Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Bushranger (talk | contribs) at 22:06, 14 August 2012 (Resolution: that User:Pigsonthewing be banned from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day: s). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:06, 14 August 2012 by The Bushranger (talk | contribs) (Resolution: that User:Pigsonthewing be banned from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day: s)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)


Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Shortcuts

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

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


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

    Start a new discussion Centralized discussion
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links


    User:Pigsonthewing/Andy Mabbett and featured article of the day

    User Pigsonthewing (Andy Mabbett) is a user who has made some valuable contributions. He is an expert on Pink Floyd and has established a local Misplaced Pages group. However he also been at the centre of a number of conflicts and has an extensive block history including an Arbcom ban of one year.

    Recently he has been displaying some very pointy behaviour regarding featured articles of the day. On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day, reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source beign substandard for an FA and claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.

    On 25 July, he inserted an infobox into the FA of the day. By the following week he was again making accusations of WP:OWN. There has been a long-running and boring dispute regarding the use of infoboxes in classical music articles. Andy's contribution to this dispute has led to some of his blocks. It was obvious that there could be no consensus reached to make such a change during the day that the article was FA of the day.

    I think the attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day can only have a negative impact. The author of the first featured article mentioned is no stranger to robust argumentation, but that is not the case for all content creators. Spoiling an editor's pleasure of being on the front page can easilly affect their willingness to work on another FA.

    I think a topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day is appropriate. Perhaps also a topic ban from all classical-music related article would be useful. I shall post a notice of this thread on AM's talk page imminently.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Andy inserted an infobox that was clearly within policy so you brought him to ANI? If having someone's article improved "spoils their pleasure" that's their problem, not the problem of the person who inserted the content. Ryan Vesey 16:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    No I am sayign that an editor with an extensive history of disruptive editing and a block history to match is making WP:POINTy edits to the FAs of the day thus stirring things up when things should be kept as quiet as possible when somethign is FA of the day. There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware and he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)::Ryan, I see you are a member of WP:ER... I'm not sure if you fully understand the significance of your last post. Or, for that matter, of the "sniping" – to use Tim riley's exact word – that was going on in that discussion: including repeated idiolect digs from another editor at teh brilliant prose (Tim riley is surely among the best stylists and most capable copyeditors that Misplaced Pages has had). —MistyMORN 16:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Had. He retired today. Citing sniping. Very bad news for the project.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's a quote by me of myself from a post re Ian Fleming and it's referring to the whole focus of FA being intent on the original term for FAs and failing to deal appropriately with structural issues. I too am sad to see Tim withdraw his skills from the project and have said so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's a quote by me of myself from a post ... Did I really read that right? —MistyMORN 18:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    And this edit summary alluding to wankery the delights of self citation? isn't trolling? Or the badgering on my talk, yesterday? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    No, it was a serious comment. And yesterday I politely let you know that I'd started a serious thread on Jimbo's page about the principle, not the participants. Since then, you have regaled me with multiple edit summaries of goaway and Bzzzt (whatever that's supposed to mean). —MistyMORN 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Wrong answer, please try again. No good comes from starting threads on "principles" on teh Jimbo's talk. That's about inflaming disputes, as is this fucking page. This is all toxic snipping and drama-mongering. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    I leave it to others to pursue this thread. I feel physically sick.MistyMORN 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Tim's one of the few people who doesn't gush about my articles but gets into the bones of it and tells me what's wrong. This is very demotivating.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm on good terms with Tim; believe I'm one of those he was referring to with and have had stimulating email exchanges with two other contributors to the above. It's quite unseemly for others to seek to use this as a weapon, as is on display just above. That is the sort of snipping that Tim's distressed over. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Oh really? . I don't think you have any right to put words or interpretations into Tim's mouth. —MistyMORN 18:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    I will admit that I wasn't clear on this and have stricken my comment. Ryan Vesey 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    I believe that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and a total disregard for WP:CONSENSUS is the problem here, and when it comes to coordinates, Andy has a bully approach - anyone who disagrees with his view that they should be displayed as full DMS coords and linked within prose or added into tables is accused of ownership issues. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Highways/Archive 4#RFC on coordinates in highway articles, Talk:Manchester Ship Canal, Talk:Ontario Highway 401#Coordinates and many more that I haven't witnessed or been involved in first-hand. It appears the insertion of infobox into TFAs is just another arm on the octopus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Would a topic ban or weekly 1rr be appropriate from this in line with what I suggested re classical music articles?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Astute readers will note that one of the above refers to a case where Floydian added coordinates to an article to overcome an issue raised at its FAR, only to remove them as soon as it passed FA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    As far as I can tell from Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Pigsonthewing placed on probation, Andy is still on indefinite probation even though no actions have been taken under it for some time.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

