claims of vandalism, but other violations may be added to the list) is sufficient reason for a block, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, one of the better solutions for this is for the 86 IP to get an account, as I stated earlier, to remove any chance of these socking allegations having any weight. I still don't understand why an IP user would attack another IP like this, it's quite ironic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Guy_Macon

I have some problems with Guy_Macon. I want my talk page edit back: [82] that he reverted before. I need my very long talk on WikiProject Electronics addressable with sub-sections. I don't want to start an edit-war.

He is also watching my edits [83][84] in which i tried to de-escalate the situation with an administrator. He done the there proposed edits partly himself, which is no problem, but reverted my trials to write a neutral call for a discussion. [85][86] I hope i get support.

He is also not stopping to accusing me [87] [88], although i tried to de-escalate the situation.

Please help. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Toddst1 has already told you that his edits seemed fine, and now it looks like you are shopping this here. I don't see anything actionable in Guy's edits, what exactly are you claiming and what relief specifically are you asking for? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, what wrong with that, [89], and the neutral calls: [90][91], which were ok by User:Toddst1, can i re-revert all three?

No. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to ask you again: i read it and found nothing, but related to my first link: "Create subsections if helpful"[92], to both of the second, why should i not change it?Tagremover (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Subsections' might be helpful. New 'sections' for a single topic aren't. It is a normal talk page convention to keep discussions of a single topic in a single section, and your way will confuse people. Also, because of the way archiving works, you are liable to end up with some sections being archived before others, which will be even more confusing. As for not changing other people's comments, there are very few reasons to ever do this - and if someone objects, you should never make the same change again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This are subsections. [93] It is mostly that discussions are in a single section, but long edits have and are structured. Subsections are archived separately? I never noticed that in many years!

Subsections here make sense, the edit is very long. And he reverted my text, too. Tagremover (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told that no action is going to be taken against Guy Macon. I suggest that rather than arguing about talk page formatting, you concentrate on the actual issue being discussed on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon's behavior isn't good:

[94] Using a project page to call out an edit on user's talk page.

[95] Reference to one of least observed "policies" around here (use of preview button.) Many editors do serial editing, just looks like a "add-on" thing to complain about.

[96] Reposting a section on a user's talk page after then removed it.

[97] A totally lame pointless edit -- fighting over {'''Reply'' or ===Reply===} with misleading edit summary: Corrected improper use of section headers per WP:TPOC. Section headers must be neutral, descriptive, and are not to be used for editorializing or soapboxing

[98] Edit warring to keep editor's name in a link to a discussion which should be about content.

Chutzpah: [99] NE Ent 11:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An error in judgement to presume that someone else's talk page was a sensibly place to permalink a discussion, but none of the rest of those are particularly troublesome. In particular, editing others' comments to remove one's own user name from them is pretty much always inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, In some cases politely asking someone to use the preview button can be a perfectly reasonable request. Take a look at this (make sure you scroll down - there is a lot of it) and tell me if you find it easy to figure out find where a particular edit was made. This user recently got a barnstar for being "among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month". I think I might know why... --Guy Macon (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases it is. This one, not so much. (wp-this and wp-that and wp-whatever ... and Didn't use the preview button!!!). Why would an editor getting a barnstar for editing be a bad thing or affect anyone else in any way? NE Ent 03:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Even using the preview button, it's very easy to miss mistakes you've made (speaking as someone who is often guilty of that, and often spots them after posting) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that happens to most of us, but most of us don't make 140 out of the last 146 edits to a page, and most of us don't hit the save button two or three times in less than a minute. At what point does it go beyond correcting mistakes and into saving multiple times to artificially inflate your edit count and let you put up another badge on your talk page for making lots of edits? I certainly wouldn't report it or expect any sanctions over it, but telling me that I am out of line for asking the user to preview more and save less seems a bit much. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of User:Cresix

User:ChrisGualtieri

Aries no Mur

Aries no Mur (talk · contribs): Columbus origin theories + Croats[100]. Can someone please remind me, is this Brunodam or Velebit territory? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really in the right place for asking questions, you should try the reference desk. --Cameron11598(Converse) 01:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol? I think what he meant is that this user is probably a sock, just not sure who of. —Soap— 02:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Just another reason I should never comment on anything... ever. *Head Desk*--Cameron11598 (Converse) 17:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke ? Brunodam or Velebit ? I'm not this person. I am a teacher in Rome. [101] (my name [102]) I simply expressed my point of view. This is a crime? I repeat. I do not know these two users... I do not know these two users.... I do not know these two users. I just wrote a comment. My first comment on the ""Croats"". I didn't do anything wrong. I am innocent. I wish you all a good day at work. My Apologies If I've "Offended" Anyone... --Aries no Mur (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how the sole diff posted here is actionable in any way. Paranoia afflicting an admin on the other hand... 5.12.68.204 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term harrassment by User:Unscintillating

Unscintillating has been intermittently hassling me for the last two years and I want it to stop. He has apparently held a grudge against me ever since I reverted his edits of a long-closed AfD discussion, and has been trying to stir up trouble for me ever since. His latest tactic is to edit war over links to an essay that I have contributed to, not because he actually objects to its contents (he has flip-flopped repeatedly regarding his pretext), but because he imagines it annoys me. He's been asked to stop edit warring, but is still at it- this time he apparently thinks that stating his opinion on one page gives him consensus to do what he likes on another.

Unscintillating will frequently "flag" my edits and comments as being somehow inappropriate:

• application of a really petty home-brewed template. Edit wars to keep it there. Later the template is deleted amid much laughter as being grossly inappropriate.
• [103]- Let's play "hunt the adjective"
• [104]- takes great umbrage to my edit summary. His response when I object boils down to, essentially "I was talking about you, not to you".
• [105]- more obsessing over my edit summaries
• non-sequitur, and more flogging of the old "undermining or sabotage" WP:DEADHORSE

Not content to merely hassle me, he needs to nag and nag others to take action against me- which they never see as called for:

• Here Unscintillating complains about what another editor has posted to my talk, then complains about the way I archive my talk page. Nobody decides that but me. Then he flogs the old "banning policy" deadhorse again, gets told he's wrong, pretends to have asked a different question.
• On SarekOfVulcan's talkpage: "I want a third opinion!" "I want a third opinion!" "I want a third opinion!" "I don't like that third opinion!" "I still don't like it!"
• Lengthy discussion on EdJohnston's talkpage where Unscintillating dobs me in over discussions that involved neither him nor EdJohnston. This shows that Unscintillating follows my edits looking for things to object to. EJ repeatedly informs Unscintillating that there's nothing actionable in any of my conduct (even though EJ dislikes my forthright language), and Unscintillating steadfastly refuses to accept that.

I have repeatedly asked Unscintillating to stop following me around trying to pick fights with me. I am just not interested, but he refuses to leave me alone. I request that Unscintillating be topic banned from talking to or about me, and from commenting on WP:MUSTBESOURCES, broadly construed. Nothing useful has ever come out of his input on any of these matters. For my part, I will accept the current status quo regarding links to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and will voluntarily refrain from talking to or about Unscintillating. Since I do not follow him around from place to place like he does to me, this is not an issue for me at all. Reyk _YO! 04:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's about time to consider broader sanctions on Unscintillating. This is 2013, and I thought we'd left behind the sort of disruption present on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global James Bond Day after the majority of ARS's celebrities got themselves banned. This is about far more than his interaction with one particular editor. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite familiar with you two going back and forth at each other. And I do wish it would stop. A mutual interaction ban might be wise, but I suspect it will just end up in one or both of you being banned as you can't seem to be able to stay away from each other. In any case, the diff's you've picked are really horrible for making the point you are trying to make.

• • [106] is his response to your personal attacks (sense of entitlement, bluster, etc.) I feel you come off worse than he does there. No doubt your personal attacks were justified by something else, just as his response to your personal attacks were inappropriate. But really, this isn't you with clean hands.
  • [107] Your comments are boarderline personal attacks. Your edit summary is inappropriate. Neither probably sanctionable. He highlights your use of "bullshit" in your edit summary ("endorse close, and denounce bullshit personal comments"). Both of you are being uncivil, I'd say you more than he but it's close.

Those are the only two I took the time to look at, but really, these aren't great diffs to make a claim of harassment. You seem to be dishing it out as much or more than he. Admittedly I tend to agree with him more than you and that certainly colors my opinion (were I an admin, I'd take no action in a case like this). But at the least I see two people with a toxic relationship going at it rather than one-way harassment. Hobit (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • You're entitled to your view regarding my strong language, and your description of the situation as "toxic" is completely accurate. But the point you're missing is that Unscintillating actively seeks me out, while I try to avoid him. I have attempted many times to withdraw from interaction with him, but he just won't have it. Reyk _YO! 23:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Taken individually most of that is just everyday unactionable incivility but taken as a whole there's a rather unpleasant pattern that rises to harassment or at the very least unreasonable hounding. I'd say Unscintillating needs a polite but firm warning that ANYTHING further on their part against Reyk will result in increasingly long blocks. At some point enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• My anonymous-coward opinion of Unscintillating--after some years of seeing him around the wiki--is that he is likely a returning user who was likely banned, sanctioned in some other way, or at least "left under a cloud" in their previous incarnation. A lot of his doings look like hounding and stalking to me, and not just against Reyk. One of the reasons I've not bothered with an account (or edited much) for a lengthy period of time is people like him being an increasing proportion of wiki editors in the latter years of Wikipedia. --AC 5.12.68.204 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reyk is a deletionist while Unscintillating is an inclusionist. When you analyse their interactions systematically, they seem to be just as one would expect - AFDs, associated noticeboards and policy pages. They seem to be struggling for control of the amusingly ironical arguments to avoid but this is Wikipedia and, per WP:LAME and WP:LIGHTBULB, such behaviour is to be expected. A change of scene might do them both good. As this is a storm in a teacup, perhaps a spell in the teahouse for a nice cup of tea and a sit down ... Warden (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure whether you're agreeing with me or not. I've already made it clear that I do not want strife and argument, by accepting the current status quo on WP:MUSTBESOURCES and links thereto, and voluntarily avoiding Unscintillating. I'm not sure what more can be demanded of me. Unfortunately, Unscintillating refuses to leave me alone; he enjoys needling me. I want to edit the encyclopedia in peace without him turning up every month or so to pick a fight over some abstruse point of order that exists only in his own mind, or badmouthing me to some admin behind my back. Unscintillating will never voluntarily agree to leave me alone, so here we are. Reyk _YO! 09:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The current "incident", and, as confirmed by Reyk saying he wants the "current status quo on WP:MUSTBESOURCES", the reason Reyk is here begins with an edit by JamesBWatson in April 2011. The history of this issue is listed at WT:ATA#History of TMBS. While consensus was against adding this material, a few editors were not convinced, and on 1 May 2011 I set up a discussion structure that would allow a more thorough discussion. On 2 May 2011, unable or unwilling to participate in the discussion, Reyk created an essay that was a content fork of the deleted material. Occasionally over time, editors have confused this essay with policy/guideline based arguments, such as the IP editor at Template:Arguments. I later removed this link, but Reyk argues in effect that since the link sat unnoticed for over a year, there is consensus to have the link there, and that no discussion is needed. [108] shows that in the most recent edit Reyk reverted me without an edit comment and marked the edit as "minor" meaning that he marks my edit as vandalism. Both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:Edit warring say that discussion is required. I took the revert to WP:AN3, but the case was closed saying that the discussion belonged elsewhere. Unscintillating (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalist edits

Webvip (talk · contribs), previously suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Acadēmica Orientālis has come to my attention recently for a couple of edits performed on Okinawa Prefecture and Ryukyu Islands. He added a sentence to each article with this as the citation with the claim that sovereignty over the islands is questioned ([109] [110]). I reverted on Ryukyu Islands yesterday, as his commentary was most definitely not supported by the text, and then I wrote a more accurate statement based on the news article. Today, after breaking the link to add the Chinese name of the disputed islands group to the article, he once again warped the text to a more nationalist view, which I reverted, and then also removed the article when it had been added to the Okinawa Prefecture page. It would seem that Webvip's edits have been problematic when he first began editing, but now he has been solely editing to bring this dispute between China and Japan onto the articles about Japan where they had not been prior.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're in luck -- he is not a subtle POV pusher but is kind of blatant, and can't be bothered to even find sources for his claims. He needs to refrain from further behavior like that. Shii (tock) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of my remarks

Legal threats (I think)

User:Mediolanum posted a legal threat on the talk page of Potential superpowers. I removed it and warned the editor about WP:NLT. Today he has posted what appears to be another legal threat on my talk page. Although the english is so broken it is difficult to tell. Would an admin please remind this editor of WP:NLT. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a credible legal threat. The only issue here is whether or not to delete all the trolling on the thread in question. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility is not the criteria here. This is a clear attempt by the user in question to change the behavior of other Wikipedia users to his own liking by threatening to use legal action. Absolutely within the letter and spirit of WP:NLT, and I will be blocking presently. --Jayron32 15:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not a legal threat, and not even chilling if it's illegible. Reporting to the postal police? Editor certainly needs education, but a block would be overkill (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe it was meant to be a legal threat; in Italy, the polizia postale (postal police) is tasked with, among other things, investigating all crimes committed using a computer – and this guy's "direct offending" was probably "injury". Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP Special:Contributions/108.16.141.114