    Actually I have now found Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing#Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing where this was confirmed earlier this year.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Furthermore, he was given a year ban in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2. --Rschen7754 18:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • As a general comment, I think a lot of Wikipedians don't realize how stressful "TFA day" can be for the people who have put a ton of work into the TFA article. It's not a bad idea to wait until the article's off the main page to propose potentially controversial changes. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      This editor doesn't propose though. They just implement their controversial change (often having made a similarly controversial change recently), then argue vehemently against numerous editors that they were in the right to make the change, and accuse those numerous editors of OWNership issues or trying to enforce a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Andy just determines what consensus is, and implements it matter-of-factly. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 18:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
      • That is exactly what I was thinking, Mark. The debate over info boxes is a valid debate, but it is a matter of timing. I have no idea why it couldn't wait, and allow the article, as it was approved, to be left more or less free of major changes while it is on the front page. That just seems a bit of courtesy and a way of gaining good faith from fellow editors. And I tend to be in favor of infoboxes in general, but not in favor of choosing the worst possible time to make a stand on them. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Infoboxes are not mandatory, not required and generally all of this page-by-page debate is doing nothing more than stirring up a lot of trouble and pushing people away. To see this brought up at the Village Pump is absurd. Really. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Or we could look at the ownership issues, or the inappropriate local consensus issues. TFAs get a lot of edits from a lot of regulars. There's talk of an RfC re infoboxes on my talk. That's a better option. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Fair point, but for the one day that the article is on the Main Page, we don't need those issues. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    I still think that the ban should be from the moment an article is proposed for a particular day or scheduled for that day until it has either completed its time as TFA or been replaced in the schedule for the proposed day. Otherwise we'll have the disruption merely pushed forward.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's it's "disruptive" is not established. I have good faith that Andy believes what he is seeking is for the best of the project. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Editors are supposed to be bold and there is considerable support for the infoboxes (millions of them). Dunno about that table, though. This issue need a wider discussion (and a calm, reasoned one), not reflexive feeding of those churning up drama. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't buy it. Regardless of what the consensus is on infoboxes (or the other issues for that matter), making a WP:POINT on the article's one day on the front page is simply obvious attention-seeking. The wider discussion can take place when the article isn't the first thing that millions of people see when they log in. Especially when you're sourcing your POINTY edit to someone's TescoNet homepage. Black Kite (talk) 19:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Skipping right past that dead TescoNet hompage link, the infoboxes are quite arguably widely accepted improvements. I agree that these various infobox discussion are not productive. Part of the problem is that they're held on the home turf of the opponents of infoboxes. Everyone should mellow out and agree to a wide participation RfC. I will escort Andy there myself. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Except editors are not supposed to be bold when they know they don't have consensus to be so. He is clearly making a WP:POINT edit. Whether he thinks he is benefiting the project or not, when you don't have consensus or when something is controversial you stop and discuss first. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    The infoboxes question is a red herring; he does this with coordinates too. --Rschen7754 19:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Of course, the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too, except its associated with a set of templates and not with articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    I second Peter's comments. Eisfbnore  20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    see: {{TFA-editnotice}}. "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}} on talk for FAs says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    I have seen it, but that doesn't change the fact that you aren't supposed to make edits you know will be controversial without discussing them first. He was well aware the edits were controversial. Be bold only applies when you don't know prior to your edit that they will be controversial. -DJSasso (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • zOMG censorship. Although the whole thread is still probably going to be a train wreck, I think it took a *severe* turn for the worse starting here. I've simply removed comments from several editors, putting me in direct violation of numerous guidelines and policies I'm sure. If this pisses you off and you simply must restore them, please at least think of one single benefit to the encyclopedia for doing so. In the process I also removed a couple of harmless comments that no longer make sense once the silly ones are removed; no offense intended. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • There's no benefit to any of this, it was train wreck much before it got here, but suppressing comments without linking to them simply allows more comments like the one below to pile up. The best thing to do would be to archive the "discussion". Truthkeeper (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • But there's nothing wrong with the comment below; you may agree with it or disagree with it, but Disagreement is OK. I was just trying to nip in the bud the devolution into 100% snark, not stifle a discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • But that would defeat the purpose of snipping it. I might as well hat it, then. The whole point is, I think those comments should just go down the memory hole. If snark has been going on since November, what possible benefit is there to restoring more here? However, I am not going to try to prevent anyone from linking, or restoring, or anything. Just be convinced you're improving the encyclopedia by doing so. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Andy's contribution to classical music discussion pages is to be welcomed, not supressed. The classical music wikiprojects are very insular, with their own special rules about infoboxes, and they need to encourage outside criticism. If we ban Andy from classical music discussions it would at least have the appearance of stifling good-faith criticism of the projects. On the broader issue of making stylistically-controversial changes to featured articles while they are on the main page, I have no opinion. ThemFromSpace 21:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Pigsonthewing is a great editor, with good intentions, but he's terrible at explaining things once confusion or disagreement has arisen (eg, and more, unrelated to infoboxes).
    However, This really isn't (or shouldn't be, despite the page it's in) about the particular tempest.
    It's about writer's voice. It's about knowing-your-audience, and grokking the context and background and nuances of a dispute. It's about personality archetypes smashing into each other, and not seeing the fallout. It's about retirees arguing with youngsters arguing with 'foreigners' (humans with entirely different mental intonations and landscapes). It's about empathy and insight. The only thing we have to encourage/enforce empathy is wp:Civility (and an entire navbox full of bitter&hilarious essays). And nothing can 'enforce' insight. But we do, desperately, need better ways to communicate with editors who are completely missing a point in a dispute. Like some of the consistently sarcastic afd nominators. It's acidic, and exhausting to others, in a subtle but influential way. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I support Peter cohen's original proposal, "topic ban from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day". The infobox question (despite the insistence of some here) IMO is still open, and so too is the issue of coordinates. I don't find the argument that uniformity and metadata should override the preferences and consensus of those actually building the articles particularly persuasive. Especially in the situations presented here, Andy seems to be deliberately sowing dissension in pursuit of his aims. I can imagine how demoralizing it must be for an editor who has sweated and slaved to get every detail right for FAC, it goes to the main page, then someone shows up simply because they feel the need to make a point. Yes, we are encouraged to be bold and try to improve articles. No, that is not the right place to do it. As a fallback to get consensus for a restriction, I'll also go for Black Kite's option, topic ban from TFA. Franamax (talk) 22:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I oppose the original proposal because it's based on little substance and insufficient attempts to find common ground. If you want to ban folks who disagree with you, you need to be a lot more convincing. The core of the disagreement is Andy's belief that particular articles benefit from infoboxes versus Peter's assertion that Andy's view may be dismissed without consideration because a WikiProject has predetermined the rules for infoboxes for all of its articles. That brings us to the secondary complaint: that Andy has accused others of WP:OWN. The assumption there is that he is mistaken, but Peter's own second statement gives the game away. This statement, "he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article", is the clearest exposition of OWN that could be made. Nobody has the authority to give instructions of that kind - just look at what OWN says on the issue: Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Misplaced Pages. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article that you maintain—perhaps you are an expert or perhaps you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. - and that is policy. I recommend Peter takes the time to read through Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles and and try to judge dispassionately if Andy actually has substance to his view. I'd particularly draw his attention to the section On revert, as it does have many echoes of the arguments I've observed here.
    I'll make a counter-proposal: If anyone believes Andy is deliberately focussing on TFA to make a point, try going to his talk page and politely explaining your concern to him. Peter certainly doesn't seem to have engaged with Andy in that way within the last 1,000 edits to that talk page. If Andy doesn't discuss the concerns, then you'll have convinced me to change my position. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
    Look at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence and you will see that people have been discussing Andy's WP:POINTy behaviour, his abuse of accusations of WP:OWNership and his edit warring over infoboxes for years. That Arbcom case resulted in the second of Andy's one year bans. It's not something that someone needs to go to raise on his page afresh. That's why Arbcom have left him on indefinite probation.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I've looked at that five year old case, and I see no sign of you discussing anything there. If you find a problem with another editor's behaviour, yes, you had better go to their talk page and discuss it with them rationally. I find it repugnant that you seem to think that you can instigate an ANI case questioning an editor's behaviour without having made any effort whatsoever to discuss that behaviour in the proper place. --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    The only discussion of my referring to WP:OWN on that five-year-old page is about this, where I responded to a comment including "the editors... have discussed it" and "the primary editor's plan". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I support Peter's proposal that Andy stay away from FAs once its announced they will be on the main page, until they're no longer linked from the main page. That can be a stressful time for FA writers, and no one else should be choosing that time to make major changes. It's a question of respect, not OWN. SlimVirgin 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I oppose all of this. The proper outcome here is an RfC, as is being discussed on my talk. Frankly, the meta issue in play here isn't infoboxes or metadata (or coords), it's about the project having a coherency across topics. There are endless local prefs that groups assert over subsets of articles and little of it is helpful. Another desirable outcome would be to persuade Tim to return. Please. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This discussion is expanding very fast. It is impossible to read the whole discussion and understand where the problem is. Why the discussion whether to use a table or not was not discussed in the talk page of the article and the subject came to ANI? I am sure that the talk of TFA gets a lot of attention anyway. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    It is Andy's repeatedly showing up at TFAs to make a style change, then insisting he has a right to because of and and sophistry in quoting from P'sNG's. The issue is not the underlying merits of each discussion on which exact way of (prettying up / meta-fying) articles. I can see both sides of tables and boxes, but that doesn't matter. This is about gate-crashing done systematically, why in particular is WP:TFA being targeted? Hence the very simple suggestion of a topic ban, which does not prevent any of the underlying content discussions from proceeding. Franamax (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    gate-crashing: "the act of attending an invite-only event without invitation". That sounds a whole lot like an endorsement of WP:OWN. The whole world is invited to edit the TFAs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    That is utter nonsense Br'er. It is obviously not constructive to show up and demand style changes after and article has been through a review process with involvement by multiple editors. You can assume that there is a solid consensus for any style issues in an FA and the only way that should be change is by trying amicably to form a new consensus on the talkpage - not by trying to strongarm your ideas into something that others have spent hundreds of hours working on. If Andy cannot understand such a basic example of collaboration he has no business editing here at all. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Adding and infobox is not a "style" change, it is a structural change and an addition of content. Style is italics; ephemeral stuff. The FA review process is *flawed*, it misses all kinds of stuff. I find problems in most articles appearing on the main page (most common is duplicate named refs). The whole process is focused on too narrow a criteria of our best. Andy is participating in a fair number of talk discussions about these issues; certainly far more than he is editing TFAs. ↓↓ FA "stewardship" can be a good thing (I've invoked it, at Brian's suggestion). I've not looked at just when that got added to OWN; it's a wiki, so someone drove a truck sized hole through OWN. Anyway, it's often abused. ↓↓↓ The FA regulars may have had a prior shot at most TFA, but most of the ones that go by are articles I've never heard of. I expect it's the same for Andy and most other regulars. TFA is often no party for the primary author. See the whole mess discussed on Wehwalt's talk re the immediately prior TFA Gregorian mission. No party for Ealdgyth: "My preference would be no more of the articles I've done the major share of the work on on the main page ... but I know that's just the TFA talking. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)" Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    That is utterly irrelevant. Andy has to collaborate with those who reviewed it and wrote it not antagonize them. Making major structural or stylistic changes to a recently reviewed article on the day that it is on the mainpage without prior discussion or consensus on the talkpage is antagonistic in the extreme.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    /sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. I'll usually work on them a day or two before (if possible;) as day-of is too edit-conflict-rich. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    As far as I know we're not discussing you behavior here, but Andy Mabbet's. That suggests there is a qualitative different between how you approach editing the TFA and he does. Even so I do know that you have also gotten into conflicts because you have been to quick top restructure other people's work without involving them in the process.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    /sigh/. I rarely look at who worked on an article before I edit. I'm much more likely to check for recent vandalism, first. And I don't think I've ever checked who reviewed an article before editing it. I find and fix problems with TFAs about every other day. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    /double sigh/. Maybe its time you begin then? You apparently also "fix" things that are not considered problems. And apparently you do so knowing that others don't consider them problems. That is not helpful but antagonistic and disruptive. It should be obvious to anyone that the lack of an infobox in a recently reviewed article is not a problem but a decision. Pleading ignorance in this case just makes you look...ignorant.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Uh huh. And where, do you imagine, did I plead ignorance? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    When you tried to excuse your antagonistic and confrontational behavior by saying that you didn't look at who had edited or reviewed the article before editing it and therefore presumedly didn't know against whom you antagonism was directed. It amounts to saying "its not personal" - when you ought to know very well that doesn't matter one whit to those who've worked on the article and decided not to include those features you want to include.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I did no such thing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Everyone who is able to read can see you doing so two comments above this one.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'd agree the review process is flawed, perhaps for different reasons. I would think that a great many of the huge blunders in FA-rated articles are picked up on their TFA day.
    Take for example this correction on TFA day of a wildly erroneous statement in an FA promoted only just last year. The date that's more than a decade wrong was cited to a single foreign-language source when the article was promoted to FA, accepted without question by nominator, reviewers and promoter alike. It's also a key fact (perhaps the key fact) in the "Reaction and aftermath" section, establishing the significance of the entire case itself. One of the most important facts in the article.
    Some might think the 1990s are a long time ago. Ten to fifteen years doesn't make much difference? To compare great things with small, what if an article about segregated education said that it was still legal in the USA in 1981? Would it matter?
    Now why do I think that so many errors are picked up on TFA day? Well because the genuine errors that are picked up, like the one I just mentioned, stand a very good chance of getting reverted right back like this, and then again without even looking at the edit summary for the first change, by the owner of the article.
    Most of those making the correction, be they registered, unregistered, administrators or something else, wouldn't be back to check after the first "cleanup" restore of the error. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    (ec) Br'er, that's the attitude that's causing writers to leave the project. OWN makes the point here that FA stewardship isn't considered OWNership in the negative sense, and that applies even more when it's on the main page. It's one thing for a new editor to turn up to fix punctuation, but an experienced editor making substantive changes to a TFA knows that it's likely to upset someone. SlimVirgin 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    What it actually says is "Featured articles ... are open for editing like any other... explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not constitute ownership". It certainly does not say what others have claimed is the case, for the two articles in question, that (I paraphrase) "the editor who puts an article through FA review gets a veto over others' edits". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I figured someone might question that aspect of my link, but it was the best I could come up with for my intended concept. Congrats Jack on ferreting out the worst possible interpretation. Yes of course the entire world is invited, early and always - but here you show the sophistry I mentioned above. For Wikipedians who are already here, you, me, Andy, Slim, Maunus, whoever - we ALREADY HAD our kick at the can. Every single one of us knows the score and we all know damn well that if there are issues, then we need to discuss them well in advance. It's quite disingenuous for you to resort to wide-eyed innocence, that edits can be made to TFA context-free as though we are all newborn. So formally: NO, not at all and no-one OWNs anything. But FFS, on the day the TFA appears, yeah this should be a party for the people who made it happen, and this should be an occasion for all the rest of us to celebrate the editors who go that far. Even if you think it's a flawed process, take that up elsewhere, TFA is special. And deity knows that I've taken mucho satisfaction in correcting featured content typogrammos myself. ;) But to start up a war over a style issue like an infobox or microformat? I'm not saying your ideas aren't important, but why are they so important within that context? Franamax (talk) 02:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I support peter's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm inclined to support the topic ban, though I won't formally cast a vote that way simply because I've gone around with him more than once with the same problems. I can certainly relate to the frustrations, and if he is driving good editors away from the project, then I am finding it difficult to see why we should accept his continued presence here. Resolute 01:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support TFA topic ban. We are here for the encyclopedia, and that requires a collaborative community helping the content builders. Even if SOMEONE IS RIGHT, they need to avoid actions that drive away good content builders, and harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption (obscenities, vandalism and POV warring are relatively easy to handle—it is the drip drip drip of relentless sniping that damages good editors). Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Johnuniq is right on one point: "harassing good editors over technicalities like coordinates and infoboxes is the worst kind of disruption". If those who have only a narrow view of the full range of skills needed to build this project can't (or won't) understand the importance of technical aspects, like accessibility, functionality and re-usability, they need to step out of the way of those good editors that do. --RexxS (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support Peter Cohen's proposal of a TFA topic ban. --JN466 13:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I also support a topic ban. There is a competence issue here: if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project, he is per se incompetent to edit, and must be restricted from an area in which he is likely to offend such editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    "if Andy cannot edit without driving top editors off the project" Since I have driven no top editors off the project, your point is moot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Ahem. --Eisfbnore  14:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I stand by my statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Well, if that is your attitude, then move me to a formal support of this topic ban. Resolute 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I see. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support. Disagreeing with others is good. People can disagree in good faith about infobox usage. The way one disagrees makes a difference, and Andy consistently disagrees in a way that is not conducive to collaborative editing environment. Frankly, there probably needs to be further discussion about the usage of infoboxes (actually, I've never really gotten why we can't just drop it, but it's clear enough that we can't), but this editor doesn't need to involved, at least not when the article are on the main page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support, as Heimstern explains quite nicely. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support per my previous observation that there is a proper time and way to disagree, and if you can't figure that out, you need to not be around it. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Ban'. Andy's approach is poision, and he knows it, I suspect gleefully, and shame that its gone on for so long and shredded so many others nerves. I see him as a net negative, in every respect. Ceoil (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support - Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support (and nodding at user:Anthonyhcole). I edit ANI maybe once a year, but I can't stay away from this one. The user in question seems driven too much by an agenda not formally acknowledged as part of the goals of Misplaced Pages, as far as I know. The whole business of "making articles more 'semantic web'-friendly" is, in my estimation, a pet project with a little value but not when pushed relentlessly and rudely and to the detriment of other editors. We need formal policy on the degree to which people who are now referring to the (technical) "structure" of articles as some kind of pinnacle of achievement for an encyclopedia are allowed to make idiosyncratic changes to wikitext through templates or otherwise—implying some invented convention or precedent—that scarcely change the reader's experience while making editing sometimes more difficult; as they defend the practice with reference to hypothetical software-mediated "re-users" rather than the basic textual re-use which is a cornerstone of the philosophy behind the project. Riggr Mortis (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      Don't be silly: hypothetical software-mediated "re-users"
      Try maps.google.com and turn on the Misplaced Pages layer. Amazon has all the books. They download the whole database, over and over again. That includes all the structure, templates, /everything/. Get with the information age, pls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
      Or Dbpedia. Or the BBC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support topic ban from TFAs, and would be willing to expand it to articles in the que for TFA. Andy seems to have a bit of a fixation with these articles, as per comments above, and it seems that his conduct of himself in the process is far less than acceptable. One does get the impression that these edits may be motivated more by an urge to get attention than anything else. And I think common sense would indicate that making substantive potentially controversial edits to FAs, on the day when they are most visible, is a very bad idea. WP:COMMONSENSE would seem to apply here. John Carter (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Response

    Sadly, several editors commenting above have chosen to take Peter Cohen's asertions at face value; so it's useful to analyse them:

    On 19 July he inserted a table into the then FA of the day,
    I replaced a table which had previously been in the article for many months four years, but which was removed for no apparent reason prior to the FA review, and misleadingly, as "ridiculously sourced".
    reinserted accusing one of the main article creators of giving bogus reasons despite the source being substandard for an FA
    the reason given for the subsequent removal of the table was "anyone who wants this table included needs to find a better source than Tesco". The source given was not Tesco (it was a dead link, which now redirects to Tesco, and an archive version of the original has since been found). Further that source is used (as attribution, not citation) for only one column of the table. If it was a bad source then that column could have been removed, or a better source requested; it did not require removal of the whole table, most of which comprises features cited elsewhere in the article and coordinates which do not require individual sourcing per a prior RfC. Finally, after discussion in the article's talk page, consensus appears to show that the table should indeed be in the article.
    claimed that there were problems with WP:OWNership.
    In the cited diff I did not claim there were "problems with ownership". I asked the editor who said: "Malleus and PoD were the main contributors who got this article up to FA and John and myself also made some contributions along the way. You have made one drive-by edit that changes the whole look of the article on the day it appears on the front page. As far as I'm concerned If Malleus doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and PoD otherwise" to "please read WP:OWN". The claim that I had only made "one drive by edit" to the article was false; I've made many eidts, adding content to the article.
    again making accusations of WP:OWN
    No; I said "We have a policy for this. Please see ]" in response to a reference to "consensus among those who work on articles in this category" (I removed the quote of "as the most frequent toiler in this particular vineyard", seen in the diff mischievously cited, within seconds, as I realised I had taken it out of context). The correct diff is this one.
    attempt to start edit wars on FAs of the day
    No evidence is offered to support this false accusation regarding my supposed intentions. I have calmly discussed and justified my edits on the talk pages of the articles concerned. in the case of the ship canal, I made one singe revert of the removal of encyclopedic content, which is not otherwise available in the article, for reasons explained above. In the case of Solti, I made no reverts.
    things should be kept as quiet as possible when something is FA of the day
    I'd be interested to see the policy which enshrines this dictum.
    There has been a long-standing agreement on infoboxes and classical music articles of which Andy is fully aware
    Bunkum. There is no such "agreement", other than among a limited and self-selecting subset of editors. I am though, aware of the wishes of that group of editors; but the RfC which they initiated found no such consensus, as its conclusion makes clear. I made this point to Peter on the Solti talk page, but he chooses to ignore it.
    he removed an instruction that explicitly said that no infobox should be inserted into the article
    Rexxs has addressed this point already. But really: an instruction!? Surely, it is the people who place such messages, or seek to enforce them, in contravention of their own RfC and wider policy, who should be facing sanction?
    the issue regarding infoboxes and coordinates is one of ownership too
    If this is intended to refer to me, then, again, no evidence is offered for this unwarranated slur.

    Finally, for now, this page says at its head: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Where did Peter do this?

    I'm out of time now; I may comment further later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Andy, I might agree with you conclusion about infoboxes, but I find your timing to be incredibly bad. That is my problem, that you couldn't wait until it came off the front page. You can quote all the policies and pillars you want, I'm relying solely on common sense here, which dictates that if it is controversial, just wait a couple of days and discuss it. It almost seems perfectly timed to create the maximum amount of drama, instead of being timed to create the maximum chance of your perspective being considered. As to policy regarding the day FA articles hit the page, no policy should be needed. Common courtesy and common sense should be sufficient, and that is what makes your timing look intentionally disruptive, and pushes the boundaries of good faith. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    There were over 50 edits to Gregorian mission during its time as yesterday's TFA. While a few were vandaism and reversions thereof, most were not. There is clearly no policy (explicit or de facto; "common sense" or not) against working to improve an artice while it is a TFA. Further, as already pointed out above, {{TFA-editnotice}} says "Constructive changes are welcome". {{ArticleHistory}}, on the talk page of FAs, says "if you can update or improve it, please do so". One or both of those also link to WP:BOLD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    If the changes are controversial, they're not constructive. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's quite untrue. People make a fuss over constructive edits all the time. For example: diff; that fixed diffs for users of the secure server. It was reverted. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Are we by that statement supposed to infer that ownership digs which eventually end with the departure of FA writers are "constructive changes"? Eisfbnore  14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    quit trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Are we supposed to infer that "FA writers" are somehow different from ordinary writers? I'm an "FA writer", but I don't demand special privileges as a result. If you want a policy saying that no established editor may edit TFA (other than vandalism reverts) go and propose it at WP:VP and see how far you get. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    For the record: To my knowledge, Tim didn't ask for any privileges either. But eventually he simply voted with his feet. —MistyMORN 13:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Andy, your motives on the day, I feel, were not to "improve" but to enforce your weird ideology that all articles should adopt your preferred format. An infobox, IMO is not an improvement. Also, your timing was completely inappropriate and may or may not have been a primary factor in WP loosing one of its greatest ever contributors. -- Cassianto 15:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Noted: your feelings; your opinion; "may or may not". Nothing substantive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    The answer to your first question is yes, and if you would have read this novel you would have known what happens when you sabotage the individuals who create something. I'm not sure whether the departure of Tim riley was the intended goal for Andy & Jack, but their subsequent unapologetic behaviour does indeed give me the impression that they thereby have gotten a feeling of mastery. Eisfbnore  15:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    your bad faith is appalling: diff of User talk:Tim riley. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    AGF doesn't mean to switch off your brain. That post of yours at his page was simply a politically correct message, so that you could continue in the same vein as before. Why didn't you simply apologise for your sniping at Talk:Georg Solti and Talk:Peter Sellers? Tim's last edit before the day of retirement was the addition of a comment to the former talk page; you ought to be somewhat more compunctious and not put the blame on MistyMorn. Eisfbnore  16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Because it's not sniping. You and MistyMorn are not acquitting yourselves well here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    So you mean that Tim was wrong in citing the relentless sniping/trolling of yours as a reason for his departure? Or that somebody else sniped him? Just curious. --Eisfbnore  16:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    you're trolling; goway. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Eisfbnore, the belief that Rand's fiction bears any resemblance to real human endeavour makes clear your disconnection with the reality of editing Misplaced Pages. This is a profoundly collaborative endeavour, not a pastime for divas who want to elevate themselves above their fellows. Tim was the very opposite of the model of "FA writer" that you are trying to promote. Indeed he most recently spend an entire day helping other editors as well as academics at the WWI Editathon – along with Andy as it happens. If you ever come to understand that content writers and the technicians who create and maintain the framework for that content depend on each other, you'll understand what Misplaced Pages is actually about. I see you're already familiar with Canoe River train crash; do you think that would be such a great article without the different contributions of multiple editors? --RexxS (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    diff of Canoe River train crash && diff of Canoe River train crash. nb: teh Randian stuff flies well with teh Jimbo ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, that page was really nice before it was transformed into a mess of load time-expensive citation templates. Also, it would be great if both of you could have a look at Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. Then you'll perhaps realise that von Mises was right when he said to the Russian radical that "you have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you." NB that I'm actually a Rothbardian and despise everything about the Ayn Rand cult; however, she, along with Schumpeter, understood that it is the innovative spirit of a few individuals that changes the world. Eisfbnore  17:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Except that Wehwalt asked me to fix the citations on that page (and many others;). And {{sfn}} is really fast ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    You see, your lack of knowledge really makes the point. The 40 {{sfn}} templates increase the rendering time from 6.1 sec to 7.3 sec and you call that "a mess of load time-expensive citation templates". And 95% of our readers don't even see that slowdown because they get the page from the cache. It's depressing for anybody trying to improve articles to have such blind hatred of anything technical used as weapon, as is happening here. If you really don't understand what you're talking about, you need to take the cotton wool out of your ears and put it in your mouth. --RexxS (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    To anyone who's been here awhile, this should be obvious: Don't screw around with the Featured Article of the Day.Baseball Bugs carrots21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I've been editing TFAs for some time; and often. This is the first time it's been an issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Unless there's something obviously wrong with a TFA, such as gross misspelling (or vandalism), you should leave it alone. ←Baseball Bugs carrots21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    That fallacy has already been addressed above. Though you're welcome to lobby for a policy change (and a corresponding change to the boilerplate in the relevant templates) to that effect, of course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not talking about "policy changes", I'm talking about "using your head for something besides a hat-rack." Why is there any need to muck around with the TFA? Is every other article absolutely perfect already, leaving only the TFA to require "improvement"? ←Baseball Bugs carrots22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    Whether you admit it or not, you're advocating a stance which is diametrically opposed to current policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think it is clear that there is other important aspects of current policy that you are not really in touch with - not to mention basic principles of collegiality and sociality. Yes you have a right to edit the TFA - that does not mean that you must do so when you should be able to foresee that others might disagree.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Andy Mabbett is technically correct: other people's feelings don't matter, and anyone can edit, and TFAs often get good edits on the day they are on the main page. Since Andy is relying on that techincal argument, I agree with the comments above that a full site ban is required as it obvious that Andy will never let an opportunity pass to force his view, and will argue indefinitely that HE IS RIGHT. There is not sufficient proof to convince a court of law that such behavior drives away good editors, but this is not a court of law—we can rely on commonsense and consensus. Looking at the situation shows what Andy is doing, and it is not helping the encyclopedia. The community has a choice: remove troublemakers and support content builders, or enable troublemakers and spit in the face of content builders. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I think what a lot of folks here want, and are not seeing anywhere, is for Andy to acknowledge that he made a bad judgment call - -- Quiddity (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      Andy? Any chance of a reply to this? I really do believe it would help the situation, for all of us... -- Quiddity (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      I'm loathe to stick my oar into this too much, but I just want to pick up on this point. I don't really know Andy particularly well, I haven't seen any form of edit warring or any edits he's done that haven't improved the encyclopaedia from at least some angle, and his enthusiasm for the place is a great asset. I see his point of view that you should be bold and improve stuff if you have a sincere belief it will result in an overall benefit. What I am seeing a lack of is not so much that he made a bad judgement call (I'm sure he'd argue otherwise - remorselessly) but an acceptance of the other point of view. Something like "I believe my actions were correct, but you know what, I see why you'd be annoyed. It's not the end of the world, after all. Sorry about that." Exactly what we can do about that, who knows. Probably nothing. --Ritchie333 16:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Both: I told Quiddity in email I'd post a reply on Tues, but in the light of Georgewilliamherbert's request, below, I'm going to hold off for now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


    My reading is that the probation allows banning from individual pages as and when problems arise on those individual pages. A topic ban can be preventative. I also think thta we are getting consensus for the topic ban. SOme people want to go further but I think thta they will regard the topic ban as at least a start.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Close request

    This is a complex and unusual situation and community sanctions proposal; while 48 hrs are up, leaving this open for at least one more weekday seems like a wise course of action. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    This has been running for 55 hours as I post here. I am and have always been a firm advocate of a two day running time for most long-term sanction discussions, to give everyone one turn of the planet to think about it, then another turn to give an opinion. Most discussions here attract a closer before that time, but I'm happy with this - and now it's time for someone uninvolved to step up and close it. I'm counting about 20 opinions above supporting an editing restriction, at least 3 opposes, and some comments that could be interpreted either way. The various policy bases are also laid out clearly. Obviously I prefer one outcome, but I really think the task of the closer here will just be to set the scope of the outcome I prefer. So who is willing to step up here? Thanks! :) Franamax (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    ANI is not the right venue for the introduction of complicated editing sanctions at the behest of a mob (whose suggestions run the gamut from a ban on editing TFA to a full site ban). It's not at all clear that there is a consensus here, and it's absurd to suggest that this has somehow met some sort of upper threshold on desired community input (twenty editors, most of whom are either long-term advocates or opponents of Andy, chipping in over a weekend). This needs a formal resolution and not an arbitrary close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Close it. Clear consensus here merely confirms the findings of two Requests for Arbitration. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Agree with Thumper, while there are clearly related issues that need resolving, there is no consensus that there is an "Incident" here that needs admin action.
    Propose the section is simply hatted and we move on. Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC).
    Yeah. See Secretlondon's comment: "This is not the way to handle this." Br'er Rabbit (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The proposed topic ban from TFA has broad support above, and it's not such a big deal as to require another arbitration case. 99.99% of editors wouldn't even notice being topic-banned from TFA ... JN466 13:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    99.99% of editors don't work on editing TFA. That means that the 0.01% who do (and that estimate is still several of orders of magnitude too high) are precious. They shouldn't be shed lightly on the basis of straw polls in which the majority of the participants have significant reasons to either support or exclude Andy's efforts on the project outwith the rather narrow domain of TFA. By and large straw polls on user conduct don't work after an editor reaches a certain threshold of fame / notoriety. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Why should Andy be allowed to continue editing TFA if his editing there is disruptive? I'd understand the need for an exemption if a Featured Article he had been a significant contributor to was at TFA, but as far as I can see, he's never written one. JN466 16:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    People who judge contributions to FAs on the basis of accumulated stars are why we shouldn't have a star-accumulation system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yeah, let's just assume that anyone who makes a nuisance of himself at TFA is someone who has made unknown but nevertheless vital contributions to Misplaced Pages's featured content, far more vital than the contributions of those who actually wrote that content. That makes a lot of sense. JN466 17:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that perpetuating the false dichotomy between "nuisances" and "those who actually wrote that content" indicates that you understand the point being made. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think you're misjudging the arguments. They aren't saying we should judge Andy based on his abundance or lack of stars; rather, they are stating that his lack of involvement in the process highlights the disruptive nature of his edits at TFA, and that he is not a "precious" editor to the TFA process by any means. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    As ArbCom has ruled: Mabbett "disregards the Misplaced Pages way of doing things and is unable or unwilling to improve his pattern of participation." Nothing has changed. He's still on probation (see ArbCom list here). This should be a routine matter of enforcement, despite what a small minority of his sympathisers claim. An editor who can't or won't moderate his behaviour despite repeated sanctions has to be reined in (again). Plus, we don't have vested contributors. --Folantin (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    That essay describes ("long-term contributors may begin to feel a sense of entitlement and superiority") not my behaviour, but the behaviour of your fellow classical music colleagues in regard to one ("consensus among those who work on articles in this category"; not to mention repeated references to a bogus instruction; see above), and others in regard to the second ("the main contributors who got this article up to FA... You have made one drive-by edit... As far as I'm concerned If doesn't want to see it there it shouldn't go in unless you can convince him and otherwise"") of the two single TFAs mentioned at the top of this sorry thread. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    And that ArbCom statement describes your behaviour in this and other areas. --Folantin (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    If this were genuinely a "routine matter of enforcement" then it wouldn't be generating this level of heat. Rather, the matter is complicated by a) the significant period of time between the sanctions and the present and b) the quite obvious desire for certain notoriously insular wikienclaves to rid themselves of a perceived pest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    For the record, my tally (ending with Riggr) was, reading from my envelope, 5 +PC, 13 +TB, 3 +cmt, 3 +opp, 2 +ban. The range of solutions is not all that complex to analyze. Also I need to pay an instalment on my contents insurance. :) Franamax (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Could an uninvolved admin (that does not include the admin who hatted the discussion) please close the discussion and implement any sanction which the community may have decided on?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Exhaustion of community patience?