Wrongful Blocking By Administrator

User:4WhatMakesSense is trolling

User:1UPRep

Autismal at Talk:Bloomex

Autismal (talk · contribs) insists upon keeping this talk page comment, which IMO is intentionally trolling as the proprieter of Bloomex is purported to have edited this page and is presumably a watcher as well. I have warned Autismal [111] but apparently that did not work. On a side note, I'm glad to see that I've joined the cabal of corrupt malicious editors scratching each other's back and I'm apparently about to fuck off. Would an admin kindly warn him that this behavior is not appropriate? little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autismal's behavior with repect to Bloomex and you is just the tip of the iceberg. They have 300 edits, of which a whopping 193 are to article talk pages. Their edits of those talk pages are egregious violations of guidelines and policy, including a continuing theme of anti-semitism, or at least preoccupation with Jews. I have just gone through removing a great deal of material from the talk pages edited by Autismal. As far as I can tell, they have made either no or almost no constructive contributions to Wikipedia since first editing last year. I have indeffed them (they have had plenty of warnings on their talk page, all of which they have removed).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection on Mau Mau article (second request)

Hello, back again. I have an IP address who just won't give up. None of his claims ever have sources. We've now got him trying to insert Jomo Kenyatta into the infobox as a leader of the anti-Mau Mau effort, a suggestion so absurd the IP should be embarrassed. The British had him in jail as a leader of Mau Mau!! See the Kapenguria Six ("I would submit that it is the most childishly weak case made against any man in any important trial in the history of the British Empire"), and this jail-time was despite British intelligence making clear Kenyatta was not involved with Mau Mau in any way, a fact advertised in a quote box (see the quote of MI5's Percy Sillitoe). Reverting his source-free raving is now very wearisome, and this IP address does not give up. I've had her/him trying to claim that Black-majority rule was guaranteed in Kenya before the Mau Mau Uprising—you ask for a source, nothing is presented, and the IP has repeatedly tried deleting sourced material that argues the contrary. The IP is such a transparent pro-British Empire POV-pusher it is embarrassing. The article is contentious, it has a litany of vandalism, please can some kind soul help me out? Thanks for your time. LudicrousTripe (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear case of outing

Sheerly disruptive IP

99.129.112.89 (talk · contribs) has developed a reputation recently for abusiveness and troublemaking. It was blocked for 4 days on May 5. Shortly after that blocked ended, and despite pretending to be retired, it acquired a second block, this one for a week. Through its abusiveness, the IP has had its talk page access revoked. However, as one the editors being targeted by the IP, I think that the block should be extended, due to the grossly inappropriate name-calling. Furthermore, as the IP has claimed to have other accounts, including at least one with administrator privileges, I believe that this matter bears further investigating. AutomaticStrikeout ! C Sign AAPT 00:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were already blocked (full disclosure: by me) due to the grossly inappropriate name calling. You can probably dismiss out of hand any claims of having at least one admin account. The IP is currently blocked, and will be blocked again if there is more vandalism when the block expires. This does not appear to be a long term vandal (on the contrary). It's possible s/he will return to constructive editing, as the block message invites them to do. Of course it's possible they won't, but this seems like a judgment better made further down the line after the passage of time and the expiry of the block. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persistant copyvios by Bilaljshahid

An anonymous IP added the text:

• "makes sense for a country with limited nuclear resources and limited capability to fight a conventional war against a larger adversary not to renounce the option to use nuclear weapons first." to the Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction.

This text is clearly a WP:COPYVIO of:

• "makes sense for a country with limited nuclear resources and limited capability to fight a conventional war against a larger adversary not to renounce the option to use nuclear weapons first."

I removed the text with the explanation that it was a copyvio, but Bilaljshahid (talk · contribs) (who presumably is the user behind the IP) returned shortly thereafter and has been persistently restoring the content. By blindly reverting, the user is also changing the text of an unrelated quotation in the article, making it disagree with the linked source. I've tried to explain to the user why this content can't remain ([112] [113]) but the user insists that it isn't a copyvio. Perhaps some admin can try to emphasize to Bilaljshahid why this content can't remain in the article (and why quotations must faithfully represent what the source actually said)? TDL (talk) 04:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm an English teacher by day; I'm off the clock and Jimbo is not paying me nearly enough to explain at length. I left them a brief note after reverting; perhaps you all can explain further. Remember, admins aren't supposed to know anything about content. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First it is claimed that the edit is copyrighted material and then you said "Direct quotes need to properly attributed, and changing direct quotes is unacceptable." The edit is a one sentence, exact quote and is linked directly to the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilaljshahid (talk • contribs)

• I vetted the source for the Feroz Khan quotation that Bilaljshahid is editing. It was correct before the edit; the changes altered the text so it no longer agreed with the source. —C.Fred (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As for the text added to the article, it borrowed 31 words verbatim from a Daily Times news story without indicating the material as a direct quotation. —C.Fred (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I assume that the changes to the Feroz Khan quotation are just a result of Bilaljshahid getting carried away with mashing the "undo" button. When I first reverted the addition of the plagiarised text, I simultaneously synced the quote with the source. Since then, Bilaljshahid has just been undoing that edit, so they might not be intending to make that change.

Bilaljshahid, I'm willing to try to explain the issues to you on the talk page, and help you restructure the sentence so that it gives proper attribution to the source, but you need to promise to stop reverting and start listening. Plagiarism is a very serious problem, so first and foremost it needs to be removed from the encyclopedia, then we can discuss what the problem is and how to fix it. TDL (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The source of the quote is the article published on dailytimes.com.pk by the author. There are no changes made to the quote. The author is atributed in the text added to the wiki and the article on dailytimes.com.pk is listed as a ref.
• This is the edit: "Taking part in debating the doctrine, Pakistani political scientist, <<author-name>> countered that the first use option <<31 word direct quote from the article>>." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilaljshahid (talk • contribs) 06:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's precisely the problem Bilaljshahid. There are two separate issues with your edit that you are mixing up:

• 1) If you don't use quotation marks to indicate that you've copied someone else's work word-for-word, then your aren't giving proper attribution to the original source. You either need to write it in your own words (ie paraphrase what the source says), or put any words that you've copy-and-pasted into quotations. If you don't use quotation marks, then you are claiming the work as your own, which is a copyvio.
• 2) In your reverts, you kept changing the text of the quote attributed to Feroz Khan. The source claims that he said one thing, but you changed it to claim that he said something else. As per WP:MOSQUOTE: "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." You can't just change the text of a quote if the person never actually said the words that you are attempting to put in their mouth. TDL (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

‎User:Matthewisaboss

Persistent (four times) recreation of Playtime Is Over (mixtape)‎ which was AfDed as redirect. The talk page discussion only became possible when I protected the redirect and did not bring anything. When the protection expired, the user continued recreating. We probably need salting and/or some personal measures.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have indef full-protected. If it ever meets notability, that can be reversed. I have reminded Matthew of his obligations regarding the rules he agreed to, and watchlisted his talkpage (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, it certainly should be sufficient at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing edit warring and ignorance of discussions. by 94.9.98.107/2.120.46.143

I would like to formally complain about 94.9.98.107 for modifying the above discussion. 94.9.98.107 is demonstrating their disruptive nature and ignorance of Wikipeida procedure by editing the above discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

duck sock blocking and cleansing required

宇喜多家光 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) We have a duck sock of the vandal obsessed with that article and some edit summaries that need to be blanked. thanks-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the user has been blocked, thanks materialscientist! If this edit summary [115] could be scrub, this incident can be closed.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done (I hope - don't use that very often). Peridon (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suicide threat

Constantly being reverted by article owner

I uploaded an image for the Chloë Grace Moretz infobox photographed this year, and was instantly reverted by Oz Steps for this reason: "Photo changes should be dicussed first on the talk". I understand this situation on, maybe, a featured article, but on a C-class article, where the lead image was already heavily damaged by oversharpening and is not that flattering of an image, I see no problem in doing what most editors do on Wikipedia: improve the article, move the article forward, keep it updated. He did start a discussion on the talk page, which is great: but my image should have remained in the infobox which would have helped (possibly) draw people to the discussion on which image is more suited as lead image. There is absolutely no rush in removing my image since it doesn't break any BLP protocol. I responded to the discussion on the talk page and waited a day. No one else participated in the discussion; so I re-added my image to the lead, someone else came along and moved images around which goes to show (to me, at any rate) that the lead image was not problematic and not even worthy of discussing on the talk page as controversial. Oz Steps returns today and reverts my edit. Ok, if I was vandalizing a page, then I would understand this constant harassment. Why am I using that word? Because this is not the first time. In the last example, I took my allowances of up to two reverts (I was not going to push three). But this user is hindering my editing; it's crampin' my style. I want it to stop and I am now convinced that a third image I am waiting to upload would be reverted yet again by Oz Steps. So I'm simply not going to add it at this time. Please note that on Oz Steps's talk page, User_talk:Oz_Steps#Dakota, a user named User:Mareklug basically agreed that Oz Steps is owning articles. I have no idea what to do; I'm coming here for advice. Both Oz Steps and Mareklug will be notified of this discussion (Mareklug only because he or she was mentioned; they do not need to participate in this discussion). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mareklug is a happy he, as in Marek Lugowski. :) I confirm and reaffirm what talk:Keraunoscopia is complaining about. Furthermore, I had exactly this run-in with Oz Steps on Liv Tyler, see talk:Liv Tyler#New Image for more substantive assessment; I care not to repeat myself. Naturally, I, too, will notify Oz Steps of this discussion independently of Keraunoscopia's notification, to fulfill notification requirements. --Mareklug ^talk 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly seems endemic with the user, who I note does this so often that he frequently copy-pastes his revert summary ("Undid revision 552671906 by XXXX (talk), This picture since YYYY, please, do not change infobox image, before opening a discuss on talk page"). I'm also, well, sceptical regarding the babelbox on Oz Steps's user page where he claims to be a native English speaker right across from an assertion that he frequently "retrieves vandalism" from pages. This is well-intentioned, but he really shouldn't ever be re-reverting after someone has engaged him on the talk page. I'll wait to see if he responds here; otherwise I'll leave him a note to that effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I only brought up two examples (or "run-ins") in my opening discussion, but this has happened three times—I'm including this so to prove I'm not jumping the gun too much. The very first time, on 22 April, was on Rachel McAdams's article here. This time, I was the one who started the discussion on the talk page and someone even spoke up saying the newer image should be in the infobox, but I didn't know Oz Steps at the time or his habitual pattern. The McAdams article is GA and I was very willing to back-down in this case. I noticed his userbox about being a native speaker of English and it's more than obvious this is not the case, but I didn't think it important to mention. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from some talk page edits, it seems as if the vast majority of this user's edits are reverts. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I'm sorry for what happened here, My interests here in Wikipedia, Is the appearance images Infobox in article, I am not alone in doing for this, there are many users do this. Like what is written here next to the picture, Written: DO NOT CHANGE IMAGE WITHOUT A WP:CONSENSUS ON THE TALK PAGE; POLICY FORBIDS CHANGING IT WITHOUT ONE.