    Reading the specifics of the close request discussion above, I think that I have to restate this in terms of a "exhaustion of community patience" case. This is an established, if relatively rare, sanction basis. The specific incident that precipitated this seems not to rise to the level of actionable, by itself (though an argument is being made that the pattern of prior action and probation might make it so). It and Andy's response do seem to have raised a high degree of ire in a wide swath of the community.
    We have been bad about setting up better criteria for when someone has exhausted community patience. Exhausting one users' patience doesn't count; exhausting a bunch of users' patience also doesn't count, though at some point a bunch becomes enough. Andy does have an extensive history of various sanctions, but also extensive good editing. It's clear both that the number of upset people is in the tens (at least); it's not clear if that represents a consensus across those who pay attention to these matters.
    With this in mind, I would like to request that previously uninvolved editors and administrators get involved and read up on this and comment. Please look at Andy's edit history as well as prior sanctions and the current situation. A consensus of otherwise uninvolved users would be far superior to an attempt to find consensus of ones who largely seem involved. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Statement of history. I know nothing about any of this. I haven't even been following the discussion above. For my own benefit and for the benefit of any other uninvolved editor, I thought I'd try to list Andy's "bad" history:
    1. Andy's block log. Note that it shows the largest number of blocks in 2005, decreasing over time but still robust, and then a large gap between 2009 and 2012. Other gaps may be partly explained by bans listed below.
    2. At the end of 2005, Andy was placed on indefinite probation. According to the Remedies section, Andy could be "banned for good cause by any administrator from any page or talk page which he disrupts." On January 25, 2006, he was banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year. There are other "remedies". Andy is still on probation.
    3. On August 19, 2007, Andy was again banned for one year.
    4. According to the block log, on March 22, 2012, Andy was indeffed because of "BLP concerns" and until he "agrees to leave Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) alone." On the same day, the block was lifted because of a "clear emerging consensus for topic ban; block hopefully no longer needed". On April 2, 2012, a Hawkins topic ban was proposed. On April 7, the discussion was closed as no consensus for the ban.

    That's all I'm doing for now. The next step would be for me to figure out what's happened more recently. But at least this history might help some other uninvolved editors who want to comment on the proposed topic ban. (If I've left out anything relevant, please let me know.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    There was no topic ban regarding Jim Hawkins (nor idneed anything else), as a result of or connected to the March 2012 block either, and the blocking admin was criticised by others for his actions (Example). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    In this connection, I do note that Jimbo said "At least in terms of what has been presented, it is clear to me that a couple of people should be topic-banned from the article for being annoying for no encyclopedic purpose, and it should be indefinitely semi-protected." and also said "I already asked with kindness for Pigsonthewing to steer clear of the article. The mind boggles at the poor judgment of him getting involved anyway. ... Both of them should at a minimum be topic banned for being annoying to the subject." --Ritchie333 09:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)

    There were at least three topic ban threads, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive233#Topic_ban, Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Topic_ban_request and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive234#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Pigsonthewing, . They carried on for weeks and eventually petered out. Also related are , Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Jim_Hawkins, . In this section Jimbo Wales, Fæ, Kim Dent-Brown, Errant and Skyring pleaded with Andy to stop editing the article; he refused. --JN466 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment. Again, invoking my status as uninvolved, I have to say that Andy's comments about the blocking admin being criticized (and reiterating that there was no topic ban, even though I updated that in the history) and Jay's comments generally aren't helpful for this editor. I can read those kinds of comments in the discussion above. I can't stop you from commenting in this section, but I sure wish you wouldn't and that you'd remove them. They will no doubt provoke more of the same.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I've removed the editorialising, but left the links I researched in response to your earlier query about the topic ban history. JN466 00:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment I regret to say that I find Georgewilliamherbert's comments to be rather unfortunate. He repeatedly characterizes those who have called for a sanction against Andy as emotional (and accordingly, not as clear-thinking as he sets himself up to be) by referring to "ire" and people who are "upset", and at the end is rather dismissive in terming them as "largely ... involved". Plainly Gwh doesn't agree with action being taken against Andy, but I wish he would not make characterizations about the positions of other editors in that manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I believe that "largely ... involved" is an unbiased description of the activity above. If you want to break it down commenter by commenter in toto and that disproves the generalization, I will accept a correction.
    I do not disagree with action being taken in the sense of registering an OPPOSE (either publicly or privately concluding such) - I have not been involved, and we want un-involved admins to assess and engage on problem discussions and community action proposals. My assessment is that a large group who largely are involved want Andy banned, in general and for an incident. My assessment of the incident - personal admin assessment, not overriding either the community writ large or another admin's judgement - is that the incident showed misbehavior (slightly disruptive disregard for other parts of the community) but not bannable behavior, even for someone under sanctions already and with an extensive record. My assessment of "in general" is that - as always - the community writ large can exhaust patience but a pool of involved editors cannot.
    I understand where your and Jayen's frustrations are coming from. But we really, really need uninvolved input to determine community exhaustion of patience. Please. I am disregarding people because I see what appears to be involvement, yes, but that's the point: exhaustion of community patience needs that separation.
    Again, if you want to identify specific people who commented earlier who aren't involved, if that stands up, their input is back in consideration. I would very much like to see additional input by others as well.
    I'm not "in charge" of this - but I care about how the community sanctions process works and have been very involved with developing it over the years. I can't override other admins who may chose to do something, but I believe I'm doing the right thing here with this request and framing the question this way. If you think I'm being biased against action, the process is biased against action - by design, and explicitly. Enough uninvolved people need to comment strongly enough to establish whether the wider community really does want a severe sanction or not. Please respect the process. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Please don't add to it by referring to "your and Jayen's frustrations". It's the same style of argument. You're setting yourself up as the reasonable person and suggesting that those who don't agree with you are acting in an emotional manner. Very regrettable.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • (e/c w. GWH) Speaking as someone who you would have to invoke a multiverse with wormhole travel and time-distortion fields to consider involved in any way, yeah I'm not happy with the precise wording. But I do think that the previous commenters should back off, and that includes Andy, and let some more people chime in. Otherwise we're going to wind up with a "no result" as the same participants regurgitate, which isn't going to help anything. Franamax (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • While you folk duke this out, I propose a topic ban for Franamax for articles related to wormhole travel, narrowly construed to only those articles on another Misplaced Pages on a different Internet far far away.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    There is community support for banning Andy from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day. Would an uninvolved admin please close this? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    The situation is more complicated than that. If I were as desperate to "get rid" of "uncouth bullies" as you in this case, I'd actually be keener on a formal resolution which might enact that than on the quickest punitive action that could be flung together at ANI. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Whether or not it is more complicated than that or no, I think the community has spoken, and that a closing admin will bar Andy from the TFA.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Comment As the original poster, I wish to popint out that the only other place I have posted about this thread is on Andy's talk page where I was obliged to give notice. I have not been to any of the classical music projects, the featured article project, to Wikipediocracy or to anywhere else to drum up support nor have I sent messages to anyone who had not already contributed to this discussion. Therefore the suggestion that this discussion involves more involved people than any other ANI ban discussion needs some justification.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    I would join with that. I found the comments referred to condescending.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Whether editors were canvassed into commenting here or not (and let's point out that nobody has suggested any impropriety on behalf of Peter Cohen or anyone else in that regard), the overrepresentation of comments here by editors who have previously had some sort of major dispute with Andy certainly makes it less clear-cut that the current input represents the consensus of the general community. The classical music project, for instance, is plainly overrepresented, including one commentator who described himself as only coming to ANI once a year. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    And techies are overrepresented among Mabbett's defenders. --Folantin (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    But not in this discussion, which is the most important aspect of determining whether this represents the consensus of the community as a whole. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    FA process

    What FlyingPigs said earlier has merit, as follows: Rather than targeting some overly-"helpful" individual, it should be a matter of etiquette, and of "not harming wikipedia", if not outright policy, to act as follows: "Once an article is a Featured Article, don't modify it without consultation. It has gone through the FA process and been seen by many eyes. Don't take it upon yourself to subvert that consensus." Or words to that effect. ←Baseball Bugs carrots13:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    The FA team have made clear that they explicitly consider the use of an infobox (or coordinates), or not, to be outside the FAC process's consideration. Surely, therefore, the fact that an article is an FA does not mean that that issue has been considered, or decided by the community, or has consensus? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Bugs, I think you wrote "many" where you meant to write "at least three or four".
    Also, as per the example I gave earlier, where I see something wrong in a Featured Article, I boldly fix it - I don't go looking for "consultation" first - unless the fix is likely to be controversial. All editors are encouraged to do the same. The original incident under discussion here, allegedly has factors making it a bit different. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Absolutely not. A ghastly thought. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think a better way of putting what Bugs tried to say is that you shouldn't make major alterations to a FA without discussion, or should not object to a reversion and be willing to talk it out. The lack of an infobox was not the same thing as a misspelling or a misused dash. And TFA day is difficult enough (especially since Raul's gone to a "just-in-time" scheduling practice) without having to deal with such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    That's already codified (1e in the FA criteria). This is a stronger proposal. I'm not even getting into the discussion about whether the addition of an infobox—routinely applied to every biography on the project without anyone batting an eyelid, unless the person in question wrote classical music for a living—counts as a major upheaval. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    "be willing to talk it out" In both (yes, there are just two) of the examples given at the top of this "Incident", I was involved in the talk page discussion; I started one of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Surely the whole point of the FA process is to attract people to editing articles, isn't it? For example, we take pains to avoid protecting the day's FA so that we don't stifle new interest in editing it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    ... it seems that some editors, who have “bust a gut” producing an FA, even several years ago, get a little 'uneasy' when editors who are “too ignorant and lazy” to direct their attention elsewhere, try to improve it. Even when they open a discussion on the Talk Page to do just that. Perhaps what is needed, once an article has achieved FA, is a big permanent banner proclaiming who still owns the article – a whole new exciting direction for WP:OWN? I’m sure this would be welcomed by some editors. Although not by me. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Write one, and we'll talk again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    You're obviously mature enough not to be so flippant on ANI, so are you honestly suggesting that input into this proposal (made by another editor who hasn't any successful FA noms AFAICS) should be limited to people with stars on their user pages? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Read what I replied to.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I had thought the process was meant to be collaborative and not quite so exclusively competitive. But then, I used to have that view about the whole project. Still, good job we can't talk again, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Your sarcastic comments directed at those who write FAs are uncalled for, and as I pointed out, uninformed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I see. Uninformed by the recent personal experience that has prompted my decision to consider leaving the project? Apologies for using direct quotes there, Wehwalt. And apologies to all the other, perfectly reasonable, FA writers. I do hope Andy is treated reasonably. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Right! Stop that!
    It's far too silly!
    Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

    I don't think we're getting anywhere. Let's all take a deep breath, relax, and wait for a closing admin. --Ritchie333 17:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    I tend to think that while some such idea would have merit, this particular proposal might not. I haven't been that heavily involved in FA process, but there do seem to be, and perhaps have been, several articles which have been promoted only to be rather quickly demoted again later. This might be because few people were involved initially, or that there was a "trend" in the field which later faded, or whatever. I would myself favor having the FA process explicitly involve reviewing the content of similar published reference articles on the subjects, which I think would help reduce the percentage of demotions. But, without that, yeah, academic opinions do change over time, sometimes quickly, and I think it is reasonable to make allowances for them. Particular concerns might be about politicians who see a major scandal in the brewing who might want to get their pointmen to write their bio up to FA level without any indications of the scandal in the offing. If we could make review of extant reference sources more of a factor in the FA process, then maybe instituting a later step like this might be a good idea, but we should probably try to get things done in the right order. John Carter (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Resolution: that User:Pigsonthewing be banned from the FA of the day and any articles nominated or scheduled as FA of the day

    Above, Thumperward (talk · contribs) recommended a formal resolution be put regarding Andy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Support Same basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support It's not the time to start edit wars when something is TFA. The focus needs to be on fixing any errors or vandalism not on controversial cosmetic issues.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    *Comment1 Should the header for this vote be changed to level 3 not level 2?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Comment2 There were some people above who voted for a ban. If they wish to do so again, could they consider doing this as a separate motion with a separate header so that !votes don't get split 3 ways which makes it harder tor each a consensus? Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support Per previous comments (based on ArbCom findings). --Folantin (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Two instances of Andy making policy-compliant edits that the folks who WP:OWN the articles don't like. Despite Andy engaging on the talk pages, he's still pilloried. It's just a convenient means of silencing those who have different opinions. Additionally, it is now proposed that he be banned from editing any article scheduled as FA of the day. There has been absolutely no evidence brought forward showing any problems with Andy editing articles scheduled as TFA. If the TB is to be broadened that far, then it had better be debated first - rather than tacked on like a pork bill. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    When I said "formal resolution" I meant ArbCom, not all the same people as the above section bold wording their opinions again just in case anyone had missed the bold text behind the original (bonus points for Peter Cohen doing it thrice). Lord knows how this was misconstrued. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Ah. I misunderstood. Shall we close this thread and take it to Arbitration, or let it run and see if this makes the consensus any clearer? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I support it, as it seems to me to be within the bounds of the existing ArbCom ruling of the editor in question. But, if others wish to, I could see that this might be sent to WP:AE for input. I rather seriously doubt that it would necessarily be taken up by ArbCom itself, though, given the rather straightforward nature of their previous ruling on the matter. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support Clearly its necessary, but as John Carter says I have no problem with it being sent to AE. -DJSasso (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support - I also have no problems with it being sent to WP:AE for input, and I feel that Thumperward's resolution is necessary to prevent further issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Advice on a failed RTV

    Please see

    Short summary:

      • I see a user page on my watchlist deleted as a G6, but mostly as enforcement of a RTV
      • I ask Magog about the deletion
      • After discussion Magog restores the user page, though it stays protected (totally ok with that)
      • I also notice that the contributions are missing
      • Neither Magog or I know the proper thing to do/request
      • I come here

    My preferred outcome would be to either link the contributions with the failed RTV account, or to the current account.

    Opinions? Arkon (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    • I wasn't necessarily thrilled with this whole vanish and start over thing, but this particular situation has really been talked to death about a dozen times, at ArbCom, at WP:BN, I'm sure at ANI... and I can't understand why we need to discuss it yet again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    The initial account was re-named to User:Vanished user 03, and that is where you will find the contribs (October 2003 to August 2010). -- Dianna (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Yeah , I found that when I went looking for the SA situation. It's in one of my self reverted edits to this section actually. Arkon (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    This was just hatted. I reverted that. The rational given is that 'there is nothing to do'. I proposed 'something to do'. I'd appreciate comments. Arkon (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, I did. So, what administrative action exactly do you want here? Regards, — Moe ε 08:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    It's in the original report, right above you.
    I quote: "My preferred outcome would be to either link the contribs with the failed RTV account, or to the current account."
    I (or any non-admin) can't do this. Arkon (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    If you're looking for prior conversation about Prioryman and his RTV, there are discusssions at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 9#Official Comment requested and a couple threads at the top of Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 10 from a year ago, along with other threads at different boards I haven't been able to find yet. Like I said, ArbCom is already fully aware of who Prioryman is (as well as several other parts of community). Again, what is it exactly you intend to accomplish by restarting this conversation? Why is it necessary to have a link between the two or have the contributions moved? Regards, — Moe ε 09:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Appreciate the links, I hadn't read any of that previously. Arbcom being aware or not aware isn't the issue. The issue at this point is the linking of the contributions. I see no discussion related to the issue in your links, but admit to not reading them fully at this time (will do tomorrow.) Just because the failed RTV has been discussed, doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to come to a consensus of what to do when RTV fails. The fail I've personally seen was SA, and contributions are fully available. Get back to you tomorrow on the details :) Arkon (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    In my view, several things need to be done to normalise the situation:

    • User:ChrisO should be marked as indefinitely blocked, and redirect to User:Prioryman.
    • The contributions history currently attributed to User:Vanished user 03 should be reattributed to User:ChrisO (or User:Prioryman, whichever he prefers).
    • User:L'ecrivant should be marked as an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of User:ChrisO.
    • Prioryman should tell the community and/or the arbitration committee whether or not he authored the material contributed to Misplaced Pages by User:Helatrobus (which, in case anyone is wondering, was not an arbcom-approved sock). JN466 13:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • More or less, that seems to be consistent with WP:RTV and would make sense, and I would support that. Vanishing should never be maintained by Misplaced Pages unless it is maintained by the user. I have no problem with Prioryman being here, but clarity and honesty as to the past should be required, as I would expect it to be for any user that unvanished themselves. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 14:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Why indefinitely block ChrisO? As long as the person running the account has done nothing to deserve such a block for all his accounts, couldn't it be marked as an alternate account? As far as I can see, the only situations when an indef should be applied to one account but not the other are (1) compromised password, or (2) disruptive socking or other problems that would result in a prohibition on Prioryman from editing as any other account name. Obviously the first isn't true, and I don't see a reason for the prohibition in the second to be enacted. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    Nothing should be done here, because of the history of previous ArbCom cases that involved a lot of secret horse tradings. People have made compromizes and if we now want to do things according to the book, then you end up undermining these informal agreements. Count Iblis (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    I can't really grasp your argument here. "It's super secret, so hey, look over there"? Dennis and JN have hit the nail in their previous comments, I'd say. Arkon (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    If there are "informal, secret agreements" that contradict the book then they absolutely need to be undermined. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    In an ArbCom cases, you can always propose some compromize, you can get off with a lighter sanction in exchange for a volunatry editing restriction. In some cases, off site harassment may have been an issue and that can count as a mitigating factor. Such issues can be discussed privately with ArbCom and you can get a reasonable deal that works. However, to outsider things are not so transparant. What we really need to focus on is creating an environment that both Prioryman and Jayen466 feel happy to work in; continuing to fight old battles for which the ArbCom sanctions have long expired is not a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    ChrisO invoked the right to vanish just before the conclusion of the climate change arbitration case, while sanctions were being considered against him. He then registered a sock, User:L'ecrivant, within hours of invoking the right to vanish. The sock was spotted a few weeks later by a steward, User:Avraham, who indef-blocked both the ChrisO account and the L'ecrivant account for abusing RTV. ChrisO then registered User:Prioryman; that account too was spotted by Avraham and blocked as a sock, but unblocked by an arbitrator (Roger Davies) after ChrisO came to an understanding with them about his continued participation. All that was discussed on-wiki at some length last year. The community did not learn that Prioryman was ChrisO returned until the summer of the year after that, when he began to involve himself in old conflicts (while pretending to be new to them). So the deal that got Prioryman back into the project was not part of any arbitration case. I don't have any problem with Prioryman working here at all; he has written some outstanding content. But the history should be transparent, if only for such cases where Prioryman argues that another editor should be site-banned on account of his block log, or other perceived infractions. Prioryman himself has a lengthy block log, and three indef blocks against his name, and he should not be able to pass himself off as a squeaky clean editor when proposing sanctions for others, which he is unfortunately fond of doing. Again, nothing against his content work, much of which is first rate. --JN466 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Normally, I would put this to a vote at WP:AN (or move this over there) as a proposal to unvanish, and point to (and protect if needed). At least that is what I did with SA, the last (only?) unvanishing I am aware of. It requires a 'crat to do the actual unvanishing, and is easy to do but takes a bit to filter through the process. I haven't seen Prioryman comment yet and prefer to hear from him first. I assume he was notified, which is a little confusing for him not to pipe in. My interactions with him have always been positive, but I agree about transparency, consistency in policy and how it might look like avoiding scrutiny if we didn't link them. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yep, notified him here. Arkon (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    The CC ArbCom case was a big horse trade session where the Arbs did not consider the relevant facts and instead declared everyone who had a significant editing history in the controversial topics to be guilty. You could only propose a voluntary topic ban (like e.g. KimDabbelsteinPetersen did), or else you would be topic banned. The fundamental problem was that lacking good policies for that sort of topic area, the majority of editors by consensus decided how the topic should be edited, which amounts to enforcing policies that do not exist. The editors who didn't like that considered that to be "tag team reversions".

    ArbCom failed to identify the underlying cause of the problems (the lack of good policies), and faulted the editors who did their best to keep the articles in an acceptable shape. This was too much for some editors like ChrisO and Polargeo. If ArbCom ends up to topic banning a scientist who works at ESA who is an expert at Earth observation from climate science articles because they don't want to get into the relevant editing issues, then the whole ruling is worthless. Count Iblis (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Honestly, none of that is relevant to the question. Arkon (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been tied up with some more pressing things.

    The status of my former contributions has already been addressed and resolved by agreement with Arbcom. It would be highly inadvisable for editors to unilaterally seek to overturn arbitrators' decisions - they don't seem to like that for some reason.

    However, I don't have any objections if someone wants to redirect my old username to my present one. I hope that's an acceptable compromise. Prioryman (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Don't be ridiculous, the community cannot overturn an ArbCom decision, but there's absolutely no reason why it cannot impose a more severe sanction than ArbCom considered appropriate, or one that runs in parallel with it. Your "warning" in this context is quite inapppropriate and, considering the totality of your history, you'd be best advised to hold your peace and not make any more veiled threats. If ArbCom wants to warn admins against taking a certain action, they're quite capable of speaking for themselves without you chiming in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Whatever agreement you had with ArbCom became moot when you revealed your identity by returning to areas of prior dispute, rather than avoiding them. And you never clarified whether or not the contributions made by User:Helatrobus were authored by you or not. Neither the arbitration committee nor the community were ever given a clear answer. Could you answer the question now? JN466 01:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm merely pointing out that the appropriate route to resolve this would be through Arbcom. It would be inappropriate to try to use a community process to overturn arbitrators' decisions. Their decisions are not usually subject to amendment by community processes. Prioryman (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    If it were a clear and specific decision made by ArbCom, you would have a point. "Horse trades" madeby ArbCom are not, howeverm in that category. ArbCom, for example, does not have the power to say "Editor X is exempted from Policy Y because we made a deal and for no other reasons" which is the case at hand. This is not an "amendment" to an ArbCom decision, and thus is properly discussed here, whether one likes it or not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I believe the community may now feel entitled to take Prioryman's continued refusal to answer the question whether or not they authored the contributions of User:Helatrobus as an admission that he did, and that this was yet another account he operated after the RTV. The Helatrobus account stopped editing a while ago, but should probably be indeffed as well. JN466 09:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Take to AN and Vote?

    Dennis made a suggestion for the next course of action. Unless there are significant objections, I'd appreciate an admin taking the lead on this. Arkon (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    I second the motion to take this to AN for an admin vote. Cla68 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Significant objection. See above. Prioryman (talk) 00:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    As the subject of the potential action, you would be expected to object, so your comment is irrelevant. You do not control here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I also second this motion. --JN466 01:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure there's much benefit here. We are interested primarily in what editors are doing now and in the future. If there was contested behaviour in the past that is documented a Arbcom case, then the additional benefit of spending admin time on attributing every single edit seems slim to none. Seems like something where we can usefully move forward, rather than living in the past. Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC).
    Apparently the effort involved is minimal according to Dennis above. I don't really see the rest of your comment as an argument against correcting this. Arkon (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    It isn't personal, and I'm not beating a drum over the issue, but unless there is a specific reason that Arbcom has to handle this, then it would be a function of WP:AN, not Arbcom. The policy clearly says it can be reversed by the community, not by ArbCom. Again, it has been a slow process, to allow plenty of time for someone from ArbCom to come in and present a reason, assuming you would ask them to. If not, an editor has asked for it to go to a vote, and I've just said that WP:AN is the proper venue, based on the fact that the last unvanishing was done there. That doesn't mean it will be unvanished, but there is a policy based reason why the editor would like to start the process, and regardless of how I feel about it, I don't see any policy based reason to deny it. Once again, no one has rushed here, and we are all ears as to how this is counter to some previous agreement, even though it is doubtful that an ArbCom agreement has the authority to bypass policy here. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    To be fair, I would ask a wait of at least 48 hours, to allow ArbCom to respond if they choose. My understanding is that they have been informed. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    OK. JN466 22:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    AndyTheGrump

    There are plenty of eyes on his talk page and nothing has happened to warrant action, else it would have taken place already. AtG needs to refrain from breaching the policy on blocking again. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    This user was blocked for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment. He has admited on his talk page to block evasion and also continues with personal attacks against another editor. I believe talk page access should be revoked and the block extended. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

    I think User:Magog the Ogre blocked him for an additional two weeks for block evasion but unless firefox is showing me missies then the details have been expunged from the records so attempting to go back down that road will be unlikely and may boomerang on you -You are also trolling on his talkpage looking to be attacked - just leave him alone and go improve some of the projects crap content - Youreallycan 18:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    No, he hasn't been reblocked, YRC. Nothing has been expunged from his block log as far as I can tell. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    No there is nothing to see now - but I saw it earlier - Two week extension User:Magog the Ogre - block evasion - did I imagine it then? Youreallycan 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think the discussion on his talk page is quite sufficient for now, and I am sure many here watchlist that page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Please note that I consider that Darkness Shines has not posted this in good faith - I ask that he explains why he has become involved. As for the substantive issues regarding 'block evasion' (How does telling everyone exactly what you are doing while you do it qualify as evasion? One for the philosophers, I suspect), and 'personal attacks', I recommend a little further investigation of the background, and suggest that the SPA User:IjonTichyIjonTichy's relentless POV-pushing should be taken into account. This is clearly the root of the problem, as multiple contributors have made clear: see Talk:The Zeitgeist Movement and its long and tedious archives for the details.AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Editing while blocked qualifies as block evasion, whether it's disclosed or not. ←Baseball Bugs carrots18:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Precisely. Just because you own up to it doesn't make it OK. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Off topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Bugs, weren't you banned from AN/I? Why are you back here? VolunteerMarek 18:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    No, I was told to cut back at ANI, and I did. So what's your excuse? ←Baseball Bugs carrots19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Blocked users should only be using the talk page for appealing the block or similar. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Not true. Unless that is added as an extra sanction, blocked users can use the talk page for anything Misplaced Pages related. The block is to prevent them from editing the mainspace and Wikispace, not to prevent normal communications. I've debated this plenty of times at WP:BLOCK and nothing anywhere on Misplaced Pages supports that notion. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    Edits to article space and wikispace (see andy's comment above) have occurred as a result of comments etc on the talk page. What falls under what is allowable? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) And an admin may revoke Talk page access if they feel it is merited. Dennis was just correctly disagreeing with your broad statement about what the Talk page may be used for during a block. Of course, Carrite's statement above is not correct, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    This is a conversation that I wish we didn't have to be having. The edits he reverted were bad edits, and deserved a rollback. Unfortunately, he did it while a) blocked, and b) engaging in wildly over the top personal attacks. At this point, I'm not sure that an extended block will help the case at all. Not that it is in any way OK, but I don't see the block another block as either able to provide corrective action or stopping more harm from occurring to Misplaced Pages. Magog the Ogre (talkedits) 01:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    There's always indef... - The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    And it's getting that way. Even editors who are in the right in every single individual case of dispute must respect our social norms or else poison the community. There is no need for AtG to act in this manner and he certainly has no right to do so. In the rather absurdly unlikely situation where AtG genuinely didn't understand that "users are permitted to use alternate accounts so long as they aren't doing so deceptively" is subordinate to "users who are blocked are not permitted to edit" then he does now, though for such a genuinely intelligent and clueful editor to be thus ignorant strikes me as unlikely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Carrite's statement is perfectly correct if you regard "should" as aspirational, rather than an injunction. Rich Farmbrough, 11:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC).
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:BabbaQ and User:WesleyMouse causing possible disruption