And My interests also retrieve vandalism in article, There are a lot of anonymous users, they are vandalism in article, such as what happened here. And I've retrieves it. Thank you for this talk. I'm sorry again. --Oz Steps (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)Oz Steps to the best of my knowledge there is no policy that mandates consensus prior to replacing/updating an image or information in an article see Be Bold and WP:DRNC (while not a policy it is a great essay in the subject) --Cameron11598 (Converse) 02:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This no policy, was used from others users, before I register in Wikipedia. Well then, I'll just add free image from Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia. Thank you for this information. --Oz Steps (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was added rather recently, in fact. Total fabrication of "policy", apparently meant to scare off younger editors who wouldn't know any better; and in this case, the misinformation spread. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oz steps assistance is often useful. [116] Even necessary with photo issues caused by IPs. [117] Though other edits do not make sense, like this one which removed her father from the parents section of the infobox. [118] Which is correct and was cited and this removal was done by manual editing. This photo matter is a concern. Even bad pictures were replaced with likely more controversial ones as seen here. Or this matter. [119] Though this all caps attempt to control the images are not alone as the same text was inserted at Dwayne Johnson page. [120] But I think a pressing concern to inform the user of proper vandalism reverts are necessary as it took 3 edits to undo this simple mess. [121] [122] [123] Even personally re-adding vandalism back in before undoing the rest of the changes. First undo, second. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if it is consensus across the WP:BLP space, but it is certainly common practice that new images must be discussed before changing them in the infobox. It is fine to add images elsewhere in the article, but the infobox demands a consistency and high quality that can only be maintained if people are courteous enough to establish consensus for a new image before it is changed. The old image represents existing consensus. A revert shows that you do not have consensus. Per WP:BRD then you are bound to bring up your issue on the talk page thereafter and establish that you have a right to your revision. This demand for discussion is simply a courteous way to head off WP:BRD's need for a B-R cycle first. What I see in my work on BLPs is that frequently a redlinked or IP user will come in and change the image to one that is either a blatant copyvio, or very poor quality, or both, or even some kind of malformed link to a random web image, and they get reverted. Sometimes, the submitter is a regular, who has taken the image legitimately, and wants the vanity points of having "HIS" image in the infobox. It may be good quality or it may not. It seems that courtesy of an advance discussion would enable other users to evaluate the image for copyright status, quality, and appropriateness for the infobox. If this procedure is not already consensus, then it should be. But we should not be having this conversation here, because it is essentially a content dispute. Perhaps it is time to bring it up on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard or something, for a centralized discussion to build consensus. Elizium23 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entirely welcome to bring up this topic as a general discussion on the BLP/Notceboard, but please don't hijack this thread: We are here to gently though firmly influence the user in question to cease owning infobox pictures in every article he touches, especially in the name of chucking the best ones we have for the latest ones chronologically. Failing that, we are here to have him blocked indefinitely as a disruptive editor. Yes, it is that serious, and there is no improvement as of this writing. --Mareklug ^talk 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Side question. Oz says xhe "retrieves vandalism". Does that mean xhe "rescues vandalism", or, as I suspect, "reverts vandalism".--Auric talk 20:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user is obviously not a native English speaker, and his usage is downright broken English. Yet his babel infobox insists he is en-n. This, too, needs addressing. --Mareklug ^talk 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vague Legal Threat by TheRealJKO

A post to Wikipedia:Help Desk by User:TheRealJKO accuses User:Demiurge1000 of threats and in turn contains a legal threat. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WHY WILL NOBODY DO SOMETHING TO HELP? WHY DO YOU ALLOW THIS ABUSE TO CONTINUE AND KEEP THREATENING THE PERSON BEING ABUSED? WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS SITE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a chill pill dude. What's going on? This is a board where you can discuss this and get a bit of help but SHOUTING will only harm you. If you have made a legal threat as per WP:NLT please withdraw it and maybe we can solve the issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do something to help Dude. Continuing to insult me isn't helping. I have sent emails to all the places wiki instructs you to send them and while they are being ignored, the threats and insults continue. Pickette has now added defammation. Stop the comments and nobody will feel the need to take any legal action. It's quite simple. And perhaps before jumping in with a sarcastic comment, dude, it would be better if you acquainted yourself with the facts and then commented. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the problem there is that if you don't discuss it here civilly, it won't get solved. Right now you are on the short side of stick by making a legal threat. You may be riled but nothing in what I said was sarcastic dude. The thread here was created specifically for the legal threat but if there is issue behind it we can tackle that WP:BOOMERANG style. It happens quite a bit, your choice though you can briefly summarize and get helped or in the end be blocked for a legal threat. Only trying to help ya bro. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then go back and read my original posting. Dude. Then read the replies and remarks. Dude. Then when you're educated on my original comment and the post I made, feel free to comment. Dude. Until then, it appears you know nothing about the subject and thus have nothing to contribute. Dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The posting shows you asking what is wrong with the site and the people on it. I was asking for you to give your side. You see the way wikipedia works and especially on this board works is you link the people to the issue you are having. This only benefits you dude, if more people can see the problem you are having without having to play Sherlock Holmes you will have a much better result. If you want the help meet us halfway bro. Like I said your choice but it's clear that you have made a legal threat and unless it is retracted will likely be blocked until that is complete, it's a lot cheaper to take a few minutes and write out what you are saying is defamatory. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify "You see the way wikipedia works and especially on this board works is you link the people to the issue you are having." is literally only because you're newer to the site. Don't take offense cause none is needed but this is a callaboritve process and I can and will help you if take a minute to tell me what's happening. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013#John Kennedy O'Connor as San Marino commentator Heiro 15:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote a really long response, but it did not post. I really don't think I have the energy to write it again. I asked for a debate to be removed. It wasn't. As a result of trying to resolve it, I have been threatened, abused and defamed. I have had enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJKO (talk • contribs) 15:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by that conversation I linked to above, you have not been threatened, abused or defamed. Someone was trying to clarify a reference per our policies on WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFY. You do not get to blank discussion you do not like. And you had better withdraw any and all suggestions of legal action per WP:No legal threats or you will be blocked by an admin until you do or until all legal actions are concluded. This is not a threat, it is policy here. Heiro 16:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not think that what Pickette has written is defamatory and that another user described me as "claiming" to be who I am, then you have misread the situation entirely. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had some involvement via the discussion thread that Heiro has highlighted. From what I gather, User:TheRealJKO deleted an entire thread because they stated the thread was an "insulting debate" against him. The user also states that he is John Kennedy O'Connor, although I'm not disputing whether that fact is true or false. The discussion at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2013, was regarding sources that were vague on whether Mr Kennedy O'Conner was providing live commentary for San Marino at next week's Eurovision Song Contest. It was pointed out during the discussion that neither of the sources used verified this fact, and thus we agreed any details about JKO being a commentator should be omitted from the article until we could verify this with a reliable source. However, TheRealJKO appears to have taken some upset and distress at what has been written, and I can see partially why one would be distressed when they are being discussed about openly. Although in my opinion, it may appear that the wrong end of the stick has been grasped here. There have been a few people trying to advise these points to The RealJKO in a civil manner, but it baffles me as to why things have blown way out of control. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically how were you defamed? You are no longer dead, the article shows that but I'm not understanding where anyone has defamed you? we do have policies that relate to the biographies of living people but right now frmo the outside I don't see anyone insulting you or otherwise defaming. I do show that the commentator stuff was removed due to lack of verified sources but that can be rectified when it is reported for the news or in a news article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed this: "I think that the TheRealJKO account and their previous unregistered IP edits on this page are related to a banned account (TVArchivistUK) because the IP address used to add similar information to the 2012 contest article has since been blocked for sockpuppetry of this account. The tone this user employs in discussions is very similar to all of exchanges this user has had and is currently having with this account and their other unregistered IP accounts. Here is the edit from the 2012 page. Pickette (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)" I don't even know what this person is talking about. To acuse me in this manner is defamatory and potentially libellous. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you also missed this: "In a related issue TheRealJKO (talk · contribs) removed this entire talk page section, after claiming to actually be O'Connor. I have since warned this user and restored the text. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)" Someone bragging about making threats. In their own words. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not give you the right to remove talk page discussions whether you disagree or not. WP:TPO --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you apparently have the right to say anything you like in a discussion about a living person and refute that persons request for it to cease? I think you've just summed up wikimedia perfectly.TheRealJKO (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that is wrong with discussing a living person, which millions of people do everyday, you simply have put information into the article without a reliable source, which was the main reason for the discussion on the ESC 2013 talk page was started. --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 16:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but those aren't defamation or slander. We do routinely have problems with users who are blocked and banned and make another account and we call those sockpuppets. That's not libel, leaving wikipedia warnings are not libel. Have you admitted your real life identity? If you have not and they can not come up with a diff showing that you did then they are guilty of WP:OUTING. That is a serious issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It states "TheRealJKO account and their previous unregistered IP edits on this page are related to a banned account". I have not made any other edits. I removed an edit with said I was dead and I asked for a debate to be removed that was a slanging match about my professional roles, which was ignored. So whether I "had the right" to so or not, the threats and the above slander are not valid responses. TheRealJKO (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused here, as I cannot see anything in the discussion that that would indicate any form of slanging match whatsoever. What I have noticed are editors defending the professional work of John Kennedy O'Conner, by discussing whether you will be providing live commentary via San Marino Television for the Sanmarinese viewers. An IP user (not yourself of course) had added falsified and inaccurate evidence in regards to this, and all the editors who took part in the debate were trying to establish whether or not you would be providing commentary. As neither editor could find any evidence to verify these facts, but they did agree that news reports had confirmed you would be reading out the votes on behalf of San Marino. And so it was agreed that such details regarding commentary should not be included into the Eurovision Song Contest 2013 article, so that we were avoiding the publication of incorrect details - which I sincerely appreciate that any living person would appreciate to have correct information written about them, rather than something which may be incorrect. I can wholeheartedly understand if parts of the debate may have been misinterpreted, but in all admiration to Mr Kenndy O'Conner, the editors involved in the peaceful debate were only doing there best to respect your work and only detail 100% accurate information in terms of your role at the Eurovision Song Contest 2013. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) I have indeffed TheRealJKO for making a legal threat. I don't believe the edit to the Help desk rose to the level of a legal threat ([124]). (Whatever happened to diffs when coming to ANI?) However, this comment at WP:DRN did (" I have said I will pursue this legally if it is not"). There is no outing here. The editor has said who he is. Nor has anyone said he was dead as he claims. The article just used the past tense for his occupation (the birth year with no death date was/is in the article). Finally, his claim that he is being slandered because he is accused of sock puppetry is silly. Arguably, it is a personal attack, but it is hardly defamatory. If he really had a legitimate beef, I might not have acted, but his claims and edits are purely disruptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death date in article. [125]Nick (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A death date was added and then deleted in an earlier revision also. [126] --[[ axg ◉ talk ]] 17:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is just getting ridiculous now. Bbb23 has already warned the user that they will revoke talk page access if they continue posting accusations, and yet they still continue to do so. Also one the diffs that Bbb23 has provided in which the user states they sent emails to everyone on the talk page. I have just checked my inbox, and no email from TheRealJKO has been received. Wesley♦^Mouse 17:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yes, HIAB also pointed this out on my talk page. It was the first edit by TheRealJKO back in November 2012. Then there were no edits until May 2013. I didn't notice the date of that first edit. I also looked at the diff and all I saw was the change from "was" to "is". The death date itself, as AxG states, was added by a vandal and then removed by another editor. TheRealJKO completed the clean-up by changing was back to is. It doesn't change my opinion about the block, but I appreciate the clarification.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The editor also appeared to take objection (here) to being addressed as "dude". (Disliking this form of address is not unusual, for example Salvatore Rivieri disapproved of it.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the "threats" about which this user was complaining were warnings that he could be blocked for disruptive editing, which consisted of deleting a large amount of talk page content that he disliked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entry of a death date for a living person was a severe violation of policy on living persons but appears to have been done six months ago. Is a late warning appropriate? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user who added the death date has made only two edits to Wikipedia, that one and one other in January 2013, which I don't believe was vandalism. It would be pointless, in my view, to warn the editor of a 6-month-old edit.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I have done so, with extra big red triangle for emphasis. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The legal threat should be withdrawn for sure, I just think we have someone who doesn't understand policy here. I think that they aren't being disruptive for the sake of disruption it's because they don't understand the way the encyclopedia is ran. Sock puppetry accusations mean zilch here other then if you get caught you get blocked. I think the death thing is what set this off, it caused a sore tooth and then otherwise regular edits to the encyclopedia are looked at wholly negative. A little WP:AGF in this by all sides would help. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: ticket:2013051110005682 if anyone's interested. I make no comment either way. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Make a comment!} 05:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and refusal to come to the talk page by 75.74.143.185

Please see the talk page for Kaitlyn Maher at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kaitlyn_Maher&action=edit&section=4. I will be once again placing my edit into the article thereby reverting theirs. I will also be giving notice today on their talk page.1archie99 (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring has ceased.[127] Apteva (talk) 04:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to talk page

Legal threat on Help Desk

See [131]. Not sure of best response here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the IP is already blocked indef. 3 months ----Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specific legal threat from IP claiming to be subject

• Susan J. Elliott (edit talk history links watch logs)
• 108.6.182.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