    Pages involved

    Users in dispute with:

    Witnesses/Participants:

    (Many others involved)

    A situation got out of hand that I don't know how to handle well after I requested both articles for closures here. Wesley Mouse then left a canvassing template at my talk page. I serious sign of frustration might have occurred here and out of that tempers have flared. BabbaQ seems to be showing the same kind of behavior. Just now Wesley Mouse also notified another user that's not involved in this discussion at all. I need some assistance from non-involved neutral administrators to help me out with this situation. I'll get back to you guys later and provide some diffs when I have time. For now just check out the contributions by the users involved. Bleubeatle (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Hold on a second. I notified CT Cooper on a greater matter at large not just this dispute over AfDs. The wording of my post to CT Cooper shows that. I raised a concern with CT Cooper, a fellow member of WP:EURO about a sudden mass-deletion nomination for Eurovision related articles, and asking his opinion on the matter. How is that related to this? I will cover the other points shortly once this question has been answered. I would like to point out too that I am on a busy schedule at the moment with Games Maker duties at the London Olympic and Paralympic Games - so may not respond as swiftly as some would hope. Wesley Mouse 13:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Its related to what is mainly occurring at the AfD discussion pages.Bleubeatle (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    No its not. As it is clear that a lot of Eurovision-related articles have been nominated for one thing or another lately (increasingly more than normal) then I was raising this concern to CT Cooper who I regard to be more experienced on the project in case there was something that needed to be raise to the project as a whole in the manner of a request for comment. Wesley Mouse 13:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yet another way for Bleubeatle to cause further meta-debates it seems. Not interested in being accused of baseless things and also being brought into a discussion by a user only out to get never-ending debates. Bleubeatle tried to influence the closing of the Suntribe and The Mullans AfDs with a baseless accusation of canvassing while doing canvassing himself minutes later, simple as that. It is my only post a this non-discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Leaving a request on "Requests for closure" isn't trying to influence the closing of an AFD. Canvassing claims do not close AFDs. Quite a claim, saying Bleubeatle was canvassing. Care to share? Statυs (talk) 14:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I have retracted the canvassing template on Bleubeatle's talk page as a courtesy. Thanks to Status's explanations, there could be misunderstanding/misinterpretations into what Bleueatle was trying to request. The comment perceived a canvassing-tone to it, especially with subsequent comments that followed across other talk pages. But in hindsight of what Status told me, I feel that canvassing may not have occurred now. There is a clear confusion surrounding Eurovision-related articles, and this is a matter that would benefit from more in-depth discussions between project members and even a wider community - to establish what steps need to be taken to prevent these situations arising in the future. Wesley Mouse 14:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) - lost count. This canvassing issue has gotten out of hand. Upon review of the issue, the message left by Wesley was non-neutral, which with regret I have to say does go against WP:CANVASSING. However, I will say it could have been handled a lot better, with a polite note and some friendly advise with no further comment being required - its not that much of a big deal and this back and fourth really is not needed. The message at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure by Bleubeatle was an inappropriate response to the canvassing issue, as discussions are not closed early due to canvassing issues, but it wasn't canvassing in itself.
    On the implied canvassing on my talk page, I already knew about the AfDs since I watch the talk pages of several involved users and keep an eye on Eurovision related AfDs since that is an area of interest, but I have been too busy till today doing hard labour for Queen Elizabeth Country Park to have the energy to dive in, though after seeing today how far things had gone downhill - clearly more fresh opinions were needed. Wesley's message on my talk page didn't mention any particular AfD and he is aware that I have come down with a view leaning towards merging in similar discussions with him before - so I don't see it is anything close to canvassing. Wesley frequently leaves requests for advise and help on my talk page, for which he is welcome to do so, so I don't see any problem to be resolved there.
    If a non-involved admin wishes to get involved they can do - although I don't see any need to further escalate this, and any intervention should be to calm everything down, not add fuel to the fire. Those involved could potentially calm this themselves. CT Cooper · talk 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    It is starting to look like this has started to resolve itself amicably. I am discussing advice with Status in regards to several grey areas and matters that may be confusing to new users. During the AfD discussions several guidance links had been provided, and those alone caused contradictions with each other and made a situation more complex than it needs to be. Also it has just been noted that project goal #2 at WP:ESC is explicitly permitting acceptability for a user to create a new article for every participant/song of the Eurovision contest; when it may be a case of non-notable and premature creations. Not too sure if this would mean a possible reform of the project and its goals in general, and I feel slightly uncomfortable in being overly-bold in initiating reform discussions on a project that I have only been a member of for 12 months. Advice on whether I am permitted to open project reform would be truly appreciated. Wesley Mouse 16:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Whether there is a grey area between simple notification and canvassing or not, the comment in the diff above is unambiguously canvassing anyway, and that's something to take on board. WP:ESC has historically overreached in terms of its relative coverage, so an overview of that would most certainly be welcome. It's also very important to remember that no matter if an article is deleted, it is trivial to bring it back in future and the lack of a time limit here means that in the end nothing worth keeping will be lost. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Discussing it at WT:ESC seems appropriate. This aims were introduced a long time ago without any significant discussion, and my guess is it was thought that such articles would pass WP:NMUSIC easily without any thought to other issues such as WP:BIO1E, and other contests that the project covers in which such guidelines are even less appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 17:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    CT Cooper, I didn't mean to initiate a RfC simply because of the canvassing allegations. I did it because the AfD is getting way out of hand right after BabbaQ and Status were beginning to argue with each other so I felt that some intervention was required. The RfC filed was not purely based on the canvassing allegations alone. Bleubeatle (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Hi, sorry for the late reply. I'd just like to state most of the problematic diffs here:

    • BabbaQ: , ,, ,
    • Wesley Mouse:,,

    Wesley Mouse and I have already sorted this 'canvassing dispute' at my talk page but I'd like to advice you, BabbaQ, to please refrain from this kind of behavior as well. I don't find them helpful and is quite disruptive. If you have some doubts then leave a note on my talk page and I'd be happy to discuss them with you rather than throwing a direct accusation such as the one you just wrote above in this section and along those diffs. Also, Wesley Mouse please don't be offended if I nominated The Mullans for deletion . Trust me, I already tried to look for sources in hopes of expanding it further but I could not find any. Bleubeatle (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Proposed Code of conduct for the South China Sea

    I'm going to cut this short, because the proposal has zero chance of being enacted. We are not going to block without warning. Feel free to discuss ways of revising the proposal to make it viable. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    Due to ongoing territorial disputes in the South China Sea between Beijing, Hanoi, Manila, and others, nationalists (almost all from Vietnam or the Philippines) have rampaged almost unchecked replacing 'South China Sea' with 'East or 'West, driving out other claimants in favour of their own country in infoboxes, or otherwise describing the common name of the sea as being "so-called by China". It is high time that the community began cracking down (with extreme prejudice) on those nationalist SPAs clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. There should be a code of conduct instituted at WP:China, WP:Vietnam, and WP:Philippines (the three WikiProjects), similar to what was done with the Sea of Japan, and possibly an edit notice installed at a multitude of pages. The exact wording of the code of conduct will be etched out later, but here are the proposed sanctions:

    • 31-hour auto-block on sight for first violation (as described in my first sentence above).
    • 10 day auto-block for second violation.
    • Indefinite for third violation for registered usernames and 3 months for IP addresses.

    Please vote as a response to this initial post. GotR 15:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Support both code and edit notices as nominator. GotR 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose Blocks without a warning should only be used for egregious violations of policy, which this is not. All the sanctions purposed are overly harsh, and ignore the need for discretion to tailor sanction on a case by case basis. It may be that something should be done about the topic area, but this proposal is clearly not it. Monty845 15:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Question — are these all IP users? If so, that's tricky. But if you're dealing with more established users, I would be curious whether there has been any attempt to reason with these folks or pursue dispute resolution. Homunculus (duihua) 15:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Support: Drive-by IP edits have been quite a significant problem lately, and there isn't enough that can be done about blatant cases until they actually trigger 3RR or something. Within the past few months, such edits have become much more frequent, and I don't think it will cease anytime in the near future. Note that I am referring to all sides - IP editors from mainland China, the Philippines and Vietnam have all been engaging in non-constructive edits in the aforementioned articles. Attempting to engage in dialogue with such editors is usually fruitless as well. If all editors are doing are CTRL+F name replacements, order switchings and mass blankings, they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 16:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Reclosing. Not the proper venue. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    The proposal hasn't even lasted 20 minutes; isn't cutting it like this a bit too hasty? "Feel free to discuss ways of revising the proposal to make it viable." Can't we do that here? That's what discussion and consensus seeking at ANI is for, right? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 16:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    I archived it to stop the vote, which is useless because the specific form of the proposal is impossible -- not to cut off discussion. Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Oh, alright. I understand now. So we can continue the discussion? I wouldn't mind if the proposal was rewritten a bit. -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 16:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    This isn't the type of issue that is going to be resolved by any proposal. Present the problem, offer an opinion, let the administrators determine what a solution is, be it page protection, warnings or nothing. We generally don't vote for resolutions, as Misplaced Pages is not a democracy Dennis Brown - © Join WER 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    What is being proposed is a variation on Discretionary Sanctions which gets imposed by Arbcom and enforced at WP:AE. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the imposition of those to improve your request. Generally it takes an arbcom case to get them imposed. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    As evidenced from my post at Horologium's talk, I am fully aware of that, and unless someone can demonstrate that a solution at ArbCom will come out within 7–10 days of posting, I'm not going to go there as it is an exhaustingly lengthy process and we are dealing with what are effectively outright vandals, not "good-faith" editors. GotR 17:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but I will be frank: what I see from the proposal is not a "code of conduct" for editors to restrain themselves, but rather a mechanism for ultimately placing anonymous under a blanket presumption of bad faith, which is completely unacceptable and runs contrary to the values that we're supposed to be standing for. I hate vandals as much as the next guy, but a 31-hour block on sight, plus punitive punishments of increasing magnitude, will not solve the problem. If ever, it could make the problem worse: not only do we lose potential new editors (who, in this case, should be motivated to write in a manner conforming to the rules of Misplaced Pages), but we also risk the proposal backfiring: people will have a greater incentive to perform even more brazen acts.
    If we want a "code of conduct" on editing articles on the Spratly Islands and the South China Sea (or, if I were to espouse a more "nationalistic" point of view, the Kalayaan Group of Islands and the West Philippine Sea), this should take place beyond the framework of a naming convention on the Sea of Japan, as far as I'm concerned, and with significantly less impunity. There does need to be a level of restraint when approaching this issue, but while you can expect established editors to restrain themselves, anonymous editors have less of an incentive. That lack of an incentive, however, is no reason why we should be coming down so harshly on them just because they are unaware of Misplaced Pages policy. --Sky Harbor 17:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I don't see how this proposal would result in the loss of potential new editors (it is 3 strikes, and I am willing to modify it to 4; the two shorter blocks allows a window of constructive contribution after expiry) or in a "greater incentive to perform even more brazen acts" (if anything, a strongly-worded edit notice listing clear consequences could deter SPAs from dropping their bombs). "That lack of an incentive, however, is no reason why we should be coming down so harshly on them just because they are unaware of Misplaced Pages policy"—the not-unexpected lack of policy awareness isn't the point...anyone who dares to engage in an almost vandalistic manner has a deficit of maturity in editing and should have a time out. GotR 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Discretionary Sanctions is basically the most draconic set of rules that get applied to articles on Misplaced Pages. Your proposal makes them look tame in comparison. Even more amazing is your need to get it enacted in 7-10 days. I don't think impatience is a good compliment to lack of perspective. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • This is (a) the kind of thing that gets decided by ArbCom as a rule (see WP:ARBMAC as an examble), and (b) even if it's imposed otherwise (like the Sea of Japan issue or the Indian caste decision that gets brought up from time to time), this is not a matter for AN/I and should be closed. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP user‎

    ‎ 99.28.250.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (later 94.209.134.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) is adding uncited information to the article StarKid Productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), despite being asked not to on their talk page, and having the edis reverted multiple times. In addition to this, they are ignoring a comment I had placed on the section they keep editing asking users to cite their edits. Eladkse (talk)

    Personal attacks, possible off-wiki dispute

    Somehow I stumbled on a dispute between these two individuals on articles related to Los Angeles-area public transportation, particularly Los Angeles Metro bus fleet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). On 12 July I gave both users a level 4im warning ( ) as they were making personal attacks on each other's talk pages. In particular, Dias created an attack page on Random's main user page (since deleted so I don't have a diff), and Random has taken to edit summaries ( ). Dias even placed this comment on my talk page in response to the warning. I haven't had the time to wikistalk these two in the weeks since, but now that I've looked through their contribution histories I see that both have taken to edit summaries to continue their personal attacks ( ) and some of these edit summaries tell me that these two are continuing an off-wiki dispute ( ). This is a combination of edit warring, ownership of articles, and personal attacks, and I'd like some admins to take a look to see if blocking is warranted. —KuyaBriBri 18:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Well. I consider that an EW warning might be the way, and if they continue with it, maybe a severe sanction would be on the way. I have read the diffs and they don't are substantial enough to be considered personal attacks, IMO. In relation to the ownership of articles, this may also apply, but not totally sure, as EW is still the main issue and none of them have created the article nor being the major contributor. — ΛΧΣ21 00:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Also, they seem to have stopped editing on August 11, and as a result, the edit warring issue may be over. Unless the users start edit warring again, i'm afraid it may not still be any problem. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 00:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Dias stopped editing on August 11, but Random is still active as of today. Kurtis (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't want to jump to conclusions, and I hope neither of the parties take offence at my comments here, but am I the only one who thinks it's a very slight possibility that these two accounts are operated by the same person staging a sock battle on the article? They just seem to have a lot of vitriol directed at each other, and I can't for the life of me figure out what would provoke such bad blood between two people with virtually no interaction outside of Los Angeles Metro bus fleet. DiasMi012 has been editing since April 2011, whereas Random5555 has been here for just over a month; yet many of his edits are antagonistic towards Dias. Likewise, Dias has responded with somewhat snarky rebuttals, clearly out of some degree of frustration with Random. I think the best solution in this instance, assuming they are completely different editors (which I still consider likely, despite my sentiments above), is to strongly suggest that these two cease interacting with each other. It's pretty clear that nothing good will come of them having any further direct contact, given how they can't work out their differences in a reasonable manner. I also feel as if Random5555 would be best advised to edit elsewhere, as he obviously has very little control over his emotions while editing the article in question. If he does not prove to be constructive anywhere else, then I actually recommend a block — thus far, he doesn't appear to be able to collaborate effectively with other editors. In DiasMi012's case, I think a stern warning to avoid edit warring and to keep his cool, even when the editing gets tough, will do. If problems persist with him, it might also be best for Dias not to edit Los Angeles Metro bus fleet. Just my $0.02. Kurtis (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll go ahead and give some more warnings, but Random has been warned about civility already, and I think that this taking to edit summaries to make their jabs at each other is just a backhanded way of evading direct contact (e.g., on a talk page). —KuyaBriBri 21:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Aminur Rahman,Khosru

    Not an issue for ANI, article is currently being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aminur Rahman,Khosru. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    Collapsing long screed

    I am drawing the kind attention of Admins about above mentioned Misplaced Pages Article.After I have submitted the Biography which was about the youngest commander of operation jackpot of Bangladesh Liberation war of 1971. Its to be noted that the above said biography is written on commander Aminur Rahman ,Khosru and the naval commandos of Bangladesh who destroyed 6 ships in operation of Mongla on 15th Aug,1971 under the command of Aminur Rahman,Khosru.As per regulation of Misplaced Pages Military Persons Biography which could be prserved in wikipedia which says that a military persons biography can be saved as Misplaced Pages Biography article,if the person has commanded an operation which remarkable.Its the clause no 5 of Military persons Biography prservation regulation of wikipedia. After submission of the article the article was very soon posted in Misplaced Pages.

    I was editing factual mistakes of Bangladesh Liberation war and I was noticed by Future Perfect at Sunrise not to Edit article without sources on 25th JUly,1971.I was blocked for 31 Hours by FutPer at Sunrise.After my block was over after 31 hours,I was editing another article,Operation Jackpot.Here I would like to say all my edit were with sources and references of books with ISBN Number. I was given further 48 hours block.In the mean time Article Aminur Rahman,Khosru was tagged as PROD by Futuperf at Sunrise with a Limitation of deleting the article with in the 6th Aug,2012.Since I was blocked that time neither could I refer any thing to that article nor I could edit any article.So I could not give sources and references to that article.My block was overon 6th August2012 at 16.00 Hours.Just on 16.05 Admin Futper at Sunrise deleted the article Aminur Rahman,Khosru from Misplaced Pages. On 9th Aug,2012,I went to his talk page and requested him to reinstall the article. I also appeal to reinstall the article in Un deletion page.

    Today I saw that my appeal was reviewed by Admin Graeme Bartlett at 16.00 hours and he reinstall the article Aminur Rahman,Khosru at 6-20 A.M.Right after that Admin Future perfect at Sunrise went to article Operation Jackpot at 6.27 and changed the whole article Operation Jackpot brought back the article Operation Jackpot to the Edit of May 2012.He did this very intentionally,as he have seen Article Aminur Rahman;khosru is again been reinstalled and as he has seen that many references of Article Aminur Rahman,Khosru is refered from Operation Jackpot so he immediately decided to revert the operation jackpot to previous Edit and Admin Futperf at Sunrise at once re deleted the whole content of the Article Aminur Rahman,Khosru,which was reinstalled through an appeal by Admin Graeme Bartlett today. Not only that Admin future perfect at Sunrise,immidietly tagged the Article Aminur Rahman,Khosru as article which is without reliable source,poor article and deleted the content of the article very intentionally and changed article content from top to bottom.Not only that,he has written singel line article himself , its also written by him about a new port in Bangladesh as Bangla port,I am sure there is no sea or river port in Bangladesh in the name he quoted in article Aminur Rahman,Khosru.

    This mornning Admin Graeme Bartlett reverted the article to the original version following this the article has again been reverted by Admin Future perfect at Sunshine in Singel line which is not at all a part of article.He has further Tagged the article for deletion and allowing any one to edit.But while I am trying to edit he is rverting the edit to that singel line article which is written by him. I am drwaing the kind attention of honourable Admins to revert the article to orginal version and protect the same. It is more than impossible that Futperf at Sunrise shall allow any article in the name of Aminur Rahman,khosru as he asked me whether I am Aminur Rahman,Khosru or I am his relative etc? Admin Future perfect at sunrise intentionally reverted the Operation Jackpot with an intention to delete the article Aminur Rahman,Khosru . It all together means that an article,after appeal and reinstalled by another Admin can be very well be changed by the same admin who deleted the article first.Then my question is what is the necessary to Appeal?This type of activities of Admins clearly proves that there are Misplaced Pages regulations but these can be over ruled by the Admins like Futpef at Sunshine at any time. It also mean directly that Misplaced Pages regulation and guidelines are for poor editors like is applicable till last dot.It further mean that all guidelines are for readers and editors. I would request to all honourable Admins to look into the matter and take possible steps in order to stop such activities once for all.I very much fear that Admin Future perfect at Sunshine shall find some way impose block on me for Indefinite time. But as reader and editor of Misplaced Pages on Bangladesh Liberation war I think its my duty to inform the Admins to stop such practises. we expect lot of good examples from Admins like many other Admins who are really helpful and contribute a lot to the new and old editors.I would like to remain wikipedia for these good admins whoes helping attitude attracts many editor like me. I would like to thank all reader and editor and all the Admins of Misplaced Pages for their contribution.

    --Frankfurt55 (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Holy WP:TLDR, Batman. And paragraph break please! - The Bushranger One ping only 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Executive version: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Aminur Rahman,Khosru. Fut.Perf. 18:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    I have seen the note of Fut Perf at SunShine.The article is said to be BLP and thats why it is being reverted.But if it was BLP then why Admin Graeme Bartlett reinstalled the article.We have seen current notetion of Admin Fut Perf at Sunshine where he claims that Commander Aminur Rahman,Khosru was a soldier.This is not correct. He was commanding Mongla port during liberation war of Bangladesh :its very well known war in the world where 3 Million people were killed and 200,000 womens were raped. In this war Bangladesh,India and Pakistan were involved.And cold war between USA and the then USSR continued for long time on Bangladesh issue.In that war a person commanding 260 soldiers and under his command 6 Ships were sunk is not a notable person?How many books wrote the matter is not important,important if the book is well sourced and have isbn number? Both the above mentioned requirments are fulfilled by the book.Further more, as per wikipedia Military Persons Biography,Clause no 5,Commander Aminur Rahman,Khosru was a notable person and due his Military carrier and other social and political actvties which were covered in more than 100 Newspaper in England and Germany make him more notable.If Necessary we would present the newspapers for further discussion and references. Beside this the original Biography has been reverted with the blame of BLP.But let the editor discuss the original biography and if the editors and other admin find it is unsourced,it will deleted. Main point is here the content of the article has been changed with the intention of misleading the reader and editors. If this continiously happen then reader and editor shall only read falls article content like here. I would request to Fut.Pefec. At Sunshine to display the original biography and let the editor discuss about that. Beside this all other actions shall only lead the reader to read a false biography which writter did not write. A real discussion can only take place on real article does not matter whether it is BLP or original or unsourced. Let the editor and other Admin deceide that.If all were BLP then how come Admin Graeme Bartlett allowed to reinstall the article. It all mean that Admin Graeme Bartlett does not understand any thing about article and without knowing any thing he undeleted the article.I do not know,what is going on.I am sure it needs a wide check up by an independent Admin,who might determine whether article to deleted or undelet.A person who has already deleted an article and have reverted many edits to hide the matter,will of course again delete the article.Due to the above mentioned advanced BLP blamed deletion of an original article before editor discussions proves that Admin.Fut.Perf. at Sunshine shall again show all kinds of reasons to delete the article. It might put many other writer in Panic like me. It is there fore necessary to check the article through other Admin otherwise the article will be eliminated by Fut.Perf. At sunshine

    Regards,--Frankfurt55 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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

    198.102.153.2

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


    Resolved – Not a bot. 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    198.102.153.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

    Unusual behavior for an IP - lots of formatting edits done at a high rate of speed. I noticed it as they were making a change to a closed AfD discussion. The edits themselves individually that i have checked appear legit, but in total they raise questions. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    Seems to have stopped a couple hours ago. Unauthorized bot maybe? From Sandia National Labs, no less? I recall an incident like this in the past where the IP editor was legit, explaining that the edits appeared rapid due to having many tabs open on the browser which he would dispense with in rapid fashion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    what makes you think I am a bot? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Hmm, it could well be someone who has edited under an IP for a long time. It could also be someone experienced in code who has done a search for various html markup in the code. That being said, it looks like they may be using a computer program of some sort for this. Would it be appropriate for them to have a bot account approved to make these edits? Ryan Vesey 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    given the number of thank yous on my talk page, I would say that experienced is a logical and correct conclusion. I also have Greasemonkey installed to provide me with a regexp search and replace popup. so why does this qualify as an "incident", why not just ask me directly? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)It doesn't seem necessarily automated to me. 198 is definitely not new here, but this speed could be accomplished simply by searching for inappropriate template transclusions and editing them out. Nothing that suspicious to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm satisfied with 198's explanation. It was brought up here, 198, because Doom was concerned you were an unhinged bot. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that it is an incident, but I'm curious, why don't you create an account so you can get AWB access? I'm sure that would make this a lot easier for you. On another note, could you be sure to provide edit summaries when you are making these edits? Ryan Vesey 19:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    I will try to remember add more edit summaries. I usually don't when the change/reason is obvious, but I could start. as for AWB, no thank you, it's horribly bloated and a simple Greasemonkey script is easier for me to use. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The edit summaries are more useful when viewing the history of the changes in a watchlist or recent changes. Something as simple as Fixes using Greasemonkey would be helpful. Thanks for your assistance, I'm sure you've had the "you should create an account" spiel 1000 times before, right? Ryan Vesey 19:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    yes, and even when I do use an edit summary, I frequently get this from the drones. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    It appears to have been a mistake and is cleared up. I totally support IP's editing rights, but I really think you'd find an account useful, primarily for the watchlist function. In addition (and sadly) reverts like the one that just happened are less likely to occur. Because of the relatively high vandalism rate from IP's, many editors assume an IP edit is vandalism if they don't know what it is. Ryan Vesey 20:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, to err is human. I notice Ryan left the patroller a message about that. 28bytes (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bella922323

    Indef block by Boing! said Zebedee. And we're done.... Ritchie333 20:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    Bella922323 (talk · contribs) has had numerous pages CSDed, sandboxed, and was given a final warning by Kudpung earlier today. I have just caught them vandalising Misplaced Pages:Article wizard and Misplaced Pages:Redirect. I suggest an indef block. Who agrees? --Ritchie333 19:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

    User:Boing! said Zebedee does, as he's just indeffed. 28bytes (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ohyeahman7

    Indef-block issued; case closed. -- Dianna (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    This user has demanded to have his article ,Glaro7, which was tagged for speedy deletion put back up, stating on the talk page that "If you delete this I will hunt you down and chop your balls off" and "Put this page back on. I will hunt you down. Don't test me." To me, this constitutes a threat. AutomaticStrikeout 00:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    The threat is no longer visible to non-admins since the page has been deleted, but if it is confirmed, this unequivocally requires an indef, at the very least. Looie496 (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Users Still-24-45-42-125 and The Four Deuces - Section Blanking at Conservatism

    NO ACTION No administrative action required and is a content dispute. Please consult WP:DR if you wish to take this further. (non-admin closure) Thine Antique Pen (public) 08:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    Reporting a pair of disruptive section blankings at article Conservatism, in violation of WP:PRESERVE, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:VANDALISM. Two editors are guilty, both are claiming an imaginary consensus to support unilateral blanking, even though there are clearly other editors who both (1) object and (2) are willing and have been making efforts to correct issues.