She claims that since the article was created by a couple of her fans, and she and her publicist are just "improving" it by smarming it up with lots of glurge about her charitable work and fluff about appearing on TV, there is no COI and she is not committing autobiography. She makes much of the fact that she's a lawyer. Oooohh, I'm so scared! --Orange Mike Talk 19:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thread above this is actually about the same user... Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute. The IP makes a legal threat against Orangemike, so Orangemike blocks for 3 months? Is this even remotely appropriate? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but For someone who says they are not threatening legal action they sure use the words libel and legal action a lot. Cameron11598(Converse) 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is ok, it's not like his actions were against policy they line up with "No legal threats" Cameron11598 (Converse) 19:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that a legal threat was made. I'm not disputing that a block might be appropriate (though I personally think it might have been better to try and calm the situation down a little first). I am however suggesting that since Orangemike was the recipient of the threats, he shouldn't have done the blocking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The not making legal threats thing wasn't aimed at you it was a reference to the ip's talk page (they keep saying they aren't threatening legal action but then define the legal definition of libel) sorry! But I do agree perhaps a different admin should have done the block but his actions weren't erroneous so I'm gonna AGF --Cameron11598 (Converse) 20:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no violation of WP:INVOLVED ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP specifically mentioned Orangemike in the legal threat. How much more involved could he get? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than willing to abide by the community's consensus in cases like this. I thought the basic WP:DOLT more than outweighed any trivial violation of the letter of WP:INVOLVED; but if most other editors agree with Andy (who's not as much of a grump as he pretends), I will follow your collective judgement in the future. (And if somebody really wants to remove my lblock and substitute one of their own, I won't consider myself wronged in the slightest.) --Orange MikeTalk 20:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being the target of threats doesn't make you involved, in the Wikipedia sense. If it did, anyone could challenge any block by threatening the blocking admin. I could see why OrangeMike's actions here might be a bit questionable...he edited the article in a non-admin capacity prior to semi-protecting it and blocking the IP. But I wouldn't overturn the block if I had the capability to do so. Bobby Tables (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's generally inadvisable to do the block unless it's clearly and unambiguously a legal threat. "I will sue you" type obvious IRWolfie- (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think this is such a case, IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state, all the major IP contributors to the article are NY based IP's... which her IP is one too... User:68.197.57.102 , User:216.223.171.102, User:216.6.129.115... might throw a kink into her not autobiography story if indeed all those was her too. — raekyT 19:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering she is based in that area, it's not inconceivable that her fans are in that area. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone with some experience at handling issues with BLP subjects in a tactful fashion—perhaps someone with OTRS access—please intervene here and help to defuse this situation? Unfortunately, I can't do much myself right now as I'll be offline for much of the weekend. The subject's references to legal action are obviously inappropriate, but the way this has been handled on our end is clearly suboptimal and is not doing much to deescalate or resolve the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how we can work anything out with a person who is screaming threats of legal action and then screaming that they didn't just make a legal threat. I don't know what was done different here than in every other case of WP:NLT, blocking unless and until they retract the threat, which says "PLEASE REMOVE THE PAGE OR ANY ACCUSATIONS THAT IT IS AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL OR I WILL TAKE LEGAL ACTION." It is long established that standard operating procedure in any case of a unambiguous legal threat like that we block. Why they now are trying to act like they never said that when we have diffs showing it is not our problem to solve, if they refuse to retract the legal threat or even admit that they made one then they are going to have to remain blocked. It's not as if it would require some great effort on their part to switch from lying to just saying "I will not take legal action". Nobody wants or expects an apology and a boquet of flowers, just a retraction of the threat. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention, not to mention much of Great Britain, that OrangeMike also reverted another person removing a flagrant BLP-violating statement from her own article (his reversion [132]). This reversion was utterly out of line; nobody has to ask permission to remove an uncited negative claim from their biography. Period. It seems to me that OrangeMike needs to rein in his instincts to defend against autobiographical editing, lest he see his name in the Daily Mail again. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor requests that the words "OR I WILL ..." are deleted, (no need to repeat them) that should be sufficient, and hopefully the advice to make suggestions on their article talk page instead of editing the article directly (other than obvious typos) will be taken, and they are of course welcome and encouraged to edit other articles than their own. I do agree that we have inflamed rather than defused the situation, but hopefully the flames and the shouting are over. Apteva (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:UConnSam and Wayne Worcester

In fall of 2012, User:UConnSam added significant misinformation into the Wikipedia article on Wayne Worcester as did an IP editor who is possibly the same person. See [133] and [[134] for diffs. According to [135] Worcester complained about the misinformation during his ceremonial retirement lecture. I fixed the info, but should anything else be done? Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to notify UConnSam (talk·contribs) of this discussion, I have done so for you here --Cameron11598(Converse) 19:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Um... if it was an edit from 2012, don't you think it's just a teensy bit stale? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was just reported a couple days ago that this article was wrong. And the professor voiced complaints himself. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I apologize for being snarky above, but the point still stands. Fair enough for correcting it, but if the edit was that long ago, no action can be taken. Discuss it with the user if they're still around. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks by user HiLo48 after several requests to stop. Requesting action

Yet another questionable BLP edit by Legacypac

Aryanism and other drivel redux

List of Doctor Who planets vandalized

User:Dananmohammad

Montessori education

173.160.102.113

173.160.102.113 (talk · contribs) already has a uw-vandalism4 on his talk page, and has vandalized Some Like It Hot here: [152]. I haven't done this before, but since uw-vandalism4 is a "last warning," does that mean a block is next? Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "last warning" was two months ago, and there is no reason to expect that this is the same editor. Apteva (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, even a week ago a proper change was done with the reason given in the edit summary. [153] It appears dynamic so I see little since in doing anything other then re-warning for the current edit and moving on. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"sense". Apteva (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding by User:Viriditas

Talk Page Unblanking by Warned IP Address 201.76.115.245

Administrator User:Bongwarrior blocked User:Marcos Infeliz as a vandalism-only account and blanked his talk page. IP address 201.76.115.245, who had been given a final warning for vandalism, unblanked the talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marcos_Infeliz&curid=39371177&diff=554937550&oldid=554936164 Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is blocked. It's clearly the same user, and probably one of a recent string of them you can find by following the edits. I've just been considering whether it's an open proxy or not, probably methinks. No matter, he gone now. Not much else to do. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amiram Goldblum

I proposed the article on Amiram Goldblum for deletion because there is substantial evidence to prove that the article is an autobiography. The user who created the article has been accused of sockpuppetry. It seems like mostly very partisan people edit the article. I'd like to hear the opinion of experienced users. If I'm wrong in proposing the article, I would like to know why. Thank you very much. Nataev (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by Soosim; I have heard no suggestion that s/he is a sockpuppet. Please remove that unfounded allegation. Further, the creation of an autobiographical article, or editing of an article about oneself, is not forbidden, and is certainly not grounds for deletion of an article edited by many editors about a prominent individual. And if you think that "partisan" people should not be editing the article, I presume that you will also be recusing yourself from it. RolandR (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At best, Nataev was not wrong in prodding the article once -- but he was certainly wrong in restoring the prod once it had been removed and in trying to insist that only an admin could determine its outcome. Not hard to see how this ANI section will turn out. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also suggest that this edit summary is a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, OK, he is a "prominent person"! I'm not willing to spend any more time discussing the article on this "prominent" juvenile who wrote an article about himself. Best, Nataev (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Juvenile"?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's a rather odd characterisation. According to the article, the person is in his 60s. That's not an age considered juvenile in probably 99.99% of the world. If the OP is calling the person 'juvenile' for reasons other than age, that's likely a BLP violation and/or a personal attack. Or does the OP not know what 'juvenile' means or did the OP either fail to read the article they kept trying to PROD? Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on article subject and other editors

The edit summary linked above [154], shows Nataev referring to Golblum as an "idiot". There is now an edit on the talk page where Nataev refers to Goldblum as a "pseudo-scientist". In addition Nataev is attacking other editors, calling one of them "pathetic" and "a joke" [155]. I don't think this editor should be editing in this particular topic area and in fact should spend a brief period not editing at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nataev thinks he is entitled to his own opinion. He is pretty sure that only an idiot would write an article about himself on Wikipedia. He is not interested in "this particular topic" at all. He is just amused by Goldbum. Nataev (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nataev called Goldbum himself "pathetic" and "a joke." Let's not forget that it is Goldbum himself who has written the article on Goldbum. Nataev (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and calling the subject of the article names would be a WP:BLP violation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Nataev didn't know that! You see, he is a new user! Well, not really, he is just kidding. But he is making progress. Goldbum has taught him to talk about himself in the third person. Nataev (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, talking about yourself in 3rd person is ridiculous; calling an editor names is a violation of WP:NPA; calling the subject of an article names is a WP:BLP violation; creating an autobiography is not only frowned upon, but completely dumb ... between the lot of you, you all need to go away and fix things. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more with this: "creating an autobiography is not only frowned upon, but completely dumb." So, a person who does dumb things is by definition dumb. That's my whole point! Seriously though, I don't want to spend any more time on this stupid matter. Nataev (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong and warped logic. Very smart people (PhD's for example) do stupid things all the time (like drive while drunk). To say "a person who does dumb things is by definition dumb" is, well, dumb. On Wikipedia we comment on edits, NEVER on the contributor - period. Nor do we ascribe traits the way you're trying to, because that's just plain dumb (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for sharing with us your ingenious philosophy. You're indeed very smart. Nataev (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Goldbum taught me new words like "lier", "vandalizer" and many others. You taught me to use the apostrophe when forming the plurals of capital letters used as nouns. Nataev (talk) 10:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic comment about Bwilkins. Take to his talk page or file a new WP:ANI report on Bwilkins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BWilkins, you yourself keep commenting on the contributors. Just now you indirectly called Nataev "dumb", twice. (Faz o que eu digo, não faças o que eu faço.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] It seems clear BWilkins is referring to the behaviour rather then the person. Perhaps not the best way to handle things, but they do have a point that there's been a lot of silly behaviour all around. In any case, this thread is likely best closed. The behaviour I've seen while poor does not rise to the level requiring admin attention (even more so since Nataev has said they intend to withdraw). As others have said, once the PROD has been removed, it can't be re-added, and there's no need for an admins involvement (well unless someone keeps trying to readd the PROD). Take if to AFD if needed although as also pointed out, whatever the merits of the article, you should have more than it being created by a user with a COI. And stop the personal attacks of BLP violations, or this will rise to a level requiring administrative attention. Nil Einne (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Nil Einne, if I say that your "behavior" is (e.g.) immoral, then I am suggesting that you are immoral. It's just a simple logical step. You see, that is something BWilkins has done in the past, and keeps doing. As an admin, he should have learned to be more respectful by now. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] No. It is not a logical step; it is an assumption, which may or may not be baseless. Because we assume good faith, such an assumption is assumed to be baseless, and therefore in need of proof, if made at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Except that it wasn't "offtopic". See the title? "Personal attacks on article subject and other editors". (Sounds very on-topic to me.) Anyway, it seems that pointing out double standards is always very uncomfortable (for admins); Please revert this after you read it, Dennis, thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This post by Nataev (which was deleted by a subsequent edit to ANI) and the others in this section do not suggest that Nataev intends to stop making personal attacks or to edit I/P related articles (particularly BLPs) with the appropriate attitude. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that edit I clarified what I had written before. I have no idea why Robert McClenon deleted it. It's fine if with me if the Goldbum article is kept. It's not the end of the world. Goldbum is such a trivial person that not that many people read about him anyway. Nomoskedasticity, I have far more interesting and important things to do than discuss an article about some (personal attack again removed) scholar. Nataev (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently it's not enough that Nataev wants to post personal attacks on BLP subjects on ANI itself. Someone else removed the phrase "obscure, semi-literate scholar" from the post immediately above (consistent with WP:TPO -- and Nataev then restored it. Again I suggest that there's no sign of improvement here, rather the opposite. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Administrators: Please note Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Administrator_instructions which helps you leave templates on users pages. If they ignore you evidently you can advance to tougher sanctions. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 12:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. Black Kite blocked Nataev for two days and I have indefinitely topic banned him from making any edits about Amiram Goldblum under WP:BLPBAN. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops guess I spoke too soon, for the record I support both actions mentioned above. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've declined the third unblock request from this editor, who has threatened to retire. I urged him to take some time off, but also to dive back into something non-BLP and non-drama. Obviously, the topic-ban remains in place, even as the block expires in a day or so. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has objected to my characterization of their comment as "threatening to retire". The editor indicated, in their unblock request, that they were considering retirement. I regret the error. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice regarding handling offensive user page

Please see the user page of St.HocusPocus (talk · contribs). I'm pretty certain that it is both offensive and out of line, but I wanted to ask for advice on how to handle this, what to cite, etc, as I haven't really addressed an issue like this before.

(I know ANI prerequisites are usually notifying the user, and trying to work it out beforehand, but I haven't done this because I figured this topic was more about me wanting advice on policy and enforcing it rather than needing actual intervention. I plan on handling it myself, outside of ANI, once I know what to say. If this is wrong, I'll gladly notify him though. Thanks!) Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to notify. Whether or not it was okay to come here before a direct approach, you have to notify the user now that you've started a discussion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything particularly actionable here. Can you point at which section of WP:UP#NOT you think it meets and why you think it needs "immdediate" intervention by a Administrator? It's relatively tame compared to some of the "It makes the eyes bleed" user pages I've seen. Hasteur (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't think it was especially appropriate to be calling a group of people "self-righteous racists". It kind of goes against the entire second paragraph of what you just linked to, if you ask me. Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:UP#POLEMIC. Sergecross73msg me 21:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, compared to some of the of the truly polemic comments and content and referring to it in such an oblique manner I personally (even though I'm not an admin) don't see anything actionable. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hasteur. Compared to what I've seen pop up at MfD at times, this page is particularly meh... If you feel strongly that it should go, my advice would be to talk to the guy or nominate it for deletion. Salvio^{Let's talk about it!} 21:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I guess I haven't seen any bad ones in my time here then. It stuck me as rather offensive, and not conducive to creating an encyclopedia. This certainly isn't my area of Admin expertise though. My approach probably would have been something along the lines of "Hey, people find this offensive, and its frowned upon per WP:UP#POLEMIC, so I was wondering if you would remove it." but it looks like thus far that's not in fact people's reaction to it, so I suppose I won't bother, unless someone says otherwise. At least I know what to cite for the future. Sergecross73 msg me 23:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You find it offensive that I took offense at being called a "hilljack”? Really now, I'm 'out of line' for calling a 'goth' a racist for using a racist slur? But calling someone a ‘hilljack’ for liking a genre of music a ‘goth’ doesn’t like isn’t out of line?

Your views are warped, mate.

To clarify this, the term ‘hilljack’ didn’t offend me on a personal level, as I am not a southerner in any way shape or form. If I must clarify further, for the sake of this explanation, I am a white collar northerner who happens to be extremely liberal and socially progressive. What I found offensive was the self-righteous attitude of most self proclaimed ‘goths’ that I’ve had the displeasure of communicating with whether online or in real life…that they are somehow superior do to their taste in music and their taste in clothing.

The person in question who originally tossed the ‘hilljack’ term at me, was someone with a limited understanding of music, who was under the impression that the band “HIM” is a metal band, and who views anyone who listens to “metal” as a redneck, and because I added the band “HIM” to the “List of gothic rock bands” page (with a wealth of reliable sources to back it up) he/she got upset and couldn’t see past his/her self-perceived social superiority and called me a hilljack for it.

That was the issue. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I don't believe I've ever heard of the term "hilljack" before. It must not be something people say where I come from. I had no idea it was such an offensive word; without knowing the background, that sounded like it had all of the offensive edge of calling someone a "jerk face" or something. That being said, the point still stands. Its not like "two wrongs make a right". Is your defense in all of this really "No Serge, there's not just one offensive generalization in my User page, there's two. Like that makes it better or something? Sergecross73 msg me 04:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you find my finding of somebody’s self righteous behavior and calling them out on it offensive? And you find the term ‘racist’ offensive? You’re not making sense. - What ‘still stands’? For one, this is really none of your business, though you’ve taken the liberty to make it yours, and unrightfully so.

“Its not like "two wrongs make a right".

This isn’t a moral objectivity lecture. Refer to the above paragraph. I am in no way, shape, or form ‘in the wrong’ for taking outspoken issue with stupidity.

“Is your defense in all of this really "No Serge, there's not just one offensive generalization in my User page, there's two. Like that makes it better or something?”

You can’t be serious. I don’t need a defense because there is nothing to defend. Do you honestly think you are putting me on the spot here by questioning my moral compass in an issue you have nothing to do with?

Again, refer to the first paragraph. You seriously take offense to my taking offense to someone’s self righteous behavior and calling them out on it offensive? And you find the term ‘racist’ offensive?

Your main goal here seems to be to make a mountain out of a molehill. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is that your wording gives a blanket accusation for an entire group/subsection of people as racist. Your userpage says What wonderful people those “Goths” are, huh? Sad to say my real life encounters with these self-righteous racists haven’t been much different. Why you've chosen this to define your identity here is beyond me, but regardless, my problem is that you've chosen to label "Goths" as a whole as racist. (Full disclosure: I'm not a goth, don't know any, dont especially like goth music. I just figured that policies like Wikipedia is not a soapbox and no personal attacks would apply in situations like this.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying and fully acknowledge that, yes, the text on my userpage is a generalization and that I've displayed a double standard here by 'being pissed' that someone would generalize all 'metal' listeners as rednecks, yet appear, by my wording, to generalize all 'goths' as racists. I realize this and will acknowledge the rules in the links you provided. --St.HocusPocus (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I apologize, I did not mean for this to be such a big deal. I had originally intended only to get advice on how to talk to you, and then just talk to you privately about it, but I was instructed that, once I had mentioned you by name, I had to bring you into things. Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Editor's Possibly Threatening Others over AfD

I have started a few AfD's on some non-notable pages. One of the editors of the page, who is the subject of the article himself took to one of the AfD discussions and issues at minimum a somewhat untoward remark and at most a threat. You can read the discussion here. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undertow Music, specifically, "your attempted deletion is motivated by personal vendetta. looking forward to seeing your next show at bentley's" (Bentley's is a local establishment in Champaign). I thought admins should be aware that the discussion of that AfD has gotten heated due to the subject of the article being involved. Other related AfD's are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Andrews (artist manager) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard. Jamminjimmy (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no threat issued or implied against Jamminjimmy. I found out he is a local musician who plays somewhat regularly in my town. i enjoy music. It was nothing more than a friendly gesture hoping to diffuse the situation. But this user does not tell the whole story on why he is choosing to target these articles for AfD. User fails to mention that he has personal and legal issues with the subject of one of his AfD requests. He joined wiki the same day he lost a court case against the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Gerard and began editing and then requested speedy deletion of that article. I disagreed and undid some of his previous edits. He then turned his attentions towards me and issued AfD request on the other two articles mentioned above. One of which I am the subject, the other is the record label where I work. He also opened a sockpuppet investigation against me that was closed after finding no abuse on my part. And now he is complaining about me here in this section. He's trying to harm my reputation because I disagreed with his edits. His only Wiki contribs are issuing these AfDs, the unfounded sockpuppet investigation against me and now the complaint here. Is vendetta the wrong word? Revenge? I'm not sure what else to call what he is doing here? If there's a better word or phrase for his actions I'd be happy to revise my comments. I don't know this person in real life. I never heard of him until all this wiki nonsense started and then I read about him on the local newspaper website. That's how I found out about the court case and his legal issues with the original subject of his wiki attentions. Should i post a link to that news story for context? i'm not sure of the policy on that. If you look at his contribs you'll find this user is clearly abusing wikipidea and using resources here to seek revenge. He should be banned or at least be blocked from editing the articles mentioned here. I would like no further contact or interactions with him. Please look at my wiki history going back to 2009. I have no previous conflicts or controversy until this user began harassing me a few days ago. Thanks for taking the time and I'm sorry you have to deal with stuff like this. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 08:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you're looking for is conflict of interest. I'd be more interested in how a 5 day old account knows the meaning of speedy deletions, PRODs, SPIs, let alone raise them. Blackmane (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something else he should be checking out is WP:OUTING. How many pages does Bob get to identify Jamminjimmy on? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is interesting is that the only "bothering" of Bob I can see here is asking for his page and company page for deletion via AfD as WP:AUTOBIO. Hackwayinteresting (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bothering me by opening unfounded sockpuppet investigation against me, adding this frivolous complaint here, revenge AfD on articles only after i disagreed with his edits on the don gerard article. All of this is explained above. Noted that Hackwayinteresting is a new user and the only activity has been targeting these 3 articles and is now under SPI as being connected with Jamminjimmy Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't know what WP:OUTING was until i just read that link. i'm not that familiar with how wiki works on stuff like that. any sort of conflict like this is new to me. i'm not trying to make an excuse. thanks for pointing that out. now i know. i'd be happy to edit whatever i posted that's considered outing. i'm not trying to break the rules or cause this user harm. i just want this person to stop bothering me. It should be noted that his username is also the name he's known by around town. which leads me to believe he wants the people he's hassling to know it's him. Bob Andrews UTOW (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Hackwayinteresting is blocked for being sockpuppet of Jamminjimmy--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 06:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Jamminjimmy has been blocked for socking. So perhaps this is worth closing until there is a repeat performance? Blackmane (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STEFF1995S/Innano1

WP:INVOLVED is certainly applicable enough here that I'm not going to proceed with a block without consensus. When I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2013, I thought I was dealing with a routine case of a good-faith editor using a bad source.

As I have dug into it, though, I have found that Innano1 is actually evading one of my old blocks. He admits at User:Innano1 that he is a resurrection of STEF1995S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I blocked 28 Dec 2010. Innano1 simply picked up four days later. His use of bad charts has been better, with one notable exception: he has started a blog at http://romaniantop100.blogspot.ro/ (see http://www.blogger.com/profile/02260736934288394777 for the details of the blog owner: clearly the same person) where he creates his own version of a defunct chart and then uses it as a source in Wikipedia articles.

I'm inclined to reinstate his indefinite block, but am concerned that other might see that as vindictiveness on my part. Thus, I invite someone else to do the honors.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to invoke WP:SILENCE to say that no one finds this a case where my level of involvement would interfere. I'll give it a few hours, but if no one comments, I will proceed.—Kww(talk) 16:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be a good block. User admits to being a block-evading sock, has deliberately manipulated external links to try and keep their dodgy edits in place, and I don't see how WP:INVOLVED should stop you from blocking someone who is this clearly evading an existing indef (and has done so for two and a half years) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of objection, his block has been reinstated.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good job. I've added the sockpuppetry template to both users' user pages, hope that wasn't too bad a thing to do as a non-admin! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing by user:Casprings

user:Casprings Is canvassing editors in an RFC/U against me. While the audience is not completely biased, the tone of the message clearly is.

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban for user:Arzel. Many of the issue fell outside of discussion on TPM. With such a large community consensus and with arbitration committee only dealing with issues directly related to the TPM, I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here. You are invited to endorse this and to take part in the WP:RFC/U.Casprings (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casprings writes the messages in a very negative tone against me and in a manner that I should be topic banned. I believe this to be in retaliation to my objections to a FA submission of theirs. Arzel (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casprings has been notified. Arzel (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CANVASS is explicit that the wording must be absolutely neutral. I agree that this absolute requirement was not met in the many posts made, including non-neutral posts on ArbCom pages. In addition, the behavioural guideline states: More importantly, recruiting too many editors to a WP:dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it. Collect (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully agree with Collect's excellent comments. This is, without question, a canvassing violation by Casprings. Ironically, Caspring's failed in his apparently clever attempt to word his message in a way that would prevent a canvassing complaint. Because here we are. Please take note of how he said, "You are invited to endorse this..." but did not invite the editors to oppose. Not to mention of course his preface of "There was a clear community consensus for a topic ban". Overall, his invitation - to about 20 editors, no less (see his May 12 contributions log between about 18:00 and 18:20) - was not even close to neutral and I feel that a sanction of some type is certainly warranted. For the record, I do not know Arzel or Casprings at all; I have never crossed paths with either of them in any articles or discussions. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that it is blatant canvassing. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I directed a single statement to every person that was involved in the discussion on user:Arzel, which took place here. My audience was not picked by me and was the audience that took part in the discussion. The message is simply a summery of the events and the course of action of the arbitration committee.Casprings (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there some argument that the words "clear consensus" do not fully describe the results of the discussion on user:arzel? The number of editors involved that voted for a topic ban and the arguments provided, do provide a clear consensus of the opinion of those who took part in the discussion. Providing what is a fact is not non neutral. Casprings (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• For starters, you are drawing a conclusion and using it to persuade others to your point of view in your notification. That is a no-no for neutrality. " There was a clear community consensus..." etc. Had you knocked all the middle out, you would have been ok. Notifications should only be saying what is taking place and where, not why you think it is needed, or how you interpreted the previous discussion. Save that for the RFC/U itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this note about an RFCU violates the principle of neutrality, both the focus on a (supposedly) already established consensus for a topic ban and the invitation to endorse the filing. When I first saw the note on a user's talk page, I thought it was put there because Casprings wanted that particular user as a co-endorser (which I think would have been totally fine), but the note didn't appear neutral in any way, and shouldn't have been sent en masse to potential commenters. Iselilja (talk)
• Everything Dennis Brown said is right on the money. His comment, "Had you knocked all the middle out, you would have been ok", was precisely what I thought when I read the message. Doing that would've resulted in this neutral version: "You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. I went ahead and started a WP:RFC/U, here." All the obvious attempts at persusasion in between were highly inappropriate. By doing that, Casprings essentially poisoned the RFC/U before it even started. Also, sending it to 20 editors is a separate problem. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• What Dennis Brown said. It's not your job to draw any conclusion. That act alone violates the neutrality requirement. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You all make good points and I accept that I could have worded that better. My apologies to user:Arzel. I should have took more effort in wording my statement. Casprings (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if that poisoned the well or not. It wasn't the worse violation by any means but it was a violation, and I can accept that it was a good faith mistake, but even good faith mistakes can have negative consequences. Not sure what the fix is here. While sanctions aren't necessary, there is some potential damage, and I'm assuming those notices are still on those talk pages. At the very least, I would expect you to go fix them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Same as the above with an extra emphasis on one point. An wp:an or wp:ani on a vague/general behavioral claim is just a place where anyone who is willing to do mob violence and who wants the person gone or on reduced editing can show up and deceive/mislead with immunity. The result is not by any stretch of the imagination "community consensus", doubly so when someone is overreaching and giving their personal view on the result. North8000 (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Dennis... Casprings can try to reduce any potential damage by going back to the 20 editors he canvassed and either (1) edit the message for neutrality (as shown above), or (2) simply remove the message if it hasn't been replied to (or striking and explaining it, if it has). IMO, that would show his sincerity in fixing this problem and, as a result, put an end to this matter. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have started, and will continue to work on it. Casprings (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Each message was either deleted or struck. Without any objection, I am going to post the following message on all the talk pages:

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.

That is a neutral statement that informs all parties of the WP:RFC/U. Any thoughts? Casprings (talk) 02:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I commend Casprings for accepting responsibility for his error and working hard to correct it as best he can. I see that he has gone back to the talk pages of all the editors he contacted and removed or struck, as needed. As far as Caspring's intention to go back and message all those editors again, I think it's a very bad idea. After everything we've been through with this issue, it's the last thing he should do. My suggestion is that he simply drop the issue and move on. He's done a great job of cleaning up the mess and I think he should just leave well enough alone. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds reasonable to post as long as it is done to everyone who participated. Once out, it is hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube so the solution is always going to be less than optimal. All you can do is the best you can and learn from the mistake, just as all we can do is assume good faith based on your actions and willingness here. I appreciate the timely action with this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It sounds like a number of people are trying to derail an RFC/U where there would appear to be substantial content on which to comment based on an asserted violation of a peripheral procedural aspect to the filing.

It should be noted that out of 19 votes on the AN/I, 14 supported a topic ban with 5 opposed. So the metaphors about "poison" are just diversionary rhetoric.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your claim of diversion is bad faith and wrong. I didn't participate in that RFC and have nothing to gain. But I can see the blatant canvassing violation and the effect it has. Not only does the notice draw conclusions, it actually invites people to endorse his RFC/U. The implication is that if you aren't going to endorse it, you're not welcome. As I mentioned, I didn't participate in that RFC. I see other editors here that didn't, yet see the violation. You, on the other hand, did participate and voted against Arzel, then were quick to jump into the new RFC as well. Is it really a diversion, or do you just not like it? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all, the suggestion relating to the RFC was made by Arbitrators during the ongoing TPm case. Since my interaction with Arzel is limited to the TPm, it might be objected that my endorsement based on that limited interaction is somewhat out of the scope of the suggestions relating to starting an RFC. The only issue with the notification by Caspring has been addressed by Dennis Brown in this thread, so the repeated cries of "poison" seem to represent a type of IDIDN'THEARTHAT and diverting attention from the main issue at hand of the RFC.

Most of us have been waiting for the decision of the Arbcom case before assessing what might be necessary subsequently, but in light of Casprings taking up the more widespread issues relating to Arzel's editing conduct in response to AGK's comment, it does not seem too far afield to pursue the RFC, which has generated a fair amount o interest already.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Let me start be pointing out that I've not opposed the notion of a RFC itself. I've opposed this one running as is. Since this is already in the ARBCOM domain, I think that this RFC is not needed, but I wouldn't necessarily fight it. So to call my "repeated cries" of poison IDIDN'THEARTHAT is really not AGF. I'm addressing Caspring's conduct and the results of it specifically....and THAT is the topic of this thread, isn't it? As I mentioned on the RFC talk page, I find the urgency and hardline stance interesting. An editor made the statement that "anycase people dont get out of trouble for disruptive editing because someone else makes a procedural mistake". Well getting Azrel "in trouble" appears to be the real goal for that editor. Regardless, in the real world, actual criminals are set free over procedural error. In the real world, tampering with a jury pool can set a murderer free. But in Wikipedialand, apparently jury tampering can't even bring a mistrial. Curious indeed. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sure most of those editors hadn't even seen the message yet. I really feel that it would be better to let this matter rest now that Casprings has done such a good job of handling the problem. Why reignite the fire? But I'll defer to Dennis' judgement and experience if he disagrees. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I will go ahead and post the neutral message. I did learn that I must watch the neutral nature of these statements, not just post it to all that is involved. Again, thanks for bring the issues to my attention and doing so in such a logical manner. I appreciate everyone's input. Casprings (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Casprings, can you please wait to allow time for other editors to comment? It was only 40 minutes ago that you posted about your intent to re-message every editor. I don't see any need to rush. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that it's too late. Casprings posted here at 2:51 and then started his re-messaging blitz at 2:52. Ugh. I don't understand why you asked "Any thoughts?" if weren't going to give other editors a reasonable amount of time to respond. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. Didn't see your message. That said, each editor now has a neutral message.Casprings (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Will I saw that Dennis saw no issue and you deferred to his message. The other reason is that a WP:RFC/U has 48 hours until it closes, unless other users join. I made a mistake about sending it in an un-neatral manner, but those involved in the discussion needed the message ASAP. Casprings (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Going back and lining through it doesn't unring the bell. You got too over-eager to make your case and screwed up. Needed it ASAP? You mean you wanted it now, right? Those results you refer to sat for months inactive, why the hurry now? Wonderful that you accept that, but the better thing to do is stop pursuing this and, if it's as big an issue as you claim, someone else will start one and hopefully not poison the well the way you did. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Casrpings... yes, I agreed to defer to Dennis and was waiting for his reply. But he hasn't replied since I said that. And of course it didn't mean that other editors would have deferred to Dennis. And you started the RFC/U only 10 hrs ago, so there was absolutely no urgency. I honestly can't believe you re-messaged all those editors less than an hour after asking "Any thoughts?" here. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Niteshift36. It's best to withdraw the RfC/U. You can't unring a bell. The ANI Casprings refers to became the current ArbCom case. But Casprings didn't comment at the ArbCom when he had the opportunity. Why bring this action now? And the canvassing has poisoned the well, as Niteshift36 has noted. Arzel would not get a fair hearing on this. It should be administratively closed. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We now have two editors who agree with me that Casprings should drop the issue and move on. As I first said here about eight hours ago, "Casprings essentially poisoned the RFC/U before it even started." 76.189.109.155 (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who received the original solicitation, I disagree that its content was sufficiently beguiling to warrant withdrawal of the associated request. Conversely, the tone of this very discussion is eerily reminiscent of those which have prompted such intervention in the first place. — C M B J 08:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Removing them won't really help. I don't know about you, but I actually read edits made to my talk page. Even if you removed it, I'd still see it and the poison tree still exists. As for whatever this conversation reminds you of, I wasn't involved in any of those, so I'll presume you aren't making some blanket statement that includes me. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I tried to work to make the RFC/U's opening statements as neutral as possible. Despite my admitted mistake of not watching the wording of my first statement, it still went to a controlled audience, the members who took part in the first discussion. Since those members already have some degree of knowledge of this, I disagree that the "bell cannot be unrung" and so forth. If there was damage done, it was relatively minor. I made a good faith error, which I am sorry about. However, I see no argument that my message, either first or second, will change the mind or taint the views of the audience it was sent to. I would argue that the RFC/U should be allowed to continue. There are issues there, at least in my view and the view of others, and those issues should be allowed to be explored. RFC/U is the best tool to explore the possible problems and shutting down the RFC/U only concerns to ignore the concerns of 14 editors who saw a problem. Casprings (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I struck my endorsement of the RFC/U and supported it being closed. Again, I am sorry for the mistake of creating a non-neutral statement to start this process off.Casprings (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think there's anything more to be done here. Casprings made mistakes here but acknowledged and addressed them in a very friendly and cooperative manner. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Time to close? Since Casprings has not only acknowledged his errors, but I think learned a lot in the process, I agree that this should be closed. The RFC/U itself is closed. Perhaps an uninvolved admin will take care of this. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Time to close Agreed. Yes, the RfC/U complaint was withdrawn and therefore closed. Time to move on. :) --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over NPOV tag on Narendra Modi

This article has been subject to aggressive editing by tenacious editors over the past few months. At this point of time, there is an ongoing edit-war over whether the article should continue to retain a {{POV}} template on the top of the page. The discussion over the use of template on the article page, which is only supposed to be used as a measure of last resort, can be found here. This probably needs attention of an uninvolved party due to hostile revert-warring by an editor with biased views. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maunus has gone ahead and posted notification messages on several discussion pages (regardless of their relevance) soliciting comments on a half-baked RfC that they have initiated on Talk:Narendra Modi. Obviously, the tone of their messaging amounts to canvassing, specially after their post on the Wikiproject on Pakistani politics discussion page. A list of these pages and the textual content is available below:

RFC on Nautrality at Narendra Modi
"Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral."

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics (Not sure why this is relevant for this article?)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indian politics
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gujarat
• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current thread about this article at BLP/N, which is where it should be discussed. 76.189.109.155 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is mainly about aggressive behaviour of an established user. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan is presumably relevant because this relates to a Hindu-Muslim issue. comments made by Modi regarding Afzal Guru, Modi being a Hindu nationalist and so forth. I probably would not have mentioned it there but, hey, more eyes for a RfC is surely not a bad thing? It is mentioned at WT:INB also, after all, by the same person. You, NHN, have accused me of ganging-up but your focus here appears to be Maunus. Feel free to add me to your list of "tenacious editors". Good luck with that: I have been trying to develop the article, including via initiation of numerous threads at Talk:Narendra Modi. I'm not always right, of course, but any article about any high-profile politician, especially one in India or Pakistan, is almost certain to attract POV. My interactions with Maunus are minimal, as they are with others who tend to get involved in modern-day issues of this sort, yet you suspect "ganging up" and "aggression" even when an issue is still shown as unarchived at WP:BLPN and there is a recent prior thread on the talk page.

I am not suggesting that you have a bias but I do think that you have taken your eye of the ball. I've done that and, hey, it happens but in the interval while you claim to have been watching there have been massive removals of arguably non-favourable content - mostly by Yogesh Khandke - that went undiscussed, was often reinstated by others (not me), and there was not a peep out of you. So, how long has your eye been off this particular ball? The RfC is A Good Thing. Maunus suggested it and I agreed. Later, much later, you said the same thing today. So what is your problem here? - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make the point, and with no knowledge of NHN's real life or other contributions to Wikipedia, this series of edits took place on 18 April. NHN's last prior edit was 10 April and their next subsequent contribution was 12 May. A fair amount of what was removed in that block was reinstated in one form or another and I can't recall that I did any of that. Yet I am accused of ganging up? There is clearly a lot of contention here and, alas, I've never yet seen an opening statement for a RfC that I felt comfortably covered all of the bases. This one is no different but, hopefully, all will come out in the wash. - Sitush (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I applaud taking the issue to ANI, hopefully this can draw attention to the page from other editors than the clique of pro-Modi editors who have clearly had control of the page for a long time since I accidentally stumbled on it about a month ago. In contrast to editors like Headless Nick, and his companions at the talkpage I do not have a history of editing indian political topics, but simply stumbled on a biographic article that was so blatantly hagiographic that I started looking up the literature to provide some counterbalance. This page and others on hindu nationalist politics need acute attention from as many experienced editors as possible which is why I started the RfC and why I advertised it as widely as possible (which is clearly not canvassing under any definition of the term, and which is also not nonneutrally worded). As soon as other editors start chipping in I am fully content to leave that topic area, and let other editors form a consensus. But as long as it is maintained by a group of editors who appears to act as an extension of Modis own Public relations team, then someone will have to provide some balance. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I have in the past seen massive edit warring over obscure facts, this is the first time I'm seeing it happen due to a tag. Reinstating the tag by Maunus seems a bit childish to me, a lot like trolling. Clear consensus must first be established on this matter before we put up the tag. As I stated last night, the tag is being misused. Just because the tag exists, and several sections of the article are allegedly tilted for or against the subject, there is no reason why tag exists. Seems more like a case of 'The tag exists and there therefore must be inserted into the article'. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puting the notices on the notice boards, especially the way it was worded Asking about whether the article on the prominent and controversial Indian Hindu nationalist politican Narendra is currently neutral was to sensationalise the whole thing. Sitush, note that Afzal Guru was an Indian citizen, puting the tag on the pakistan politics notice board especially with such wording is clear mischief .-sarvajna (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia guideline on canvassing explicitly states that the wording of the messaging should be neutral. Maunus, a former administrator who recently resigned "under a cloud", does not appear to care for such trivial guidelines on the encyclopedia and employs aggressive tactics into dominating and bullying other users. This effectively poisons the atmosphere and rules out any chance for productive discussions and dispute resolution. The behavioural guideline further states: "More importantly, recruiting too many editors for dispute resolution can often make resolving the dispute impossible. Remember, the purpose of a notification is to improve the dispute resolution process, not to disrupt it." Maunus's bad faith editing is laid bare by their employment of biased wording and posting of messages canvassing involvement in the dispute on pages such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pakistani politics which is not relevant for this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is neutral and this is not canvass. If you repeat the accusation of canvassing then I hope you will back up the accustation with action so that a real admin can come a long and tell you what is and isnt canvassing. Also your accusations of bad faithy are becoming pretty intolerable. From my very first edit to Modis article which you reverted (using twinkle! with no edit summary) you have been casting aspersions about my motives.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence has been documented above. You will also need to read WP:TALK to understand why it's not polite to double indent the comments you post. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Perhaps. As I said, I would likely not have mentioned the RfC at the Pakistan project & I've never yet seen a well-formed RfC, although Afzal Guru was convicted and executed by India as a collaborator of Pakistani jihadists. I cannot read the mind of Maunus and was merely speculating as to why they did what they did. Perhaps I should not but when I am seemingly among those being accused of ganging-up by an admin who even after coming here seems note to have read recent discussions, well, ... some attempt to balance things out seems reasonable. - Sitush (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is Narendra Modi connected with Afzal Guru? Because he made some comments on the Congress government in relation to his treatment? Would that mean that everytime Manmohan Singh says something about an Indian national who has Russian collaborators, every dispute on his biography must be referred to the Wikiproject on Russian politics? Stop wikilawyering and read up WP:CANVASS. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made unfounded accusations against me. You certainly have not been following the article development and talk page particularly well. That is your problem and it just happens that the manner in which you have failed to do this is working out to be favourable to Modi and his extremely effective PR machine (not my POV: his effectiveness as a political communicator is well-documented). I doubt that it is deliberate on your part but while I would not have done things in the way that Maunus has, I can understand the frustration that might arise in this situation and I note that the terms that Maunus used are ones that are commonly applied to Modi. Running here crying "foul" when you are clearly not completely au fait with what has been going on - the open BLPN thread, for example - might be ok in strict policy terms but the fault may not all be on one side here. You have not handled this well and you seem from the outset to have unwittingly being protecting a certain POV and hassling at least one person (ie: me) who has been working hard to improve things in an almost peer-review manner while generally sitting on the fence when it comes to the issues surrounding the 2002 Gujarat riots and how we depict Modi's cult of personality or whatever it is perceived to be. I, too, sometimes fail to handle things well but at least I acknowledge it. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you have changed the thread of the discussion from Afzal Guru/Pakistani politics Wikiproject to Narendra Modi's PR machinery. How is the chatter about his PR machinery relevant here? Your actions and words denote that you seem to be holding some strong opinions about the individual, which in by itself is not wrong, however to keep bringing up the same subject out of context over and over again and claiming that the person is so controversial that his article shall remain controversial forever does not really help the encyclopedia or contribute to the further development of the aticle. In the past month you have labelled the subject of the article as an "arch-manipulator", while also claiming that most other politicians are as well. How in the world is that even relevant for discussion on an article talk page? By extension of your logic, shouldn't the PR machinery of these other unnamed politicians be working against the subject of the article? More importantly, please drop the passive-aggressive attitude by trying to sideline discussions on the actual problem with behaviour of users on the article. Only recently you accused another editor of making "Modi-apparatchik type of edits". Are you trying to claim that the other editor is a paid agent of the Gujarat government? Do you think similar accusations can be made against you given your previous comments on Narendra Modi?

Frankly, this discussion has been rather exasperating and I am going to take a step back and do my own research on the article. You are welcome to do the same. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything against you on the ANI, I wonder who is making accusations against whom, let us not getting into how effective one's PR machine is neither ANI nor wikipedia should be bothered about that.You have not handled this well and you seem from the outset to have unwittingly being protecting a certain POV Are you saying that the edit-waring of Maunus should be ignored? You seems to be more interested in protecting Maunus here, I agree that recently you have not gone into content disputes and the other clean up work that you are doing is surerly appreciated. There are more than one editor and many were not involved in the article like me since past felt that the tag was not required but Maunus seems to think other way. Do not consider yourself a sole torch bearer of NPOV. -sarvajna (talk) 10:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided links to the various accusations above. The timing and the wording obviously relate to me as much as to Maunus. Someone has not done their homework here before spraying around accusations of tenacious editing, POV and ganging-up. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the substantial amount of accusations leveled against me here from editwarring to canvassing, "ganging up" and "mischief", I would like to ask what administrative action is being sought in this thread?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone adds a neutrality tag and provides evidence on the talk page, then you need consensus for its removal. I see an RfC in progress so we should just let that run and close this discussion before somebody says something they're going to regret later. I'd do it myself but .... --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have really cared to see the RFC does not give any reason or evidence about why the article is not neutral, rather it asks a question "is the article neutral" so we are not sure. Having NPOV tag and giving the current RfC as the reason is meaningless.-sarvajna (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sarvajna, but flogging this on ANI is a losing approach. It would have been better to have focused your energies on modifying the RfC (because what is or is not neutral is a good question to ask) than to try to give this affair a behavioral flavor by bringing it up on ANI (I know, you didn't bring it up). I suggest you go back to the talk page (where, imo, your point is actually a good one) and deal with the issue there.--regentspark (comment) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User claiming to be the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party wanting to remove article.

User:Kehlstein, who in an edit summary claims to be Stephen Goodson, the leader of the party, is repeatedly removing sourced controversial/negative material from the article, and requesting/demanding that it be removed. To me the material seems properly sourced but I would appreciate if an administrator took a look at it, and also decided what to do to Kehlstein/Goodson. "User:Kehlstein" is a single-purpose account that has only ever edited Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party and Stephen Goodson, meaning that there's a COI too, and has been given a final warning for repeatedly deleting the material. Thomas.W (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, they've been given a final warning and haven't blanked since. Shirt58, operating under the alias "Peter", has left them a note; let's see how that goes. If they return to Goodson, that article should probably be tagged; if they return to that party article and edit like they did before, they should be blocked indefinitely. Also, good luck to you, South Africa. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should actually be "Peter, operating under the alias 'Shirt58' "... Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new user, Paardekraal, has just popped up and edited Stephen Goodson, in effect identifying himself as Stephen Goodson in the edit summary of one of his edits to the article. I have reverted his edits, issued a {{uw-coi}} to Paardekraal and tagged the article with Template:COI. But that's as far as I'll go, so from now on it's your problem. Thomas.W (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kehlstein filed with CU request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kehlstein and Paardekraal have been confirmed to be one and the same in the SPI. Confirming that Stephen Goodson has been abusing multiple accounts while trying to remove (well sourced) negative info about himself. So I guess an indef block on User:Kehlstein would be logical, and well deserved. Thomas.W (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat in edit summary at Stephen Goodson

Paardekraal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Paardekraal, who self-identifies as the subject of this WP:BLP [156], has posted an obvious legal threat in a recent edit summary [157]. User is notified. [158] - Sperril (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely BLP territory, so I would ask where is the source showing the article subject is a holocaust denial. The legal threat is a separate issue but we need to iron out both. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a cursory examination and the relevant sections of the article and they appear to me to be well-sourced, but I would certainly welcome further review. I have never edited this article and have no idea who this person is. I found the legal threat while patrolling the contributions of new accounts. Sperril (talk) 06:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is well-sourced. I also listened to the interview on youtube, and, if anything, the sources understate his anti-semitic views.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to be able to source exactly the extent of his views. The holocause is a big lie is well sourced, but has he ever stated he admired Hitler? I was trying to find that part. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to say "admiration for Hitler's policies" [159].--I am One of Many (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)][reply]

Regarding the legal threat, I have given Paardekraal a standard-issue NLT block. Haven't looked into the verifiability or otherwise of the holocaust denial claim. Yunshui雲水 07:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by this edit summaryUser:Kehlstein is also Stephen Goodson (in the edit summary Kehlstein identifies himself as the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party, that is Stephen Goodson). Kehlstein has been used for deleting controversies and negative info about Goodson from the article about the party (see current discussion here at ANI). Thomas.W (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kehlstein and Paardekraal have been confirmed to be one and the same in this SPI. Confirming that Stephen Goodson has been abusing multiple accounts while trying to remove (well sourced) negative info about himself. Thomas.W (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific (TV miniseries) edit war

The situation at The Pacific (TV miniseries) is getting out of control, and requires the intervention of other editors and administrators. As I am involved in the dispute, I will try to give as complete an accounting of what has happened as possible, acknowledging that I am, in part, to blame for the edit war.

Niemti made a series of bold changes to the article, but offered no edit summaries or explanation for the changes he made. I reverted, stating in my edit summary: "Such an extensive rewrite and rearrangement of the article requires an explanation; discuss on talk." I then posted on the talk page, stating that I did not find the edits helpful and hoping that we could discuss the matter.

Niemti did not respond until the next day, posting a series of messages, in which, instead of showing a willingness to discuss the issues, he stated that they "totally obvious for anyone who has edited Wikipedia for a while" and questioning if I understood the meaning of the word "synopsis". He then reverted to his preferred version of the article. I responded to his talk page post, stating that his attitude was not helpful, and citing WP:BRD, I reverted his changes again.

Fearing the situation was getting out of control, I posted a message on PresN's talk page, asking him to keep an eye on the discussion. PresN never responded, but Niemti did, posting a series of messages in which, frankly, the sarcasm and attitude get even worse, and in which he admits to canvassing to get an uninvolved editor --- "I just informed JTBX (who had such problems with this user before) about this discussion, so he can tell more, hopefully leading to some action regarding this problem (it's about time)." --- to join in the fight.

Today, he reverted again and I reverted back, which I think puts us both at WP:3RR.

What I would like to see happen here is for other editors to join in the discussion, for Niemti to curb his attitude, and for us to move forward in improving the article. The latter may only be able to happen if Niemti and I stay on the sidelines. The atmosphere now is so combative, I am not sure we can work together at all. But, the situation cannot be allowed to continue. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a bold choice for Niemti, who has just narrowly avoided being banned more than once due to civility and OWN issues. He's on extremely this ice and is well aware. Sergecross73 msg me 16:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheOldJacobite is owning basically every article he's watching, reverting any kind of edits (I wasn't even inseting literally anything, all of it was just basic copyedit of a badly written article) unless the edits are explained to him for a reviev and accepted by him, which he calls "consensus", in a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. He does completely unilaterally, without explaining his problems (at all, instead simply claiming that "none of those changes seemed necessary or helpful" without elaborating) and he does also even in violation of 3 reverts rule ([160][161][162]). This need to stop. --Niemti (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why you're not following WP:BRD? Or waiting until there's a consensus on the talk page before reinstating your information? Sergecross73msg me 16:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" with what, with whom? Do you call "consensus" a supposed necessity for getting an approval for performing even a simple copyedit work from someone who thinks he owns articles (plural, as in multiple articles, LOTS of them) on Wikipedia, and so he needs to review everything before any change can happen? copyedited literally thousands of articles, I don't remember having problems with aquiring "consensus" for that from anyone else. --Niemti (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, with sources or consensus, if someone is challenging it, then your answer is yes, it is necessary. (Excluding bad faith trolling type stuff, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.) Sergecross73msg me 16:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? Consensus for having a badly written article? Consensus for my edits being in fact "necessary or helpful", while it wasn't even said why he thought they were not (and all of them)? That's ownership and demands for edits to be explained, reviewed by him and then (maybe) approved, which is discussed in Wikipedia:Ownership of articles (and which needs to be stopped). And once again - its's not just about me or this article. --Niemti (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for your proposed changes. Quite frankly, upon looking further, both of you are acting unreasonable. One of you demands and explanation for the changes, without stating why he needs it, (Jacobite) while the other refuses to give an explanation, when it would just be easier to explain why you made the actual changes (Niemti). Sergecross73msg me 16:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it's not just about this article or me, it's about his ownership of multiple articles and behaving like that in regards to other editors as well. Also, as for "and OWN issues" - it was regarding the user who is now banned precisely for literally screwing up articles[163] (I was right about him all the time), a completely different situation as you see. --Niemti (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but part of it is about this article, and you avoiding a real response on that is exactly what I'm talking about here. Neither one of you are discussing the heart of the problem, you're both just barking out vague questions to the other one, and then just responding with more questions. One asks "Why no edit summary?" and the other just asks "Why do I need one?". If you guys would start answering each others questions maybe you'd get somewhere. Sergecross73msg me 17:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are optional, while ownership of articles (and it's not about just this one) is not allowed and is the real problem here. It's hard to say how much damage he did with indiscriminately/whimisicaly reverting people's edits like that, apparently for a long time (years?). --Niemti (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, edit summaries were just an example. My point is that one of you asks "Why did you do that?" while the other just asks back "Why did you do that?" Both of you need to explain your edits to one another on the talk page. You're both too busy cooking up another "zinger" to discuss anything of substance. Beyond that, you haven't given any proof of this huge, multi-year/article spanning OWN conspiracy you keep referring to. You gave a single dif showing one other time you disagreed with him. You're going to need more proof before people start listening to that, otherwise there's not much to discuss yet there... Sergecross73msg me 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's because I know this guy, and I decided to not play his game (someone got to make a stand, and I'm glad it went here). Okay. Happy now? Now, the "OWN conspiracy" (at least 215 reverts out of 500 last edits). --Niemti (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I need to run out the door, but two quick points- 1, I would not describe a back-and-forth with 1 revert on one side and two on the other as an "edit war", and 2, the canvass accusation is a bit rich seeing as it was quite clear that you only contacted me vs any other admin because you thought I would take the not-Niemti side in any argument. --PresN 16:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 reverts on my side (plus edits), 3 on his. --Niemti (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although Niemti does have a fairly abrasive approach to people sometimes and that has gotten him into a lot of hot water. In this case, his edits did indeed expand the article. Sure, edit summaries would have helped but aren't required and wholesale reverting the, what I think are, constructive changes to the article was not the way to go about it. Quite frankly, the article should be reverted back to the version post-Niemti's changes and a discussion kicked off on the talk page rather than going the classical BRD route since there was nothing untoward in Niemti's edits. Blackmane (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not enough. He needs to cease ownership on ALL articles. As I said, that many, many articles where he constantly blocks attempts by other editors to improve them, demanding "consensus" with him, and calling his versions "the stable version" ("stable", because he reverts back to it). I don't think I even have to say how harmful this is, and it needs to stop right now. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show some difs for this? Sergecross73msg me 16:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[164] and the discussion above it (JTBX can tell you more about it). Also notice how he never even responded (and so his "stable versions" remains). Apparently, Gareth Griffith-Jones is also in it. I'm pretty sure just glancing over their edit history might reveal lots of it. (I can also recall his semi-automatic revert of my cleanup-rewrite of one of Clint Eastwood-starring spaghetti westerns.) --Niemti (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that their names have been mentioned, I've left a notification on JTBX and Gareth Griffith Jones. Blackmane (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This film was A Fistful of Dollars (Sargecross wanted me to find it, so I did). --Niemti (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some other examples of untold damage done by The Old Jacobite to Wikipedia:

• The writing is horrible. Portions of sentences like "tries more and more drastically" give the appearance that this was written by a middle school student on lunch break. RepublicanJacobite, from the edit history and talk page, you seem to have longstanding WP:OWNership issues with this article. That wouldn't be so bad if the writing weren't quite so dreadful. My edits improve the quality of the writing. BRD is an essay, not a policy, and not an excuse to block people from improving your favorite articles or changing them from your preferred version. - Balph Eubank ✉ 20:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• It appears that this artice is in need of clean up, however, any edits done to improve the article are being reverted and at many times without cause. For example, any edits explcitly stating that William Wallace did not have an affair with Isabella of France are often reverted along with any edits that explicitly state that Edward III was not the son of Wallace. Instead, the article has a vague passage that Isabella was 3 years old at the time leaving the reader to infer that that an affair could not have happened without clear indication that the two were never involved even later in life. There is no reason for such a run around. This [this], [this], and [this] are just a few examples of this. In fact, even adding the fact this was historically inaccurate was a point of tension with the first mention of it being reverted without good cause despite its factual accuracy as seen [here]. Additionally, this article contains certain statements which seem bold to state without any reliable sources to back them up. An example is that the article makes the connection that the Stone of Destiny was returned to Scotland as a result of this film. A citation is going to be needed for this claim. Additionally, for some reason Anglophobia has its own section despite it's light content and even though there a cultural effects section where it could be merged into. I'm afraid it looks like two editors have taken strict ownership of this article based on edit history and WP:DR will be the next step if such reverts continue without valid explanations. TheLou75 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC) (the other self-proclaimed owner in question: Erik)

• Mr. T.O.J., I tend to disagree with what your saying. This particular article is not a "collaborative project". If it were, you would allow me to edit without reverting my changes giving no plausible explanation. Aside from one section, the Awards section, you haven't compromised on any of my changes. You constantly ignore everything I've been saying. If anything, I've been the only one making compromises so far accomodating a portion of your selected complaints. Your also not making any effort to review the content that I put forth. It doesn't take that long to view a few small sections of improvement. I'm not asking to you to review a novel. You are exhibiting clear ownership qualities in relation to this page. A portion of what your saying is also incorrect. There hasn't been "multiple editors" who disagree with my changes. Its been entirely you and another editor who neither seem to have their facts straight after being proven wrong. I've been more than patient waiting for your response to the improvements. You have yet to do so. Do you have anything helpful to add or say to the points and issues above that I mentioned? Or do you want to keep on ignoring what I have to say, and continue doing nothing? Your not cooperating. Moovi (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

And so on. --Niemti (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Niemti, while we understand you feel strongly about these matters, some recent issues have given plenty of editors reason to drag you to ANI and other places for slight or moderate civility concerns. I endorse bringing any content disputes to DRN in the future for the simple reason of opening it up to new eyes and documenting cases in which can prove your patience and dedication in future problems. Niemti, you do acknowledge your short temper, but it would be in everyone's best interest to get a centralized mediation on any issues concerning your editing for the time being. We want to help, but if you are not being calm and remaining civil then the community is going to ostracize you and you will be perpetually skating on thin ice. You do good work, but I think you need to remove yourself from conflicts and substitute in other editors when your changes are contested. I frequent DRN now and it is a smooth if albeit slow process. In order to prevent yourself from being blocked over your questionable and sometimes hostile responses, I think a little 'editor incubation' needs to occur and your arguments and defense of those edits need to be made by proxy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a condition of participation in Wikipedia that editors be willing to discuss edits and collaborate in a constructive manner on improvements and changes and fixes.

BOTH EDITORS here need to remember this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Both"? Like it's only about me? How many more examples of "Mr. T.O.J." owning various film/series articles and blocking other editors' work do you want me to provide? Because I can do it. --Niemti (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, "Mr. T.O.J." did. I use this occasion to highlight the enormous damage that he did to a large number of Wikipedia film-related articles (blocking many people from working on and improving the articles). --Niemti (talk) 07:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then!

• Well, I beg to disagree with RepublicanJacobite's assertion of article ownership with mass reverts. He didn't think someone would one day challenge his monopoly-type authority. He basically came in there, sort of did a whole bunch of mass reverts, giving unplausible reasons for doing so, and being proved wrong on virtually every count. He's attempted to use false reasoning as a poor excuse for being opinionated. The DVD version of the film can be used as a reference as has been done so in FA nominated articles like American Beauty. The overuse of images is complete nonsense. He was upset that an image for example, appeared in the Plot section. There's no Film Project rule that says you can't have a photo in that section to illustrate a character relationship. Other FA articles have had them in the past. All the photos include complete usage rationales. As an example, a similar photo/rationale is present on the Avatar film page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avatarjakeneytiri.jpg Yet it wasn't deleted. User Erik has decided to jump on Republican's bandwagon and sort of give an unplausible explanation for removing the pics saying they were not "compelling enough" reasons. User Erik is simply giving a double standard. I've placed the correct rationales: low resolution, no free equivalent exists, copyrights are owned by Columbia Pictures, and were used to illustrate the relationship between characters in the film. I'm considering reverting that edit. Its completely unjustified. The friendship piece with Glenn and Costner details a character development relationship that occured during the filming of Silverado. It needs an expansion. Does that mean that this particular piece should be deleted in the meantime? I mentioned already the issue of the Blu-ray/DVD info regarding Amazon on the talk page. The reference is not being used for reasons of spam. It was used for one precise point: to note a particular release date. Websites like Amazon or Barnes & Noble are not user edited. Again, I don't believe there is a Film Project rule that asserts you can't use an ecommerce site just to simply reference a release date. And if I might add, Alien vs. Predator, another FA article does reference Amazon for a piece of content too. Cite number 39. DeWaine (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• Frankly, I am surprised, Andy, that you did not trot out your old "article ownership" accusation, as you seem to do every single time we have any interaction. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC) (Andy = Andy Dingley, another user who was repeatedly being blocked by "Mr. T.O.J.", back then posting as RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive)

That's seven different users (me, JTBX, Balph Eubank, TheLou75, Moovi, DeWaine, Andy Dingley) in at least eight different articles, but the very some problem. Enough already for admins to stop ignoring it, or talking about us "both"? Or how many more examples I need to give you to get up and act, after this has continued for a long time? (I wonder, how many people got their edits summarily reverted and didn't even know?) --Niemti (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why RFC/U exists. Your tone and conduct show little civility and a clear frustration with the user, but responding in kind is liable to get you punished because most of us are more familiar with your actions then Jacobite's at this point. When deciding between two wrongs, who do you think is going to get off easier? No one? The quiet one or the loud one? I don't know, but you should seriously consider your tone in your responses. Even now it sounds like you are blaming admins for not being proactive with a situation that were unaware of. 7 editors having a problem with Jacobite's alleged OWN is exactly what RFC/U is for. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, one can be a nearly complete asshole on Wikipedia for many, many years before anything is done about it. The keyword here is nearly and it translates as extreme rudeness but avoiding extreme incivility. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be off topic, but 5.12.68.204 is blocked for ban evasion. No link to who it is, but should it be collapsed? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how can I get you more familiar with this huge amount of damage to Wikipedia? How long would I keep quoting the various other people saying the same thing, before it stop being seen as only between "us both", as it was only my edits in one article being reverted for no reason? I think the situation is just extremely serious, and actually much worse than I originally thought. It's just too bad it's seemingly only me who thinks so (here and now). --Niemti (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's not just "7 editors", it was just 7 of my examples (random ones). That's a world of difference, you know? I could list many more people who were reverted like that for no good (or simply just no) reason and somehow didn't like it too. That was just a few examples, because at one moment it was thought here like it was just about mey edits and in one article (while even I've got reverted like that by him in more than one article), or maybe just me and JTBX (and JTBX who was called over here can take it over from me, because now yes, I'm just frustrated, I excepted to see a launch of substantial effort to repair at least some of the damage done, maybe by estabilishing and contacting all the wronged users and encouraging them to now go back and restore their edits, and turns out it's nothing there even "actionable" at all). --Niemti (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment That's quite the laundry list of offenses you have there, Niemti. Regarding the discussion, I think everyone can agree that your edit was sound. Your civility toward Jacobite, however, was not entirely sound. That being said, I see nothing actionable for either side. Laundry lists like this tend to generate more heat than light. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 12:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? So this "laundry list" is still not enough for it be "actionable"? It just doesn't matter how many (I don't know how many, but I have a very good reason to believe it was LOTS) constructive edits were lost because of that - the work of people who didn't even know they were reverted (and they were reverted little to NO reason), people who thought it's not worth it to fight for their good edits to be approved by a self-appointed owner of many articles (I don't know how many, maybe very many), people who still fought (and I quoted the people who fought) but lost (and I've seen it too)? How many articles are kept in a bad state only because of that - not because people didn't try, and didn't work on them, sometimes the best, but because they were simply not allowed (contrary to the idea of "anyone can edit" and the anti-ownership rules), and all their work was destroyed! And you still refuse to do anything about it? I must say it's quite...surprising. I excepted something else. But, well. I can't say I didn't bring it to public attention. Now it's all your ball, I did my part and I'm out (but severely disappointed). --Niemti (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about others, but I'd be a lot more motivated to assist you if you weren't so condescending and abrasive every step of the way. We're all volunteers here; why help someone who is so difficult themselves? You've been accused of OWN issues a ton in your time here, and you refuse to address anything said about you, you just point the finger and anyone/everyone else - every single time. Life's too short to assist angry people who wouldn't appreciate my efforts anyway. Sergecross73msg me 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't (unless by this guy, and now you too know this guy). Anyway I provided a plenty of leads to investigate (into something potentially very serious, or at least relatively, one might not call anything on Wikipedia a serious matter), and so my role ends here. (But you can call me if it's needed to give even more examples.) --Niemti (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seriously denying the fact that you've been accused of WP:OWN issues in the past, right? Because it was one of the central issues brought up in your recent RFC/U. Sergecross73msg me 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which was about AnddoX being AnddoX. How's your own experience with AnddoX? Please tell me, I wonder. --Niemti (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even check the links? Did you really think I wouldn't? Per your RFC/U: An IP, not Andox. Masem, not Anndox, Birdies, not Anndox. Etc etc. Come on, stop the misdirections.... Sergecross73msg me 15:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you "stop the misdirections". OK? And now I'm really done, and I hope someone will take this seriously, as it should be, and act on it in a proper manner. Out. --Niemti (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be misdirection, it was an explanation in response to your "outrage" how no one's really listening to you here. No one wants to waste their time helping out someone who is difficult and condescending every step of the way, and has been accused of doing the same exact thing (ownership issues) in the recent past. Feel free to continue to be bewildered and "severly disappointed" with Wikpedia, but the truth is that you keep shooting yourself in the foot by the way you act and treat others. Sergecross73msg me 16:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you would ever understand it's not about "helping out" me, but about the others who were and still are being artitrarily blocked from editing by him for no valid reason - which I thought I made clear again and again. (And no, no one has ever accused me "the same exact thing (ownership issues)" on any talk page like that, as far as I rememeber. But hey, keep on misdirecting.) --Niemti (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/U is that way. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]