    This problem is aggravated by the fact that this is a political topic and the editors involved are divided along political lines. This is unfortunate because just some simple cooperation would go a long ways here.

    Here are diffs of the offending edits:

    Here is a link to the ongoing discussion: Talk:Conservatism#Compassionate_conservatism Note that there are three editors in favor of keeping the section, and three against. There is no clear consensus either way, which requires that the section be kept and fixed. Thus, these were disruptive edits.

    I am requesting that an admin deliver some user education on the topics of policy and Wikietiquette, and in particular a caution against claiming consensus when no consensus exists. Belchfire-TALK 07:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    "requires that the section be kept and fixed" What? really? News to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I would suggest looking at the talk page, where we've tried to find some sort of citation that might support inclusion of this section but haven't yet. There's already an article for Compassionate conservatism so nothing is being lost but a summary. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    In a situation like this, I would lean towards default inclusion until a stronger rationale for removing it emerges. Viriditas (talk) 07:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    To be frank, I'm rather apathetic about this issue. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The way I look at it is that as an encyclopedic topic, compassionate conservatism is part of the historical narrative. The question remains, how much space should it be allotted? Viriditas (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Well, it has its own article, so we should only summarize it here. The version I removed was too big, particularly since it's not clear how important this slogan is to conservatism in general. As a rule of thumb, the summary should be no larger than the lead of the summarized article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    One of the best ways to approach this is to stick to notable figures associated with the concept. That forces editors to stick within a framework dictated by the sources, and avoid undue weight. The strange thing, however, is that the majority of "compassionate conservatives", the people who actually practice the concept, have been pushed out of the Republican party. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Well, there's really just the one. And you're right that the concept is no longer current within the GOP. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    If you can find sources that note this change, it could be a win-win for both sides. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The sources are already in the main article. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Gentlemen, I appreciate your sudden interest in the article's content, but I doubt this is the place to discuss the merits. Veriditas, thanks for acknowledging that the blanking was improper, that was helpful. Beyond that, I don't see much that addresses the policy violations we are here to discuss. Belchfire-TALK 07:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    And Still-24, that's a very interesting comment you just made, considering that you just posted not 10 minutes ago that the were no citations in the section. Belchfire-TALK 07:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Well, as you already know, I don't consider it "blanking" nor a policy violation. It might be best to keep this discussion on the talk page and try to negotiate a solution. As I said, I don't support outright removal because the rationale is too weak, but concerns about undue weight are legitimate. Still, there isn't any hurry to remove it at this time, so I recommend filing an RFC. I'm not seeing anything for an admin to do, but others might disagree. We should reserve the admin boards for issues needing admin attention. Since this is a content dispute involving edit warring, you know where to go. Viriditas (talk) 07:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Belchfire, we're requesting citations to show the relevance of compassionate conservatism. These two citations show its unimportance, stressing that the GOP has moved past even talk of compassion in its conservatism. So, in short, the citations I just found serve only to undermine your argument, not support it. Please be more careful in the future with regard to misunderstanding the content of citations.
    Viriditas, I have no idea why this was reported, much less why it was reported here. I agree that this is not the place for it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Viriditas, no disrespect intended, but I didn't come here to get your views on this. And I disagree.
    Illegitimate blanking is vandalism. See Blanking, illegitimate "Removing all or significant parts of a page's content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense." Similarly, Refusing to get the point is disruptive editing. When an editor looks at a Talk discussion where there is clearly a 50-50 split and claims he has consensus to do whatever he wants, RFC or DRN isn't likely to achieve results. This editor, in particular, has a recent history of disregarding 4-1 and 5-1 consensuses against his edits at DRN. In light of that, I'm not inclined to waste my time pursuing lengthy processes that seem likely to be blown off. I believe admin intervention is both necessary and appropriate. As I specified above, education is needed, from an authority figure. He won't listen to other users, and voluntary compliance isn't working so far. Belchfire-TALK 07:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Once again, it isn't "blanking", it's called a content dispute involving talk page discussion and edit warring. "Blanking" has a specific definition and this isn't it. There's nothing for an admin to do here except block everybody who participated in the edit war. If that's what you want, then ask for it. Viriditas (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The key phrase here is "without any reason". There are good reasons for that section to be removed or at least significantly cut down. As such, you should not have bothered coming here to complain. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with Viriditas that this is a content dispute and not "blanking", and I see no cause for admin action. Admins cannot make judgments in a content dispute - if a discussion on the talk page does not yield a consensus, you all need to consult WP:DR and follow the steps there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A suggestion

    I've read through the discussion on the article's talk page, and these are my observations:

    1. The central issue of the dispute is whether or not the main conservatism article should contain a subsection covering compassionate conservatism.
    2. There are two opposing viewpoints on this issue: one side argues that the term is not in widespread use, and is entirely irrelevant outside the U.S. (possibly even the Bush administration), while the other side reiterates their understanding that the main conservatism article should cover all concepts branching off of the conservative political doctrines (including its various different interpretations), and not just a limited definition based on the ideologies of famous classical conservatives such as Edmund Burke.
    3. There is not a firmly established consensus on the article's talk page, and the dispute has resulted in an edit war.

    So, bearing all this in mind, I've come to the conclusion that the best way forward from here is to try and establish a clear consensus one way or the other. To do that, we will probably need more people participating in the discussion. Therefore, my suggestion is to open a request for comment on the article's talk page, following the instructions laid out here, and listing it under the Politics, government, and law category. That way we can get a much broader perspective, hopefully establishing a clear consensus and alleviating the confusion caused by this situation.

    Thoughts? Kurtis (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    That's what was basically said in the last post of the thread and the close - no need to make comments outside of a closed thread. WP:DR includes RFC's, etc. dangerouspanda 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I know, I had typed this up prior to the thread being archived, and decided to post it anyways. More importantly, I've gotten the discussion started at the article's talk page — though, unfortunately, it seems as if the situation has only gotten more exacerbated since then. And I think being more specific as to which aspect of dispute resolution ought to be used in this case is important; I can't see 3O being especially useful here, as this content dispute would need an even broader consensus than what would be gotten there. Kurtis (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    201.81.2XX.XXX

    201.81.224.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    201.81.226.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    201.81.237.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    201.81.239.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The edits are all inflammatory remarks in articles relating to former Yugoslavia (ARBMAC). User was warned about adding personal information, but has continued (these revisions and edit summaries should be deleted immediately). Most of his comments should also be deleted per personal attacks, NPOV, defamation, etc.--Zoupan 12:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Hunt the Jew?

    Not every content dispute involving the word "jews" is ANI-worthy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    In the articles Siege of Sidney Street and Tottenham Outrage, every source used which mentions the perpetrators' ethnicity states that they were Latvian. Not a single source asserts that they were Jews. Despite this, one recently-created account has repeatedly removed their description as "Latvian", adding an unsourced assertion that they were "Jewish immigrants". Among other edit summaries, the user has stated that "They were not Latvian" and "Latvia did not yet exist", though it doesn't seem to occur to the editor that by the same logic they should not be described as Jews either. I have posted on both talk pages, but the user has not responded there, and continues to make the same unsourced edit. The editor's behaviour is more disturbing when it is noted that all of their other edits consist of reverting my own edits, and adding unsupported or weakly-supported ascriptions of Jewish ethnicity to other historical figures. Could someone please assist in drawing this new editor's attention to the importance of reliable sourcing, and the unacceptability of unsourced and irrelevant ethnic tagging. RolandR (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    This source clearly states that those involved in both incidents were Jewish, so this hardly seems to be an issue. The source also describes them as Russian rather than Latvian (as Latvia was part of the Russian Empire at the time). Number 57 16:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    That source was not cited in the articles. In both cases, the editor was using several reliable sources describing the perpetrators as Latvian, to describe them as Jews. This report is about editor behaviour, not about content. RolandR (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    ec2(And incidentally, other reliable sources state explicitly that they were not Jews.) RolandR (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    If we are talking about behaviour, why did you simply revert, rather than check that they might be right? It took me about 30 seconds to corroborate their edits after Googling. You also accused them of inserting untrue material. Combined with giving them a warning template and reporting them on here, this looks a little WP:BITEy. Number 57 16:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    You only posted on those talk pages today! This is a content dispute really. This says 'misplaced antisemitism' was triggered by the Tottenham outrage, which might imply that they were thought to be Jewish but were not. The Jewish chronicle says we don't know how many were Jews, but some were. Calling them Latvian seems to be difficult as Latvia didn't exist at the time. Edit warring over Jewish vs Latvian doesn't bring out the complexity. They were anarchists from the Russian empire, presumably not religious. Did any of them identify as (ethnic?) Latvian? Did any identify as (ethnic?) Jewish? Secretlondon (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    No, the JC does not say that "some were" Jews. It says they were identified as Latvian, but that "it is a safe bet that some were" Jews. RolandR (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot and hoax content

    In this edit User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot added hoax content to Larry Storch. In this edit to Talk:Larry Storch he indicates that he did it intentionally, knowing it to be a hoax. It seems to be part of larger experiment to see how long it takes Wikipedians to catch this type of vandalism. However, when an anonymous editor removed the vandalism with this edit, Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot simply reinserted it with this edit. In my mind this behavior is very detrimental to Misplaced Pages, but I would have been willing to let it drop. However, on several occasions (here, and here) I have asked Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot if he has similarly introduced hoax material into other articles, but he has refused to supply an answer. I have no choice but to conclude that there are other articles out there which still have hoax material in them that Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has introduced. I am bringing this here to a wider audience so that others can look at his edits and help identify any other hoaxes/vandalism that Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot may have added to Misplaced Pages articles. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    This is really a non-issue. On July 10, I added some information, cited by Kinston.com, about an alleged noise pollution sentence by a Judge to Larry Storch, requiring him to play the teapot song in his car. I originally did not realize that this was satire, so I thought that I was adding valid information. However, a few days later, I realized that it was satire, but I decided to keep it because I wanted to conduct a little experiment to see how long it would take for the material to be reverted. The information was reverted by Gnome de plume on August 13, over one month after the material was added. This actually tells me of a potential weakness in our policies, or our enforcement of them, such that material in WP:BLP articles can appear to be well-cited and sourced yet still not be valid. So we, as editors, must be vigilant and cognizant of this, as well as aware of WP:RS issues. So no, I wasn't "vandalizing". I was just trying to illustrate a point. I apologize if I was seen as a common asshole vandal. WTF? (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    You were disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point. "Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban." —C.Fred (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I apologize about that. I didn't realize that my little experiment went against WP:POINT. I'll try to be more careful so that this doesn't happen again. Also, to answer Gnome's question about whether I have inserted hoax material into other articles, I think if you review my edit history, you'll find that the vast majority of my edits are valid and not considered vandalism. WTF? (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    I don't question the vast majority of your edits - I can see that you are quite a productive editor here. However, I think your reply continues to be completely evasive about the direct question of whether you have similarly added hoax content to other articles. Gnome de plume (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    Ok, so to be more direct in answering your question, no, I have not added similar hoax content to other articles. This incident is a one-article incident. WTF? (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    How is anyone to trust you on that? Consider this a single and final warning on breaching experiments on the encyclopedia: if any editor notices such again (including existing cases that WTF has not disclosed), ping me and I'll indef. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    User:Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot has still not accounted for this reversion of an editor removing their hoax insertion. This was done August 12, long after "the couple of days" that Foxtrot claim they had become aware it was a hoax. That edit doesn't really match their explanation about it being a "test to see how long before the material was reverted". --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    It's worth saying it again: We're an encyclopedia, not a bunch of lab rats in a cage. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    91.74.118.88

    IP blocked Noom talk 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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


    This user 91.74.118.88 has been warned several times regarding using Misplaced Pages as a soapbox, in response to posting multiple complaints on the Flydubai page. They have also been blanking their own talkpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amp71 (talkcontribs) 18:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    IP address blocked following report to WP:AIV Noom talk 18:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    132.3.29.68

    The user 132.3.29.68 has been warned multiple times from the talk page about vandalism and other things. This IP recently edited Soledad O'Brien twice, both times were vandalism . Before that, editing Brokeback Mountain, here, and then Detroit Pistons, here. I am aware this is a shared IP address but at least we can disable anonymous editing? Toasty (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    I'm not an admin, but I don't see enough recent vandalism to justify a block; additionally, most of the warnings on the talk page are stale (>1 month old). I'll issue another warning; if vandalism continues please report this IP at WP:AIV. —KuyaBriBri 21:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Personal Attacks

    User:Trasamundo call me "Sockpuppet Santos30" 3 times in the Talk:Spanish_Empire. After I give clear explain in the Administrators notice board he call me another time: "Sockpuppet Santos30".. I feel as a personal attack when he call me Sockpuppet after I give an explanation. It is a long discussion and I'm worried this brokes my Talk. Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Category: