Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

EEng and edit warring

I'm a minimal party to this, so I shouldn't issue a block. EEng has been engaged in an edit war and has ownership issues with Phineas Gage. He has greatly expanded the article to where it is a GA candidate. Six editors, ChrisGualtieri, Chiswick Chap, Johnuniq, Tryptofish, Magioladitis and I have said it is time to move on and for EEng to stop (See Talk:Phineas Gage). EEng then went and reverted for 4th time in the past 48 hours. Others editors have had their edits reverted by EEng. This has already been the subject of an ANI discussion that went nowhere. He has also been the subject of a disruptive editing this past month. EEng also resorts to name calling and diatribes. Such as name calling in the two previous discussions at ANI and a recent diatribe on how all the above editors are "hit and run" editors. Issues range from content to style. EEng's style is, as Dicklyon put it (note EEng's style in the diff), "There's no reason for this article to be so excessively idiosyncratic in style". EEng reverted Dicklyon for supporting his fellow "Gnomes and MOS Nazis".

I feel a short-term block is in order unless the disruptive editing and rudeness doesn't stop. I don't want to see EEng topic banned from the article. He is a major contributor and co-author of the only scholarly publications on Phineas Gage. His input is needed in order for the article to become a GA. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's an awkward situation because EEng is very skilled and has done a lot of good things, but this may be a case where a person gets used to being right, and is unable to make allowances for others. @EEng: Suppose we are all wrong—what should you do about that? Should you revert us because we can't argue as eloquently as you? Should you persist until we go away because we are obviously misguided? Sorry, but those approaches won't be successful. Please find a way of rationalizing all this in your mind as being our fault, and move on to something else. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I protected it for 24 hours, after which I began looking at the history page to see whose edit was the most recent. If this edit be at all typical, we have substantial violations of WP:CITEVAR going on, among other things — people attempting to take the article away from the standardised citation style used by its major author. Let me remind you that not all citation standards use the {{ndash}}, among other things (example), and that the placement of {{shy}} permits the article to be formatted like a professional print publication. In real life, when amateurs tell professionals that they're right and that the professionals are wrong, without solid factual evidence, they get ignored and forced out of the way if necessary. Kindly step aside and stop preventing this professional from permitting this article to be written to a professional standard. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Spectators should know that this is almost entirely about the preferences of certain editors for one form of markup over another -- in most cases, not even affecting the final appearance of the page! -- and who think WP is improved by their going around forcing all articles to conform -- for example, replacing {{ndash}} and {{mdash}} with literals — and – because "that's what editors expect to see" or "templates slow down the servers", which of course is nonsense. Such edits carry blithe edit summaries like "required by MOS" when, of course, MOS says no such thing. (And, of course, it's almost impossible to distinguish — from – from a regular hyphen - when editing.)

This is just the latest in the longrunning campaign, by ChrisGualtieri and others, to teach me a lesson about submitting to the will of the borg. Here's what John Vandenberg had to say about this a year ago: [1]

ChrisGualtieri, you say "someone, clearly not me, needs to reach out and assist in this matter so that this article" - had you and others tried to do so in a peaceful and thoughtful way, you would have more success I am sure. I have had no troubles when I have suggested improvements that bring the article syntax towards greater MOS compliance .. Others have also had successes, large and small, esp. Mirokado. Sometimes two editors need to revert EEng and discuss the issue, after which I have always found him able to accept the desired changes. Not everyone has had the same success, and they cite WP:OWN concerns, but in many of these cases (not all) they have acted like bulls running through this china-shop, doing mass-/automated-'cleanups', without first discussing the issue on the talk page, or doing so in an aggressive fait accompli manner. John Vandenberg ^(chat)

(Bold added by me.) This latest kerfuffle is just more of the same of that.

EEng (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• This EEng guy, sheesh. Hard to fathom sometimes. Anyone might think he had a metal rod stuck in his head. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

:) Here's a joke: Phineas Gage runs into a bar... EEng (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

... unlike: EEng runs into a block... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• My issue began when EEng added 487 Template:Shys to the article that did not render one active use. Putting shy and nbsp templates into invisible comments is completely useless. Cite templates should not be using Hyphen and nbsp templates as Bgwhite pointed out. EEng tries to make eloquent arguments, but has repeatedly been unable to comprehend the basic "Shy" template function. The article as I originally found it had every reference broken with a "false referencing" system that is the most complex and inane system I've ever seen. And I'm not just saying that, EEng called it a "hack of hacks", but EEng had effectively modified the appearance of the page to what looks good on his computer. I had less then 20 characters (not words) across the screen when it began. The page was effectively unreadable. While much has been done to improve it. Also... What CITEVAR issue? The biggest change I see is the Macmillan source (one of many) being cited with the year of its publication in the text; it is also the one with the biggest error that EEng is violently opposed to highlighting. Specifically, the one where Macmillan gives the wrong information and says there is a second source that apparently (according to EEng) doesn't exist. There is definitely a content and COI issue here at play, but BGwhite's concern over edit warring and EEng's name calling should be examined. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• When multiple papers by the same author are cited, it's common to add the year of publication e.g.

Jones (1998) discovered this, confirming it in Jones (2001), and giving further data in Jones (2002).

-- because it looks stupid to write

Jones discovered this, confirming it in Jones, and giving further data in Jones.

This is an accepted style on WP, and that you think there's something wrong with it is typical of everything that's happened in the last year.

• My "hack of all hacks" was an experiment to see if existing < ref> machinery could be tricked into putting citations in alphabetical order by author name. I spent considerable time trying to get other editors interested in finding a better way to do it, and I finally abandoned it as too unwieldy. For a year you've been trying to make it look like this some evil thing I did, claiming that "it seems that EEng made the article deliberately difficult to edit."

My discussions with other editors about how I planned to keep others from editing the article by making the markup extremely complicated

Discussion with anther editor regarding the ref formats and figure #s [2] (section Extensively revised): "There are several technical innovations which I am not completely happy with, but I hope others might come along and offer better ways to achieve the same results ... The article is on 160 watchlists and as I said before, I'm hoping someone might be inspired to invent/discover a cleaner way to do these things." Request at Village Pump for better ways to alphabetize refs [3] (sectionControlling order of reflist): "Nasty hack though this technique is I actually feel its advantages outweigh its drawbacks and I'd like to take it live in the article, with the hope that someday a purpose-built facility will become available to make the hack unnecessary. There's only one other editor at Talk:Phineas Gage who's willing to engage this kind of technical issue and I'd be most happy if you'd look over the implementation (in my sandbox) in detail and explore the question with us." Attempts to get other editors to participate [4] "For the moment there's one other editor who engages at all regarding this article, and I'd very much like there to be more" [5] "I'm wondering if you want to work on formatting/cites/technical stuff only (and fine if that's true -- this has been really helpful) or whether you'd like to engage on content as well. I'm kind of tired of being the only editor who actively engages the sources, and then gets accused of ownership!" [6] "I could really use an unbiased eye to comment ... I keep trying to get others involved but can't."

• As for the rest, I refer again to John Vandenberg from last spring ([7], bolding added):

from what I have seen it is User:ChrisGualtieri who is regularly misusing sources, making a mess of both article and the discussion page in the process of the Tendentious editing. While labeling someone a troll is not OK, neither is Chris' misuse of sources, and Chris' bull-in-china-shop approach to 'fixing' this article, which has been going on for months. ... John Vandenberg ^(chat)

EEng (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I thought Phineas Gage was a delisted FA, I'd never realised it had never got there in the first place. Having a done a few edits on it, just from the referencing and prose in the bits I looked at seems it ought to be possible to get up there. I see last year it had an abandoned GA review which seems to have broken down over stability issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, but somebody once asked at the Graphics workshop, when I was active there, if we could enhance one of the images, so that the words on the bar could be read. I think we were unable to help much, because the detail wasn't there. Begoon ^talk 03:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've been involved in trying to get editors to solve these disputes for a long time. The problems are not entirely one-sided, in that editors on both "sides" of the dispute have a history of asking for help with dispute resolution, then suddenly losing interest when the resolution process starts to look serious: see, for example Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Phineas Gage.
• There is a comment above that tells the editors who have expressed concern about the situation to "step aside and stop preventing this professional from permitting this article to be written to a professional standard." That comment is not helpful. I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, and if we are suddenly engaging in "professional" editing, I'd like to know when I'm going to get my paycheck. Until that time, I would suggest that all editors who come to a page in good faith are entitled to be listened to, without being told summarily to step aside.
• About edit warring, EEng was already at 3RR when I reminded him at his talk page: [8]. His page edit subsequent to that time, [9], is, despite the edit summary, in part a 4th revert.
• This dispute is partly about formatting, but also about writing style and how to balance sources, some of which EEng coauthored in real life. The talk page discussion shows numerous editors expressing thoughtful comments, with EEng a minority of one, and not persuading anybody. Even allowing for some stubbornness on both "sides", he is unilaterally impeding progress towards making the page a GA.
• A this point, I would see a block for anything other than 3RR as punitive, rather than preventative, and I doubt that EEng's opinion of his role at the page would change following the block. I share Johnuniq's concern about preventing EEng from making any contributions to a page where he truly does bring expertise about the subject matter.
• It seems to me that the best action would be to topic-ban EEng indefinitely from editing Phineas Gage, but continuing to allow him to edit Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Disappointed to see EEng here again; I think we may need a block at this point. I take John Vandenberg's point with a pinch of salt, as it contains zero diffs. If the problem was one caused by "mass-/automated-'cleanups'" we would not be here for the umpteenth time. This seems more like an OWN problem. Block or a topic ban? I don't know but I do know we cannot go on like this. --John (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't read all that. Who is interesting on working on the article? I don't mean who is interested in working on how template xyz displays some picture or transmits some bit of mysterious data to some other template, but who is interested in working on the article to provide information about the subject to a reader? If it is just EEng, you should leave him alone to get on with it and formatting be blowed. If it is genuinely other people too, then EEng needs to lighten up a bit about the formatting (who cares if the line splits midway through supercalifragilisticexpialidocious if nobody else can make out where supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is in the text when editing because of all the templates?). That's it, if anybody wants me, I'll be cutting a baby in half to stop two women arguing over it. Belle (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a significant group of editors who want in good faith to not only improve the page, but to make it a GA. This isn't a question of telling us to leave him alone, but it is a question of EEng needing to lighten up. (No babies were harmed in the posting of this reply.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would include myself in the group who would like to help bring this article to GA but have been turned away by EEng's OWN and BATTLE behaviour. I would also encourage anyone interested in helping out here to read the last discussion here on this editor's conduct, which was archived without resolution a few weeks ago. I think we do need to take some sort of collective action here. --John (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can we agree on a topic ban? I, for one, support an indefinite topic ban at Phineas Gage, while allowing continued editing at Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• I would be happy to settle for a topic ban rather than a block. --John (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question: Tryptofish, you don't seem to have made any response to EEng's explanation for the template formatting - that he was attempting to get "citations in alphabetical order by author name". I'm not saying that's the only problem, nor that his approach to that problem was the best one. But it seems like a reasonable explanation for what he saw as good faith improvements to the article. Do you except that explanation or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It may explain one or two edits, but not the larger issues here. If one goes over the talk page history, for example Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, the concerns are far more wide-ranging than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing against that. I was searching for some admission of (at least some) good faith on the part of EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, via the link given by EEng, the "citations in alphabetical order by author name" attempt was made over a year ago and before any of this mess started. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. So it's not part of "this mess" at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I don't believe it is part of this mess. But I may have missed something from the loooong talk conversations. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been AGF'ing for the longest time. Don't just look at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, but also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Personal attacks and OWN violations. I'm hardly someone who is unsympathetic to him. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The ongoing "discussions" you and EEng have had are the main reason I took that article off my watch list last year. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Then let's be very clear that I have not lacked for AGF. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• A topic ban for EEng and ChrisGualtieri I think are now in order, plus a minimal block for EEng for the latest round of edit warring. This is not just about styling, though placing 487 {{shy}} templates is extremely excessive. Arguments have also been over content and referencing. EEng and Chris are the most vocal. Taking both out of the equation would help any of the other editors get this to GA. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Does EEng have any explanation for the 487 {{shy}} templates? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 If I understand correctly, EEng states MOS says you can use them (MOS:SHY), but says nothing on how many. If you want to consider style as part of the argument, I'd say judge for your self via this snapshot, before most of the mess started. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They look like aids to editing that might be dispensed with after a major article-wide edit had been completed. And invisible to the reader, of course. But I guess some other editors might find them troublesome. (In some future software release I suppose they might be part of user-definable edit skins). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wee note. Another editor found them to be an issue, but I support EEng's use of them in captions and other tight places as per the Template's documentation. In our last discussion and EEng's last edits, he has resolved the vast majority of the issues. SHY appears to trigger on spelling check runs, but overall, they should remain as long as the perform a function. So the previous issue has actually been resolved, but getting to that point was a bit tougher than I would have liked. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban for both of them at Phineas Gage, but I oppose banning either of them from Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, no offense, but do not blame me or EEng when you caused the mediation to be rejected. That's right you (the filer) caused it to be rejected. EEng felt it was premature and I didn't even get a chance to voice myself. You may mean well, but you certainly have gotten your facts wrong here. I ask that you strike your above comment about that. EEng should not be blocked, there is no reason to block because it'd simply be punitive. ANI is not a place for an RFC/U and it most certainly is not going to help when 5+ people all want this at GA. Tryptofish, you supported much of my changes, I realize my changes were far from perfect - and I'll admit that I was blindsided by all the errors in Macmillan 2000. You know better than anyone else that I also want this article to be GA or FA. EEng reacted with hostility and I have been afraid to try and deal with it since. Sorry if I add my voice to the pile, but I spent 40 hours researching Gage and I tried to work with EEng - but I do not need to be abused. I won't stay in such editing environments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, EEng's being receptive and fixed all the issues I had and then some. I do not think any MOS issue actually remains now. EEng fixed all the issues before this came to ANI with this edit. Why was this brought to ANI anyways? WP:CIVIL? Recently, he's been tense, but not anything outright 'disruptive'. I'm confused. Anyone care to explain why this is open still? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a recent sample edit. EEng has been fighting for years to keep his idiosyncratic formatting in this article. Use of {{shy}}, {{hyp}} and <p> is eccentric, disliked by other editors, and makes the article very difficult for others to edit. EEng has added this formatting many, many times and is currently at 4rr. He is arrogant and rude if challenged on his weird formatting and long-winded writing style, such that it is very difficult to work with him. Most people just walk away, which has reinforced EEng's feelings of ownership of the article. It's not viable to suggest we can go on like this. --John (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I feel a need to reply to what you said to me, although it also is becoming clear to me that nothing is going to come of this ANI thread. I can sympathize that you would want to respond to what I said (following what Bgwhite proposed, although subsequent talk separated my comment from his), but turning it back at me is a cheap shot, and I think you know it. Your diff simply shows that I withdrew the request, after seeing that no one besides me was willing to participate. I didn't cause you or anyone else to choose not to participate. You made that choice – and I remember diffs where you, first, came to me at my user talk to ask for my help and, then, were demanding dispute resolution and, later, turned tail when I started the mediation. Also, the reason given by Bgwhite was not related to the attempt at mediation. It was what he called your "most vocal" posture at the talk page. So my advice to you is to take notice of how Bgwhite, coming new to the page, perceived your conduct, and keep it in mind going forward, since undoubtedly this issue will crop up again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Its interesting to look at the page statistics, EEng (talk · contribs) and ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) have between them contributed 81% of the article [10]. Although a couple of editors who've commented here pop in the number of edits, none of them have substantially contributed to the prose and do not appear in the top 10 contributors of text. Their sole contribution appears to be undoing EEng (talk · contribs)'s formatting style to substitute their own preference and its really for no benefit to the article. I dunno guys, there are plenty of really badly formatted articles out there but this isn't one of them. It may be idiosyncratic but it works and it works well - the article looks fantastic in WikiWand. I think some people are forgetting that wikipedia is first and foremost an exercise in writing an encyclopedia. So if your only interest is in formatting it "differently" I would suggest you find something better to do - like writing. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a red herring. If your only interest is in making fallacious observations at an administrators' board I would suggest you find something better to do - like writing. --John (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And so we arrive at the nub of the matter

It's even sadder than you make it sound, BedsBookworm. This bunch isn't changing the (visible) formatting of the article to be more attractive to the reader or conformant to MOS -- for the most part they're changing the internal, invisible markup to other markup that does exactly the same thing.

Are {{shy}}, {{hyp}} and <p> unusual? Yes. So what? Why does everything have to look like what some self-satisfied roving enforcers are used to?

Are these forms really "disliked by other other editors"? It depends on the kind of editor. If you mean "disliked by editors who show no interest in an article other than to make the markup look they way they think it should look, and who, out of nowhere, arrive to assert their personal preferences as 'rules', apply their mindless scripts, then rush off to clutter the edit histories of the next thousand articles (having had zero effect on what the reader sees)", then I guess Yes.

Oh... except sometimes they do affect on what the reader sees. As explained here, there are places where double-newline doesn't create a paragraph break as it usually does, and <p> must be used instead. Yet here's a high-handed edit (edit summary in full: "no need") taking out <p> in the places where there is, in fact, a need -- and thereby breaking the formatting. Then someone else has to take time to fix it. [11]

So the best thing these activities achieve is nothing, but now and then they screw something up. It's like the old joke about selling at a loss but making it up on volume.

If there's a lesson here, it's that Wikipedia needs a rule something like "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason" -- except that there already is such a rule, right at the top of each MOS page. (Take a look.)

I've been fond of quoting Beyond My Ken in recent days:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and I have had our serious differences, but at least he takes a longterm interest in the article‍—‌Tryptofish too, of course. John may think this incident has reinforced my "ownership" of the article; I'd like to think it's raised awareness of the cumulative damage done, and the huge amounts of editor time wasted, by (I'll say it again) these self-satisfied roving enforcers. EEng (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Careful now EEng, you wouldn't want to get blocked by an uninvolved admin, would you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

After the block

I'm saddened to see that there was a block, and I have some concerns about Bgwhite being involved. But, instead of being "the nub of the matter", I feel that EEng's post above was a saddening demonstration of why we have a problem, and a problem that will continue after the block is over. (It's certainly a textbook case of turning an ANI thread that was about to peter out as "no consensus" into something worse.) EEng, sincerely, I'm glad that you point out, just above, that I have a good-faith interest in the page, so please listen to me about this: The claim that the editors who express concerns about the page are simply driving by, and objecting to the formatting as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without any legitimate interest in page content, has started to become a recurrent theme in this discussion, and it is wrong and needs to be refuted. It is starting to run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS. What has happened at Talk:Phineas Gage over the past week or so is not anything like that. It is not just a matter of disliking something trivial that readers of Wikipedia do not see. After all, we can't have it both ways: it cannot be something that has caused "damage" to the page, and at the same time be something trivial and petty and unseen. What really did happen was a group of editors showing up in response to a call to make the page a WP:GA, and trying to work in good faith to that purpose, and then finding themselves in an edit war where each of them successively made either one or zero reverts, and you made all the opposing reverts unilaterally. It's a falsehood to say that the idiosyncratic page formatting is an accepted alternative, equal in the eyes of the editing community to what occurs on greater than 99% of all other pages. If all that formatting (not to even mention the more substantive issues about sourcing on the page) is a good idea, let's have a community RfC at WP:MOS and determine that the community thinks that. Until then, such a consensus does not exist. But the editors at the Gage talk page expressed concerns that are consistent with present-day Wikipedia consensus, and the talk page consensus was unambiguously against you. So let's put an end, right now, to this theme of calling the editors who have disagreed with you drive-by editors who do not care about page content. It's a lie. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's an offensive and disruptive lie and the block was merited for making and repeating it. John (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• I think the block - done during the middle of this discussion - is not necessary a good thing (because now unless someone copy-and-paste stuff over from EEng's talk page, his opinions cannot be heard. Thus, I have added a {{DNAU}} for a few days so that this discussion is not archived before EEng gets a chance to reply here again. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

For those who took the weekend off, Bgwhite blocked me Friday night, calling my post above "harassment".

• I posted the following (here edited somewhat) at my own talk page, in response to Bgwhite's block notice:

Noting that you blocked me for comments regarding you, I'll let the great John Stuart Mill explain how ridiculous you're making yourself look:

If the test [of what is offensive] be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them ... an intemperate opponent.

In other words, Bgwhite, it stings because it's true, you're mad because you can't think of anything to say in response, and as the person criticized you shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide whether the criticism is within bounds. I doubt I'll appeal this since there's more use letting it stand as a 48-hour monument to your thin-skinned pettiness.

EEng (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Bgwhite had nothing to say.

• Tryptofish says: We can't have it both ways: it cannot be something that has caused "damage" to the page, and at the same time be something trivial and petty and unseen. But I didn't say that each change was simultaneously damaging and petty/trivial/unseen. I said that each change was at best trivial/petty/unseen, but now and then one of them is damaging.
• Here's the actual "lie" in this conversation (since apparently it's not OK to call other editors self-satisfied, but it's OK to call them liars): that the article violated MOS, or GA criteria, or the mysteriously unspecified "present-day Wikipedia consensus" to which Tryptofish refers; and/or that any of this posse have responded to my attempts to discuss their changes, other than to tell me they are five and I am only one.

• Here's a diff [12] showing the hundreds and hundreds of changes which started this scuffle. Point out a few of the violations of MOS, or of the "present-day Wikipedia consensus", or of the WP:Good article criteria, being corrected here..
• Here's a link [13] to my attempt to discuss these changes. Point out where anything more meaningful than "we outvote you" was said in response to my attempts to discuss.

• Let's hear again how self-satisfied is hurtful namecalling, while accusations like "COI", "arrogant and rude" -- not to mention "lying" -- are thrown around with impunity in this very discussion.

EEng (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Name calling is childish gaming to involve an admin who takes interest in any case on ANI. Doing it isn't going to make you immune.--v/r - TP 07:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm torn between rolling my eyes, too, or just wiping a tear from them. I got into this whole mess as someone who considered EEng a Wiki-friend, thinking that I was coming to take his side in a much earlier complaint, but I was surprised by what I actually saw, and for the longest time, I have tried to take a middle stance that opposed any sanctions against EEng. What tipped it for me was the unambiguous edit warring and unwillingness to accept consensus during the recent GA discussion. In the last ANI complaint about EEng, just a month ago, the discussion was about to quiet down when EEng needlessly re-inflamed it. The same thing happened above, in the post that prompted the block. And now, it has happened yet again, in the post-block comment directly above. Although I can understand that any editor might want to let off some steam after a block that they consider to have been unfair, I'm afraid that I cannot pass this off as simply that. EEng does not have to agree with other editors, but he is failing to acknowledge that they have non-petty concerns, and failing to indicate that he is willing to make an effort to work towards consensus, unless that consensus is what he personally prefers. The discussion here got off track with competing proposals to issue blocks and to topic ban another editor, but I suggest that the only way to get a meaningful conclusion is if editors will focus on this one editor. I still think we should topic ban EEng indefinitely from Phineas Gage, while continuing to allow access to Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for even one actual example illustrating the alleged problems whose correction I was reverting

• The true lesson of "The last ANI complaint about EEng" is quite different from the one Tfish implies. The OP of that thread (Johnuniq) complained that "recent behavior of User:EEng at WT:MOSNUM as disruptive ... EEng should be told to make an argument a couple of times, and then keep quiet". But none of the editors subsequently calling for my head in that ANI thread were participants in the MOSNUM discussion -- instead they were (surprise!) the same cast of characters seen piling on in this ANI thread. And in fact, in a subsequent MOSNUM discussion the following unsolicited compliments were posted by someone who actually was involved in the earlier MOSNUM discussion -- the one in which (according to Johnuniq) I had been so disruptive:

• [14] The discussion on kWh was mostly good-natured, and it was resolved well with Eeng's stewardship
• [15] If I had known about the proposed topic ban I would have opposed it. You are doing a good job. Consider toning down for newcomers not yet accustomed to your style, especially non-native English speakers who might not appreciate the wit.

It might add force to that editor's comments when I say that he and I completely disagreed about the issue under discussion until almost the very end.

• I believe in the good faith of everyone here, but some are so certain that they've ceased to examine their own claims. So please, do what I asked in bold above, which is to open the diff linked there and point out two or three of the MOS violations, or "concerns consistent with present-day Wikipedia consensus", that were (as you've claimed) being addressed in that diff, and which I was therefore resisting or reverting. Unless you do that, everything you and John and Bgwhite say here falls to the ground.

EEng (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC) (P.S. Others e.g. Martinevans123, Nyttend, BedsBookworm, Ritchie333 -- please, everyone ping your favorites -- are encouraged to look at the diff as well, and opine.)

Difficult to offer an objective comment as I have become familar with EEng's "colourful" style of interaction. I think much of this is good-natured but often appears, especially to those unfamiliar, as flippant, aggressive or arrogant. That said, as EEng suggests, I think actual clear diffs, to illustrate this "blockable" behaviour, are still required. It's obvious that he does not see himself as the only guilty party here. But I've always found both Tryptofish and John to be very resonable in all my previous dealings with them, so I'm sure they must have a valid point. I think Bgwhite may have made a grave error of judgement, as an involved admin, in blocking EEng while this discussion was still open. It seems to have served only to antagonise EEng and made postions more entrenched all round. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, thank you for the kind words and for your desire to find a reasonable resolution. I will attempt to reply with specifics. Where you ask about blocking, as opposed to a topic ban, I want to make it clear that I have advised against any block, throughout this discussion, so I am not going to defend the block. I think there is a case that the block was borderline WP:INVOLVED, and I also think that there are cases that, both, the block was provoked and that there was a valid rationale, instead, for a 3RR block. In the end, it's time to move on from the block, not to go back over and re-parse it.

EEng asks for specific diffs concerning the consensus about MOS. I asked EEng, at his user talk about two months ago, to direct me to where discussions about MOS and his formatting approach had taken place: [16]. He replied, in part, that there was never really such a discussion, and that the way he formats pages is largely just a matter of his personal "pet peeve" and "pastime": [17]. I then asked, in part, to make sure that I had understood him correctly: [18]. He never disagreed.

EEng presents the discussion about the GA editing as one where the only responses he got from anyone were of the "we outvote you" nature. I will point to an example where I tried to engage with him with great specificity and in great detail about these editing issues: Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD. And that's just one example of where I have tried to engage on these issues; there are many more. Now I understand that EEng is asking here about responses in the most recent talk page thread, but anything he asks there, I already answered before, and it is unhelpful to keep acting anew as if nothing has been discussed already.

EEng argues that the previous ANI discussion was nothing like the present one, and that my analogy was incorrect. In that earlier thread, I said this: [19]. EEng replied: [20]. The first half of his reply could have ended the entire affair peaceably. The second half was a needless jab at John. Unfortunately, John responded: [21]. EEng then massively escalated the conflict: [22]. When I referred back to that exchange, here, I was referring to the fact that EEng failed to drop the stick then, as he is also doing now.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I did not ask for "diffs concerning the consensus about MOS". I asked you to point to something in the article that violates MOS. To make that easy I provided you with a diff of the "corrections" (which you supported) to these alleged violations. You still haven't pointed to anything.

• But since you bring it up, as seen in your diff I did not say that 'the way [I format] pages is largely just a matter of [my] personal "pet peeve" and "pastime"'. I said that ragged right margins are a pet peeve, and hunting them down is sort of a pastime". That's quite different. (I have to sit through lot of boring meetings, and they frown on pornography, so I hyphenate instead.)

• I didn't say that "the previous ANI discussion was nothing like the present one". In fact it's a lot like the present one (e.g. same cast of characters piling on). What I did say that you draw the wrong lesson from it, as explained above.

EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I wish I was smart enough to understand edits like this one. Whether Bgwhite should have issued the block or not is somewhat beyond my ken, but that EEng's behavior left something to be desired is clear to me, and that a stick needs to be dropped is clear to me also. "Drive-by editor", if it involves an assumption of bad faith as seems to have been the case here, is certainly not productive and can be considered a (blockable) PA. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• This bullet point slightly revised for clarity. Don't blame me for your headache, Drmies, because that's not my edit -- this one is [23]. To see what I mean by that, see this slice of the revision history [24] I was in the middle of fixing citations, adding content, and other such trivial stuff, during which members of the posse showed up repeatedly to revert to "their" version, in which important stuff (like non-visible markup linebreaks) is they way they like it, and irritating blemishes (such as internal notes pointing out missing page #s in citations) have been banished. That this old version of theirs was missing a lot of actual content didn't matter, of course.
• After the third such visit from The Enforcers, I opened a discussion [25] in which I carefully outlined the issues as I saw them. As you can see, with one minor exception, I got no substantive answer -- just a lot of "we're right and you're wrong".
• After a few more days with no response, I explained [26] that I was restoring the article to a blended version, for example removing most of the hidden notes "since I gather editors find them to have low signal-to-noise ratio".
• And next thing you know, here we are at ANI!
• I have never said or implied that anyone's acting in bad faith, only with such certainty that they forget that consensus means "reasoned discussion" not "voting".

EEng (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Those kinds of edits give me a headache, myself, and I've parsed through probably a hundred of them. The tl;dr to take from them is that there are a huge number of non-displaying comments, templates that you have to look up what they are for (and that often have no effect on the appearance of the page on most devices), notes appended to notes, and content about how some investigators (collaborators of EEng in real life) went about determining that previous investigators were "incorrect". At a minimum, there is a good faith conversation to be had, as to whether other editors agree with having all of that in a GA (and I predict a forthcoming complaint that I got all the details wrong in that description), given the complexity that it poses. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your strikeouts, Tfish, though now a perfectly good "put-up-or-shut-up" challenge will have to go to waste. I guess I can forgive that in the interests of the greater good.
• My "collaborator" is a man I've never met and have spoken with just twice on the phone, and with whom I coauthored one paper six years ago. If there were a dispute of any kind on this subject I'd most happily present it -- warts and all. But there's not: every paper on Gage in the last 15 years explicitly endorses the article's presentation.

We can have a good-faith conversation on all of this, but it's going to require that absolute certainty, and accusations of COI, be checked at the door. Back to the Talk page!

EEng (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies, I appreciate the outside view. It would really gladden my heart if EEng would voluntarily recuse from editing that article for the duration of preparing the article for GA, something it is easily capable of. I tell you that as a frequent GA and FA reviewer, the esoteric formatting would be an instant fail. It makes the article more difficult to edit without imparting much if anything in the way of improvement or utility. If you don't trust me (or any other editor) to have the best possible at heart for that article, I will voluntarily join you in recusing from the article. Apart from the funky coding, most of the work in the article is good, but it is improvable. No work of man can say otherwise. There are a zillion other articles you can edit, and you can of course contribute to article talk. I predict the only alternative will be a formal topic ban, and/or more blocks. I would totally have blocked you for your obfuscation, rudeness and contempt for your fellow editors had I not been involved in trying to edit the article a few months ago. I am famously lenient and I am sure other admins may have a quicker block reflex than mine. Or do you have another option you wish to suggest? --John (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• And sorry, I don't know how that happened. I read your comments EEng, and the last bit about returning to talk is a good point. But earlier on you talk about other folk who want to improve the article, and to raise it to peer-reviewed status, as being a "posse" and call us "enforcers". That isn't acceptable at any time, and it especially isn't right after a block for being mean to your potential co-workers. Please, take a break from this warfare, and do something else for a while. It's a wiki and you really can't prevent others from editing your work, or be mean to them when they try to do so. This is fundamental to our enterprise here. --John (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• John, I have no answer to offer here. A very narrow topic ban may be the best solution: no one wants to prevent EEng from editing (I hope), but it seems to me there is broad enough disagreement with their edits to this article. BTW, I agree that "posse" is not acceptable language and violates AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I also think that a very narrow topic ban has become unavoidable, as much as I have tried (fruitlessly) for the longest time to avoid anyone having to be sanctioned. Below, EEng calls me to task for, in his opinion, never providing a direct answer to his questions. In my opinion, I already did exactly that, many times, with Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD being just one good example. EEng apparently believes that I'm doing WP:IDHT, and I believe the same about him, so I'm not going to respond below, and I'll just allow whoever may be uninvolved to decide for themselves.
• I propose, yet one more time, that EEng be topic-banned indefinitely from editing Phineas Gage, with no restriction to editing Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for an understanding

Directly above, Drmies points to this diff: [27]. Take a look at the diff, and see who the editor was. EEng replies "that's not my edit". EEng goes on to refer to the editors who disagree with him as "the posse" and "The Enforcers". And all this in the context of an ANI discussion about his unwillingness to treat other editors in the discussion with good faith and without insult. I'm not asking him to agree with other editors. But I'm still waiting for him to acknowledge that other editors really do have good faith concerns, and demonstrate a willingness to engage with them on neutral terms. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Like I said, you have to look at the revision history [28] to see what I mean by "that's not my edit".
• I have said repeatedly above that I believe everyone to be acting in good faith, if misguided. It's the stubborn certaintly, combined with the absolute refusal to give even a single example of the alleged problems (see below), that's pissing me off.

EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for even one actual example illustrating the alleged problems (nth request)

Tfish, you and John keep talking about the "esoteric formatting", but despite my repeated requests you never say what that is. For the love of God, right here, right now, in front of everyone, after all this wasted time and effort, one of you please specify what you're talking about. Let me suggest you do this by making (say) three actual, live edits to the article, each illustrating one variety of this "esoteric formatting" by removing or fixing one or two instances of it. Then link the three diffs here, each with a link to the pertinent MOS provision or other guideline).

If indeed there really are clear violations of MOS, I'll be the first to rush out and fix all instances of them. If it's a matter of judgment or opinion, we can talk about it on the article's Talk page, one by one.

That's all I've ever asked for, and not too much to expect. I doubt I'll be participating here further until that's done. EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, people can reference the recent past and the reason this was brought here, but let's review some issues. This edit resolved the <!--In con{{shy}}sid{{shy}}er{{shy}}a{{shy}}­tion of this important omis{{shy}}sion, --> issue. Shy templates in invisible mark up = totally useless. Painfully old, but this edit to restore useless invisible comments was a repeat issue. Part of the issue has been resolved by you acknowledging Template:Cite_web#COinS after BGwhite pointed it out, but that was also for technical reasons. Glad you understand that now. Though MOS:MARKUP was a repeatedly mentioned. The replacement of many templates you've added with actual characters makes sense and many equivalent changes are so widely supported that even AWB makes the changes for you. Though I am certain that: <!--DO NOT AMERICANISE THIS SPELLING>>>>-->{{sic|neighbouring|hide=y}}<!--<<<<DO NOT AMERICANISE THIS SPELLING --> is a perfectly good example of two irrelevant and distracting invisible comments that is in the current version. Your insistence on nonequivalent measurements "three inches (8{{nbsp}}cm)" are also a bit unusual because of the way you choose to display them. Though this and numerous other issues are best dealt with on the talk page... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the article in the editing window right now. Half of what I see seems redundant to me. Upload links in the image syntax, all kinds of templated spaces and spacings, marked-up paragraph breaks, lists, hidden comments of all kinds, hard returns in the middle of sentences and paragraphs, a plethora of notes with all those formatting codes in the notes (hard to tell where a note ends and the regular text begins)--I have never seen so much templating in one article, and the net effect is, for an illiterate like me, that my editing the article seems very unwelcome. I hope that was not the purpose, but man this looks awful. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for links to pertinent MOS (or other) guidelines showing that this is anything more than a matter of judgment that should be discussed on the article's talk page, rather than unilaterally thrown away by people using edit summaries like time to move on, majority opinion the best guide [29]. So much for discussion and consensus. Your bit about "hard to tell where a note ends and the regular text begins" is especially amusing, since there used to be comments explaining <!--END NOTE--> (see [30]); but I was told those weren't wanted, so I got rid of them [31] It sure is hard to please everyone. EEng (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

EEng, I am glad you find something to be amusing here. There's a better option, of course, then adding another layer of commentary: simplify. (The problem isn't really the notes itself, it's the enormous number of templates sprayed throughout the article. Someone should count curly brackets, just for fun.) You're not doing anyone any favors with this style of editing, or with these interactions here. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

4RR, EEng, 4RR. --John (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD, WP:VOTE, John. EEng (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR is an absolute rule, one of very few we have. Believing you are right or that a consensus was improperly arrived at are not legitimate justifications for breaking it. If you plan to break it again, you will be blocked again and you would be better topic-banned from the article as this is less stressful for all concerned. Is this the case? --John (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Do you plan to high-handedly WP:TAGTEAM me again, then talk sanctimoniously of 3RR? Do you plan to shift from one misinterpreted guideline to another, then in desperation denigrate another editor's work as "shit writing", as in [32] --

If I'm confusing you by referring to ideas that are perhaps new to you, I can make it simple to help you. It's shit writing; it sounds like a teenage girl's diary, not an encyclopedia. Does that make it easier to understand? --John (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

-- then give lectures about respect and collaboration, and threaten blocks and topic bans? EEng (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certainly sorry if I hurt your feelings by calling "notably", "remarkably" and "went so far as to say" in the article "shit writing" when you insisted on edit warring to retain it. I stand by my judgement that this is not good style but I accept I could have put it more nicely. It is both notable and remarkable to me that this disagreement took place over a year ago, and that you are still edit-warring to prevent others from improving the article. I note with regret that you are still throwing around personal judgements like "WP:TAGTEAM" following your recent block for personal attacks. It is better to talk about improving matters (which I was doing in the section you highlight, albeit in unparliamentary language) than to discuss their motivation, as you are doing. If I had said you were a "shit editor" that would have been a personal attack. I did not though. Do you see the difference? --John (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus" or "Factionalism") is a controversial[1] form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus. Whose meat puppet are you accusing me of being? What is your evidence for making such an accusation? --John (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see the difference.

• If I say your comments are hypocritical bullshit (which I am saying), that's not a personal attack. But if I were say that you are a bullshitting hypocrite who splits hairs to remain within the letter of the rules while violating their spirit (which I'm not saying), then that would be a personal attack.
• If two editors take turns reverting a third, and I call that a "tag team", then I'm violating AGF. But if you say I'm "edit warring to prevent others from improving the article", that's not a violation of AGF.

Your deft shapeshifting between pious saint and flailing bully being now fully on display, I'm happy to end this. You will want to have the last, sputtering word, so be my guest. EEng (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed to be a pious saint and I don't think I am a flailing bully either. Once again you are criticising the person rather than their arguments. My arguments are: you may not prevent others from editing the article in question by edit-warring, you may not insist repeatedly on obscure and user-surly coding that nobody but you thinks is of any use, and that you and the article would therefore benefit from some time apart from each other. Your conduct in this thread, and the last one here, unfortunately reinforces my judgement. And now I too will back off and let others have their say. --John (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful to have more eyes on Phineas Gage. Perhaps even if some fresh eyes would do what Drmies did, above: try opening the edit window for any part of the page, and see what you think about it. Or perhaps try to help at the talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic, but the citation style makes it impossible for someone not already familiar with the article (not just the topic) to edit it while keeping the reference style intact. If it was the original style with which the article was created, it would be marginally acceptable, but would prevent the article from being a GA. Converting the references to harvard-style names would make it possible to edit without the risk of confusing or duplicating references, but I have never before seen a Wikipedia article with this many notes, and few with duplicated notes, other than table footnotes.

Some of this may just be saying the reference style is complicated, perhaps not unnecessarily so. But that would have to be justified on the talk page. It doesn't appear to have been, although I haven't checked all the talk archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that examination. Your experience with the complication is similar to what many of us have experienced. As for whether there has ever been an established consensus for doing it that way, I'll repeat something I said above: I asked EEng, at his user talk about two months ago, to direct me to where discussions about MOS and his formatting approach had taken place: [33]. He replied, in part, that there was never really such a discussion, and that the way he formats pages is largely just a matter of his personal "pet peeve" and "pastime": [34]. I then asked, in part, to make sure that I had understood him correctly: [35]. He never disagreed. He subsequently said here that his "pet peeve" is actually ragged right margins. Most of the archived talk page discussions are about EEng and other editors disagreeing about the formatting; EEng certainly has explained his reasons there, but he has not for the most part gotten editors who disagree with him to change their minds. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Block and admonishment proposal

• For being excessively pedantic with the Phineas Gage article (including wasting time with the GA and Talk page)
• For repeatedly bringing up the same "Prove that I'm being disruptive" argument when many of the disputants have been fait-acomplied into submission by digital forests of carefully composed debating prose
• For excessive wasting of volunteers time here at ANI

A 2 month block should be implemented upon EEng coupled with a significant admonishment reminding EEng of the standards of behavior.

• Support as Proposer Gah... huge wall of text is enough to push me from disinterested apathy to enraged action. Hasteur (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose block, in that form, but I support your intentions, and I thank you for that. EEng is a helpful editor in many other ways, but he just has an issue with this particular page. I'll repeat what I suggested above, instead: I support an indefinite topic ban of EEng from editing Phineas Gage, with no restriction to editing Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose both the block and the proposed topic ban. EEng has written a interesting, well sourced, and informative article, and while they could/should try to behave a bit better, to topic ban them would be losing sight of Wikipedia's main goal (being an encyclopedia). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is for that reason that I proposed no restriction on editing the talk page. That way, we don't lose EEng's expertise about the content of the page, but we allow editors to edit the page itself in accordance with consensus, instead of having to defend against edit wars that go against consensus. That is the real way to advance the main goal of building an encyclopedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any topic ban on EEng largely per user:G S Palmer and comments by user:Nyttend earlier. The block handed out to him recently is outrageous. If anything EEng has shown remarkable restraint in the face of being baited for almost a year now. Tryptofish, your proposal to restrict EEng to the talk page is ridiculous, like many of the false content issues that you and others drowned the talk page in over the last year, such as supporting the idea that a children's book can be a good source from which to base medical facts. You never lifted a finger to help fix the citation and notes problems caused by others on this article, but join their chorus of 'ban him' when EEng's syntax takes advantage of the features available for making a page very attractive, even after they have been discussed at MOS. I have to say I am pleasantly surprised to see a discussion now underway at Talk:Phineas Gage which shows that user:ChrisGualtieri, EEng's strongest critic, is engaged in fruitful collaboration with EEng, as it matches my experience over the years, where I've never had a problem finding an agreeable solution with EEng on this page even on aspects that I dont 100% agree with him, and I have enjoyed discussing gritty details with him re both content and syntax which have resulted in vast improvements to the article over the years. We should be so lucky to have such dedication shown to all our articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Please remove petitions.whitehouse.gov from the spam blacklist (or whitelist it)

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

The URL petitions.whitehouse.gov, the White House We the People website is currently blocked by the spam blacklist, because "petition" anywhere in a URL is blocked. (Previous discussions here and here. Changes made here in 2008 and here in 2009)

I made a request to have petitions.whitehouse.gov removed from the blacklist here becuase there was no consensus to pre-emptively blacklist every URL containing the string "petition" in the first place, nor was there ever a consensus to blacklist petitions.whitehouse.gov. My request was rebuffed. When I asked about previous, consensus, I was directed to a search results page which failed to show any consensus for blacklisting the URL.

The admin instructions for blacklisting instructs "Evidence- There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines:" This seems to be a case of pre-emptive blacklisting. The consensus process was apparently not followed, and it has caused collateral effects. I request that either "petition" be removed from the blacklist, or that petitions.whitehouse.gov and sub pages be added to the whitelist, until such time as there is evidence of persistent spamming. Thank you. - MrX 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with MrX. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Nitpick: the entry is \bpetition(?:online|s)?\b, which I think blocks anything beginning with "petitiononline" or "petitions". This is the actual addition. test --NE2 03:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Has the filter gotten in the way of any proper encyclopedic use since 2008? I don't understand why the whitelist simply cannot be used when there is a legitimate purpose. Chillum 03:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No opinion on the blacklisting, but WP:ELNO #4 applies. Currently they list 102 petitions. Are all of them acceptable? Some? Are such petitions encyclopedic? Let's follow the guidance and minimize such links. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: Nobody is going to go beg for a whitelist entry just to add a citation to an article. The URL should not be blacklisted, unless there is evidence that it has been persistently spammed.

@Srich32977: The need that I encountered was to use a URL in a citation. Using such an URL in an external link would indeed be inadvisable per ELNO.- MrX 04:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have to agree with the OP. It seems insane to block petitions.whitehouse.gov. There is no need to whitelist anything. You just need to fix the regular expression that is causing the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The regex should be removed and individual sites blacklisted on an as need basis. AGF applies.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot imagine many situations when a link to an online petition would be a reliable source. If anything you would need a source that interprets the raw data to avoid drawing our own interpretations. Chillum 04:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And for citing that a petition exists and garnered Y votes is unreliable despite being on the originating site? You seem unaware of what a reliable source is. Also the White House response to these petitions is also blacklisted. That is certainly a reliable source for what it says. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Remove the blacklist, AGF applies and making whitelist exceptions on a case by case seems to go against normal procedures. It makes an unnecessary burden on editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• AGF is for editors, not websites. I agree with Chillum. Why do we need to link to promotional websites like this? It's infinitely better to link to secondary sources that discuss the petition. If we blanket allow this – or, even worse, all – petition sites, we'll be inundated with external links and citations to petitions. I for one don't want to chase down all these links, and I think people should use the whitelist. There really isn't any legitimate reason to link directly to a petition. If I saw someone do so, I would instantly revert it on principle; unless reliable, third party sources discuss the petition, it's undue to add it to an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Umm, has anyone got a proposal for something that would help the encyclopedia? What external link should be added to what article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring that this request is close to forum shopping / asking the other parent. Petition sites got persistently abused - not spammed by one single user (most highly visible porn sites have never been spammed, they get however, still, constantly abused by single users, not through a campaign - and to stop that abuse the items are blacklisted - does WP:AGF apply to all the editors that replace their school website by redtube.com?).

Regularly there were statements added along the lines of 'Please sign the petition here!'. That is soapboxing, not allowed per our pillars (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). Allowing petition sites allows that soapboxing. Does WP:AGF apply when an editor wants to stack votes for their good cause? Because that is the abuse that is being stopped.

Moreover, the specific petitions are not notable for mentioning on Wikipedia until someone else writes about it (it is a reliable source that the petition exists, but there is no reason to write about it until it gets picked up by mainstream journalism or similar). That someone else wrote about it is a secondary source, which trumps the need for the primary source. When the result is out, the situation is the same, if someone else mentioned it, that secondary source trumps the primary source - the primary source is not needed. Now, there are exceptions where the primary source is needed, or where there is other information that needs to be primary sourced ('the president signed it!!' - though if that is notable, others will have picked up that fact as well). Those requests can be whitelisted. Same goes for specific petitions that gain notability in their own (where it would be an WP:ELOFFICIAL) - whitelisting can and has been done. I hence oppose removal of these rules. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Diff, diff and diff are examples of the type of soapboxing encountered with petition sites (petitiononline.com). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since below we are !voting, making clear that this is an oppose to removal, also noted in my decline of the request to de-blacklist.  Defer to Whitelist is the solution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Spam gets deleted all the time by recent changes patrollers and editors with watchlists. Using a blacklist so broadly to suppress usable citations, or to enforce notability guidelines, strikes me as an extreme overreaction and contrary to the purpose of free and open encyclopedia. There is a very big difference between using a White House petition URL in a citation and using it as an external link to soapbox for a cause. Could you please provide evidence that the URL under discussion has been repeatedly spammed?- MrX 14:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Re that Wikipedia is a "free and open encyclopedia" - There are clear self-imposed limits Wikipedia has set for itself regarding what kind of content is appropriate, see WP:NOT. Wikipedia expressly forbids its use for such things as advertising or advocacy. Therefore we have lots of rules in place for what kinds of things are not appropriate for inclusion, and lots of processes in place for enforcing those rules. We also have limited volunteer time to patrol our pages. Blacklists and spam filters free up volunteer time to work on more productive things. This is all perfectly in line with Wikipedia's purposes. Zad68 15:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Spam, yes. But this is not spam, this is abuse of links. As I said elsewhere, the 'respectable' porn websites have NEVER been spammed, they are however constantly abused (and attempts at that are still made) and only have one place. Also, the blacklist is NOT used to suppress usable citations, the blacklist is not used to enforce notability guidelines, it is used to stop soapboxing. And although I do not have data at hand for the whitehouse petitions, there is no reason to expect that the whitehouse petitions are any different from ipetitions or petitiononline, or any other petition site. In fact, maybe someone should go critically through the last 100 additions of petition sites which are not closed, and see how many of those are mentioning open petitions (soapboxing), or are referencing petitions that have no reliable secondary sources (so, no-one else cared, except for the #### voters out of ######## citicens?). I hope you are aware that our policies and guidelines do not prohibit the use of primary sources, but that they should be used with care, and that, even for reliable primary sources (which petitions sites itself are not), secondary sources are preferred. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Unless a real example of an encyclopedic article that would benefit from adding a *petitition* site is provided I am strongly against removing the rule from the blacklist. Soapboxing with petition sites used to be quite common at this project Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Although this content matter has little to do with this issue, for those curious, here is the edit that brought this my attention. The source is important for two reasons: Updating the number of signers, and documenting the response from the administration. Of course, that is a distraction from the core question: Where is the clear evidence that petitions.whitehouse.gov, which postdates the blacklist entry by more than 2½ years, has been a source of disruption, persistent spamming or or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines? - MrX 14:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If the petition is notable then there should be secondary sources covering it. We should not be interpreting primary sources to get our own data before a secondary source covers it. Original research is a concern when we attempt to directly interpret raw data.

Counting signatures is particularly problematic as a secondary source may vet this information to see if there are any dubious signatures. We are not in a position to judge the value of the raw data, we need to cite a reliable sources interpretation. Chillum 14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Interpret" never entered the equation. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for plain documented facts. For example, Alexa data is even used in featured articles to update website popularity.- MrX 15:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but we are not reading the web logs and making our own determination. A secondary party has looked at the raw data and given us a report. Online petitions are inherently unreliable as they are open to vote stacking through sock puppetry, before they are ever presented to any power they wish to influence they need to vet them.

Pretty much any website that anyone can go up to and choose to change is not a reliable source of information, not until a reliable source talk about it at least. Chillum 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw the blacklist hit, did not see that it was mentioned here. Exactly, you have a secondary source which verifies the number of votes, you do understand that that secondary source is preferred over any primary source. You could add the primary source as well, and no-one is stopping you to request a whitelist for that petition (I'll let commenting/decision to editors who have not expressed their opinion here or on the de-listing request). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: I guess you also advocate blacklisting facebook.com, MySpace.com, Instagram.com, twitter.com, discogs.com, linkedin.com, IMDB.com, and the hundreds of other websites that are routinely used as references in tens of thousands of articles. Please let me know if I misunderstood your reasoning.- MrX 16:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about discogs or IMDB, but facebook, MySpace, Instagram, twitter, linkedin are self-published sources that are ultimately unverifiable, as the content can be freely amended or deleted by the self-publisher with no other editorial control or supervision. Whilst many individuals and bands use the latter for their official website addresses, they are not in themselves reliable sources and ought never to be conflated with them. But yes, the problem as I see it is endemic. I see no problem listing a myspace address as an official site (provided it is official), but citing details to a person's biography must always be undertaken with great circumspection, or in conjunction with reliable sources.

But more importantly as somebody else has already remarked, this is completely the wrong forum for this poll. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Dirk Beetstra nailed it. Anyone can create a petition (it doesn't take much browsing on the site to find a number of ridiculous petitions with over a hundred signatures). Movements with petitions that achieve notability will have plenty of solid reliable sources to establish that a petition with strong support exists, without having to rely on a primary source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ohnoitsjamie: if the petition merits coverage, we use a secondary source. There might be room for an extremely limited whitelist (i.e., such that we can link to the main site and any uncontroversial primary sources on that site, such as a site history), but petitions themselves should not be linked directly via Wikipedia, either as sources or external links. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. I can think of very few instances where we would actually want to link to an online petition directly. At the same time, history has shown that online petitions are frequently spammed. The blacklisting is fine as is, and selective whitelisting can be utilized where appropriate. Resolute 14:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, indeed, Reolute has pretty much summed up my thoughts on this matter. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per what others have said. Discussion of a petition should not require citation to the petition itself, but to reliable third party sources that also discuss it. Anything else is original research.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as OP. We shouldn't use ICBMs to swat at flies. The appropriate and guideline-based solution is to blacklist specific URLs that have a documented history of being spammed.- MrX 15:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal and Whitelist well-argued exclusions on a case-by-case basis per above policy-based arguments. And this should NOT be here at ANI anyway. Zad68 15:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There are very few real uses for a such a url and there is a history of abuse of such online petition sites for promotion. Secondary sources are generally needed to cite a petition. The only case I could imagine it needed is in the external link section of an article about the petition. We have the whitelist for that case. Chillum 15:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Petitions that get picked up by secondary sources potentially should be included in articles, using the secondary article as a source. Ravensfire (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support There's absolutely no prohibition against citing both primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia. Indeed, primary sources can sometimes be the most reliable sources for what a source states. Saying that we can't cite primary sources flies in the face of WP:V which explicitly allows citing primary sources. The diffs provided by Dirk Beetstra span a 9 day period from 7 years ago (November 7, 2007, November 16, 2007 22:46, November 16, 2007 22:55) and none of which involve the subject of this discussion, petitions.whitehouse.gov. In fact, the subject of this discussion didn't even exist 7 years ago. After that many years, I think that it's time to re-examine the prohibition. How about lifting the ban against petitions.whitehouse.gov (if only temporarily)? If it turns out to be a problem, we can always restate the prohibition. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  First, no-one said that there was prohibition against citing both primary and secondary sources. The point is however, the 'both' .. in by far most of the cases, people do not cite both the primary and secondary source, because secondary source(s) does not exist. Also, that is not the purpose of the blacklisting (it is never the purpose of blacklisting, the purpose is to stop the abuse). And as said, if you have the secondary source, then you can easily make a good case for the primary source to be whitelisted (though, although it is allowed, why would you: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."; WP:WPNOTRS). The examples that I gave were exactly that: examples. These were particularly strong cases of soapboxing, many others are of the type 'there is currently a petition going on to stop a to do b (but no-one particularly cares about it except for the, whohoo, 300-but-still-growing, people who already signed it). Unfortunately it is difficult to find who tried to add what, the Wikipedia software does not record that, and I do not have the records so far back. I have however no reason to expect that the additions of the whitehouse petitions follow any other pattern than ipetitions or petitiononline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Convert to edit filter. This is far too broad and we don't know what possibilities we are keeping out by not even reducing it to a specific domain. It would be better to use an edit filter set to warn, with periodic checks of the log to prevent abuse. (If it gets to be a big problem, there's always warn+disallow, which is better than a blacklist since their attempt at least gets logged and a trusted user can make the edit on their behalf if it is valid.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is a blacklist log, but unfortunately it is rather useless (MV is more important,, I guess). I'll adapt the rule to make it clearer what is going on. Then we know how often this rule hits on the whitehouse site. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chillum. The worth/importance/notability of online petitions can only be judged in light of third party reliable reporting on them ex post. Even petitions with clearly defined thresholds, like the White House one, is meaningless because the outcome is not binding on whoever is in the Oval Office. By citing online petitions (dynamic primary sources) we encourage unencyclopaedic edits by definition. There was a huge barney when the petition was launched on the site (and on another much less credible site) for Edward Snowden which created flurries of recentist updates for no truly encyclopaedic purpose than to update the petitioner numbers. Best left alone until petitions are closed and reliable sources report on the outcome. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question What are people opposing/supporting? Removal of the filter entirely, or the whitehouse.gov petition?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Both/either. No petition sites should be used as sources or external links without a clear consensus that it's necessary and there's no secondary source that gives the same information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That seems to be the opinion of a few people, but unfortunately, it's not grounded in policy. We should never globally blacklist potential sources. Editorial judgement at the article level is the appropriate filter.- MrX 15:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You are now suggesting we get rid of the spam blacklist entirely? You're welcome to propose that at one of the Village Pumps, I guess... Zad68 15:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Indeed, this request and discussion goes well beyond the scope of something ANI can deal with. And Zad68 is quite correct that MrX's suggestion is tantamount to calling for the abolition of the spam blacklist. Any number of spammed websites that have been blacklisted can arguably be used as sources; petition sites are no different. Any reasonable balancing of likelihood of being a good sources versus likelihood of being illegitimately spammed in order to attract clicks would come out on the side of blacklisting petition sites. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Oh come on, you know that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it should be used selectively, in cases where there's no possibility of a website being useful as a source (for example, redtube). I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain why there such a disconnect between the admin instructions for the blacklist and the actual functioning of the blacklist.- MrX 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It may not be what you intend to say, but it's the effect of what you're suggesting. By your own argument, why would there there be no possibility of RedTube being useful as a source? The comment section of a particular video would be no less reliable than the signatures on a petition. But I digress: Is there a particular situation you envisage where referencing a petition directly rather than referencing a secondary source that discusses the petition would be useful? The only one I can think of is to get a live signature count... which I would argue is of debatable relevance (I believe it would be much more encyclopedic to say "As of [date], a web petition had [number of signatures]", referenced to a secondary source). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing the encyclopedic value of information on a US Government website to information on a porn video website? I hope you're just being facetious. Yes, a signature count would be a relevant piece of information to update in an article, assuming that the petition was already covered in a secondary sources. News sources don't typically update such information.- MrX 18:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a GREAT argument to bring to the WT:WHITELIST discussion regarding the Whitelisting of the use of the link to that one petition on the article that can make use of that information, given the context you are describing. Zad68 18:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The URL is not supposed to be blacklisted. It unnecessarily encumbers editing. The default is that URLs are allowed unless they have been used for persistent spamming.- MrX 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that's your strong belief. The other side of it is that spammers unencumbered by NOT having the entry in the blacklist would cause more damage than the inconvenience caused to those good-faith editors who have to go to WT:WHITELIST and make their case to have the entry whitelisted. This is a simple cost/benefit analysis. Zad68 19:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am. I'm seriously comparing the encyclopedic value of user-created content on a porn site to user-created content on a government-hosted website. Is there a problem? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And that comparison, Mendaliv, is totally valid. Sites are not blacklisted because they are unreliable sources, sites are not not blacklisted because they are useful as a reliable source (EVERY website can be used as a reliable source). petitiononline.com was blacklisted because it was abused, ipetition.com followed and others. They were not blacklisted because they were unreliable sources (that is your argument, MrX, but that was not made, that is not what I said in my decline and oppose messages, your reading of my argument is completely wrong there - again: reliability has nothing to do with it).

It is in the nature of petition sites, and I have seen no argument, and I do not believe that it exists, that petitions.whitehouse.gov will follow a different pattern than all the other petition sites. If anything, the opposite: it is the more visible petition site than the others and is actually more likely to be linked to to gather more votes for your cause. It is being ignorant of what Wikipedia is being used for suggesting that that type of abuse will not happen, MrX. Do you really believe that Wikipedia is not a target for spam, that spammers don't know that having your company on Wikipedia actually pays, do you really believe that editors from Examiner.com will not come here and post their links, hoping for some more visits to their pages and an increase in pay because of those increased incoming hits, and that having your links on Wikipedia will not result in having more people visiting your site. Do you really believe that mentioning the 'Get Justin Bieber out of America'-petition will not gather more votes if it gets prominently mentioned on Wikipedia. And that abuse, that linking to get people to buy your project or support your cause is a more direct violation of what we stand for, a direct violation of our pillars, much, much more than a school-kid trying to change the official link of their school to redtube.com. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"They were not blacklisted because they were unreliable sources (that is your argument, MrX,..." No, that is not my argument, that is my reaction to the tangential arguments made by Chillum and Mendaliv. I agree that discussion about whether a petition website is reliable or not should not be a factor in this discussion, and if someone is able to use redtube as reliable source, great.

My argument is that too wide of net was cast by JzG on October 23, 2008, without so much as an edit summary, (\bpetitions\b, \bpetition\b, and \bpetitiononline\b), and modified here by Lustiger seth (\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b). The consequence is that websites that could be used as sources are blacklisted, putting the onus on editors to request whitelisting for specific instances. Users including CrunchySkies, Konullu, TJRC, and Bluerasberry have argued against this practice. Now I'm going to ask you directly Dirk @Beetstra: Where is the evidence that petitions.whitehouse.gov has been persistently spammed? Or, where is the discussion in which consensus was reached to ignore the rules and preemptively blacklist all petition websites? A legitimate answer to either of these questions can bring this discussion to a prompt close. Thank you.- MrX 14:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that what you appear to claim is Bluerasberry's position here is not supported by what he actually said. He said "I agree that petitions should not be cited." He never said the Blacklist entry should be removed. He is suggesting Whitelisting the responses URL, an idea which does have merit. Zad68 15:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What's tangential about it? You're arguing that we should allow citation to user-generated content. If a secondary source hasn't picked it up, it's not relevant. The live signature count is a distraction at best, and worse, promotes recentism. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to take that discussion to WP:RS/N. This discussion is about the spam blacklist.- MrX 14:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No need, it's pretty clear from the discussion here that the community consensus favors not citing petitions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember some time ago that I couldn't post a link to this site on my own talk page, I just tried it again and it indeed doesn't work. I think editors should be free to post such links on talk page discussions, their userpages etc. So, this isn't just about this site beign a useful source for Wikipedia articles. The blacklisting is dspruptive for plain communication purposes here on Wikipedia. We could just as well blacklist links to blogspot, facebook, twitter etc. as links to these social media sites are not allowed as reliable sources either. Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: First, you can post the link within nowiki tags, leave off the http:// etc. There are ways of posting on talkpages discussing such links. No problems there, working links are just a convenience that now you have to give up. Userpages .. NO. Userpages are just as big a spam target as mainspace. Having your page in userspace still allows readers to find your page and see your existence. Anyway, this part goes beyond the blacklist, what you are suggesting is a total different way of operating of the blacklist (but MV is more important, I guess - adaptations of the system have been suggested years ago, it is not that the regexes on the blacklist are a sledgehammer to swat a fly, it is the way the blacklist is implemented that is the sledgehammer - an abusefilter-like solution would be better, but that is too heavy on the server for all the rules that could in principle use that solution).

Regarding blogspot, facebook, twitter - you have not understood then why the petition sites were blacklisted. I stand far from the suggestion that links get blacklisted because they are an unreliable source anyway. And again, I have here not said that these sites are unreliable sources, nor has any of the other editors who oppose removal. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone can present a petition, including supporters of fringe views. There is no need to use this source. If a fringe group has presented a petition, for example for the government to admit the moon landing was faked, we can use secondary sources to report that. TFD (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Confirm support for whitelisting Beetstra OhNoitsJamie Mendaliv Resolute Dbrodbeck Amakuru Ravensfire Ohconfucius You all have made the argument that petitions should not be cited and I completely agree, but most of the content on this website is not petitions but rather government statements which are almost always based on reviewing available evidence. The responses which the White House presents to the petitions are not primary sources, but rather secondary sources written by the best experts that the United States government is able to employ. I also do not want petitions cited on Wikipedia, but https://p!!!!!!titions.whitehouse.gov/responses is not a place that even has petitions and still it is blacklisted. Could you please clarify that you understand you are not opposing any petitions themselves, but rather that you are opposing the expert government reviews presented at a website that also includes a petition element? I want these responses, not any petitions, but the blacklist is for the word "petitions" used on on this site. Never cite any petitions. This discussion is not an argument to cite petitions, ever, at all. Simultaneously ban the citation of petitions while whitelisting this website which is not about petitions but which has the word "petitions" in the url. Here are some examples of good statements which cannot be cited due to this blacklisting. Please fix the url by replacing the ! with an e in your browser because these links are blocked.

• summary of United States legislation on open Internet
• summary of finance reforms
• summary of law on milk regulation
• history of gay rights legislation

I agree that petitions should not be cited. Please comment on these non-petitions at that website. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, now that's something worth considering. I think it's borderline enough to merit whitelisting, though a discussion should take place as to whether those responses should be cited versus secondary coverage of those responses. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with responses being whitelisted, though as Mendaliv already pointed out, in most cases a third party news outlet usually has coverage of official responses. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose whitelisting for petition sites on the same rationale as Mendaliv above. Government reports may be one one thing, but petitions are another. If a petition or petition result is worthy of mention in an encyclopaedia, there will be ample secondary source coverage. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• There have, to date, been two primary uses of these links. "A petition gained X signatures, ref. petition" (i.e. WP:OR), and "Sign the petition: link here" (i.e. advocacy). Neither is appropriate. Petitions are of no value to the encyclopaedia, the tiny number that are independently notable can be whitelisted. And if we don't have them in the blacklist, admins can look forward to a loooooong weekend fighting over the numerous clueless n00bs who want to link them. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"A petition gained X signatures" is not WP:OR - do you honestly intend to tell me that referencing the official total listed by the White House on the petition and the official response to that petition constitutes "original research" in any way? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The live sig count argument is at best a distraction. Wikipedia generally should not provide "As of right now" information, because it becomes outdated immediately. If we need to state the number of signatures, it should be "as of" a particular date, and referenced to a secondary source. We aren't a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact the White House makes official statements with the URL still being blacklisted ruins the blacklisting argument. Those opposed to using the website, are you saying that an official response by the Executive Branch of the United States is not appropriate for Wikipedia? Are you saying that you are pre-emptively blacklisting on the chance of abuse by editors? If that happens you have a gross abuse of a official statement and source. Not only does the White House provide a verified statement, but also has the official Youtube channel with President Obama giving a statement that is titled: "President Obama Responds to We the People Petitions Related to Gun Violence". I think it is relevant that the response matters to the 33 petitions started on the official website is acceptable. The actual website is notable is has an article titled We the People (petitioning system), but cannot use links to the website because of the blacklist. Explain to me, under Wikipedia policy, why that official White House responses and statements are best blacklisted. I see absolutely no evidence of abuse of official White House website to merit a blacklist - the mere chance something can be abused is never justification for blacklisting. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not ruin the argument of keeping URLs containing "petition" blacklisted in general. It does provide a good argument for whitelisting "https://p!titions.whitehouse.gov/response". Zad68 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And actually in the We the People article, there is a link to the website, as https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions. That eliminates the need to consider removing the general blacklist for domain names containing "petition" for the purpose of adding a differently-formed URL that points to that particular website. If the link to the website is already in the article, I don't see a reason why you'd even mention that here as an argument? Zad68 15:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that "A petition gained X signatures" is not WP:OR, it's unencyclopaedic and recentist to go chasing the exact numbers of petitioners, as someone who has nothing better to do is wont update these ceaselessy. The potential for spamming is a crowning argument for not allowing their links here (except for specific articles where the petition site is the subject), and IMHO nullifies any potential benefit that has been amply argued for above. Official statements are without exception well covered by the media, and I'm not at all concerned we will not have any source to quote for statements from the White House on any subject. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone can present a petition, including supporters of fringe views.Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Malusia22

Thought of bringing this up here as I was wondering if his gang-related fantasy antics are enough grounds for a community ban. Said user has been repeatedly recreating pages about a supposed "sindikato" in the vein of a mega-gang like the National Crime Syndicate, though people whom I asked assert the contrary, and any allegations to mobster Asiong Salonga founding such a major criminal outfit are an outright fabrication.

Mal's articles were seemingly well-written in that it seemingly evades detection from admins, and it has been so much of a nuisance that I'm proposing a ban and a long-term abuse notice for admins and other users to watch for. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, User:Blakegripling ph. This user was blocked last January although he's created numerous socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malusia22/Archive. Can you be more specific? Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

He's still active as of now, via his sockpuppets of course. As what's stated on the SPI page, I spotted two socks of his editing on the subjects he frequents, and as it turned out several other sleepers were tagged and blocked. The damage and confusion he brought seemed enough for me to consider this as an issue needing attention. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but as they have been blocked, what would you suggest doing next? Put some articles on watchlists? Look for??? Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

He's persistent, and resorts to IP-hopping. Any moment from now he'll show up under another account and try to justify his actions, as what he did when I nominated Sindikatu for deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now that I got involved in this mess of Malusia22, can an admin take a look at this AFD? I found two sock user accounts and two sock IP addresses of this guy voted "keep". All of the user accounts have only edited either the AFD page or the articles involved in the AFD. Then this user popped out of nowhere and voted keep after I warned the other account for being a sockpuppet. I think an admin should clean up and monitor the sock votes in this AFD as Malusia22 will continue to create more accounts just to keep his hoax article. -WayKurat (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Now he's stepping up his antics - Mal's Lynchblare2 account respawned the article roughly a day after it was deleted, and I have a feeling the profane harrassment thrown against WayKurat and I were done by him. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ban consensus

Alright, now that we saw how much of a nuisance Malusia is, would it be alright to call for a consensus on whether this user should be banned for repeated and reckless disregard of policy? Blake Gripling (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Abusive, edit-warring IP editor

There's an abusive IP editor, 109.157.151.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is edit warring across a few articles and using abusive edit summaries. In this edit, he continues an edit war despite an attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page. It looks like this edit is also from him, in which he resorts to "fuck you" in the edit summary. On Jade Cole, he has edit warred to include links to Livejournal and Wikipedia mirrors, which he insists must be included to properly reference the article. Can we block this guy for a little while, so that I can fix up the Jade Cole article without being reverted every few minutes? He's going to be back under a different IP address soon, but this one seems to be his main one for now. Alternatively, maybe someone could temporarily semi-protect these articles? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked, and then I saw this. I don't want to go around semi-protecting too much too soon, but please keep us posted. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy is fimilar to me, 81.170.122.230 he used a BT IP after his block, I think this could be the same editor. Murry1975 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite possible. I find it unlikely that people would change their ISP just to get around a block, but the BT IP editor seems to continue edit wars started by the Tiscali IP editor, and both geolocate to London. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I dont think they changed their ISP, just used someone elses computer, a neighbour or friends, or even an open network. Murry1975 (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting sysop aid

A user has unilaterally moved Category:War in Donbass to Category:War in Donbas. There is no consensus for this change, and it has been discussed numerous times at the article War in Donbass (which is currently move protected, for good reason). I cannot fix the category now, for some reason, so I'm requesting that a sysop fix it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Has been redirected.Looks like it might have been redirected raher than moved should be able to remove the redirect to fix it. Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it was moved. The edit history is now at Category:War in Donbas. I can't move it back because the user messed with the category page. RGloucester — ☎ 19:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The user in question, Антон патріот, is going about disruptively changing transliterations all over the place. I don't know how to stop him/her. I'll notify him of this discussion in a moment. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, theres a redirect on the old category pointing to the new one hence my original assumption, blanking the page prior to move should allow it to be moved back but as its already in a serious state of screwed its probably worth leaving it, an admin should be able to bulk revert the changes if memory serves. Amortias (T)(C) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've moved the category back, and reverted them on War in Donbass. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies:@Amortias: Thank you both for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is nationalistic battleground editing (dead giveaway) and needs a warning or block. Another: [36] the edit summary mean "correcting grammatical errors". Heh. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think they've been warned enough, and those edits precede some of the comments here. We don't block retroactively, but let Anton consider that next time, such edits are likely to be met with a block. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney

DangerousPanda has blocked Barney the barney barney repeatedly for personal attacks on Bearcat. Today, DangerousPanda ratched the sanctions up again by blocking Barney even from editing his own talk page. Realistically, Barney has not been behaving himself. But it's becoming obvious this did not happen in a vacuum. Bearcat has continued to pick at the scab, obviously gloating over Barney's predicament and doing everything possible to annoy Barney. He should simply walk away. But also, I'm concerned with the growing appearance that DangerousPanda may be too WP:INVOLVED, that it's starting to become personal, a test of wills. When I pointed out my concerns (respectfully, I thought), DangerousPanda's response was as insulting and in the same way as what got Barney blocked from his own home page, questioning whether my brain was working. I don't think I deserved that but I do think it's evidence that DangerousPanda's handling of the situation is no longer helpful. Discussion may be found at User talk:Barney the barney barney#August 2014. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so others reading this thread don't have to search for them this post full of personal attacks and this post with its threatening wording are being equated to this. IMO there is absolutely no comparison. Again IMO, the two posts by Btbb deserve the removal of talk page privileges. B always has the WP:STANDARDOFFER should they ever want to return to productive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that DangerousPanda's insulting remarks toward me were worse than Barney's, I am saying DangerousPanda's insults were similarly childish playground material and, more important, completely unprovoked. When you start comparing provoked versus unprovoked insults as if the same standards should apply, aren't you out on rather thin ice? Msnicki (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

False, at no time did I insult you. This has been discussed, and clarified with you directly, and subjected to consensus - please stop using your erroneous reading as a need to provide some form of action against me. the panda ₯’ 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

DP's remarks were in no way, shape, manner or form like B's. You claimed that DP was somehow "involved" without offering any evidence. That can be seen as childish playground material as well. What is it that you want from admins here? I doubt that they are going to tell DP to stop reasonably explaining any actions taken. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not true. I did not claim DangerousPanda was involved. I said there was an appearance developing and that when DP's response to my raising the concern respectfully was to insult me, that that was evidence it might be more than appearance. What I recommend is that another admin step in and that Bearcat be asked to stop stirring the pot. (He's the only admin who's never read WP:STICK and doesn't know to back away when he's already won?) The objective, realistically, the only legitimate objective, is good behavior all around. The continued escalation of sanctions and the continued remarks on Barney's talk page by editors with history of conflict with Barney is not getting us there. Get these other folks with their own axes to grind out of there, back off the talk page ban, tell everyone to get a little thicker skin and I think the situation could be resolved. That's what I want. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DP blocked a user who called another editor, repeatedly and at length, names like idiot, liar, and troll, and all over the stunningly insignificant matter of the proposed deletion of an article about an obscure city official. The block was entirely appropriate regardless of how allegedly WP:INVOLVED DP was or was not. I would hope any admin would have done the same. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And so why is Bearcat (an admin, for pete's sake!) still stirring the pot on Barney's talk page over this insignificant matter even after Barney was indef'ed? Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that has to do with DP or the appropriateness of the block, but perhaps it would be appropriate to issue a warning to Bearcat. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just looked at BBB's talk page again and I don't see any new messages past the 1st from Bearcat., so it looks like any alleged potstirring has passed. Even so, I think it is appropriate to ask Bearcat to drop the matter and stay away from now on, without passing judgement on the appropriateness of previous comments. Gamaliel (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This was Bearcat's last pot-stirring. Barney had already been indef'ed so what exactly was the point of all this except to poke Barney in the eye when he was already down? That's what prompted Barney's response, the one got him blocked even from his own talk page. Frankly, while I don't condone Barney's response, if I'd been Barney, I definitely wouldn't have appreciated Bearcat's boorish behavior. I might have had some choice words as well. I'll say again, the objective here should be good behavior all around. It would be helpful if we can make that outcome the easy one for Barney to accept. Allowing Bearcat to continue stirring the pot is not helping that. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

BBB had already called Bearcat a liar, a troll, and an idiot many days before this alleged potstirring, so this appears to me that you are blaming the victim for provoking the attacker. Even if we were to accept your reading of the situation, what is your preferred outcome or recommended course of action? The alleged potstirring is days in the past. It's over. No one is continuing to stir the pot except those of us participating in this ANI thread. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You care a lot more about who started it than I do. I care more about outcomes. My experience of Barney is that he's been a steady and constructive contributor. The outcome I'd like is one where that can continue. Msnicki (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please try to be specific in your responses and make them actual responses to the points being discussed? First, you complained about Dangerous Panda, then when I responded about his actions, your response to me was about Bearcat, and when I responded to your point about Bearcat, now you are talking about Barney. We're not going to make any progress to any outcome if you are veering all over the map. I still have no idea about what specific outcome you expect to come from this discussion and what steps you think we should take to get there. Gamaliel (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "boorish" about responding, politely, to continued namecalling and continued mischaracterization of one's behaviour — especially when the editor in question was actively @pinging me, even when he was responding to somebody else, to make sure I knew that the personal attacks were continuing. I was not purposely watching his talk page to see what was happening; I was getting active announcements in my notification queue that I was being discussed, and responded to those notifications in exactly the same way that I'd be perfectly entitled to respond to similar discussion of me, and/or similar active @pinging of my attention, in any other space on Wikipedia. I will step away as you wish, but there is no basis for claiming that I've acted inappropriately at any point in this matter. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any proof of anyone being involved and you did state that DP was involved..."then yes, I do think you're no longer uninvolved and that you should step back." Please explain this. The only thing that I see Bearcat is guilty of is not archiving his talk page. Are you asking for a proxy block review because DP revoked talk page access or asking for review of admin behavior? Please clarify.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Let's not split hairs. I said I thought there was an appearance developing. Every sanction had been applied only by DangerousPanda and it was beginning to look to me like a possible test of wills. When an experienced editor is facing an indef, I expect to see a history of problems where several admins have had to step in and there was none of that. Whether DangerousPanda is or is not really involved may not even be knowable unless someone here is an undisclosed mind-reader able to tell us what motivated his behavior. But when DangerousPanda's response was to insult me, I thought that was actual evidence (not proof) of involvement. My personal opinion is that he is. But either way, I don't think this is a constructive situation conducive to de-escalation. I think it would be useful for another admin to step in to avoid even the appearance of involvement. Does that clarify my position for you? Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Partially. What would you like admins reading this to do? What action(s) are you looking for?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

{ec}Restore talk page access. 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I recommend backing off this latest indef ban even from his own talk page. This serves no purpose except to pour salt in the wound, making the one desirable outcome less likely. Bearcat should be asked to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Barney, especially on Barney's talk page. The condition of lifting Barney's indef should be that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. He shouldn't have to say he's sorry or that he didn't mean it. He does need to say he won't do it again. It would be helpful if another uninvolved admin could volunteer to monitor the discussion on Barney's talk page and review any unblock request Barney may make. Msnicki (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki, it's common for an administrator who blocked a user to keep monitoring the situation. The fact that Btbb - in the unblock request - basically turned around and lashed out at DP made it so that most admins would have declined and re-sanctioned Btbb. WP is not a bureaucracy*. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Exceptions apply in certain places, but that's besides the point.

• What unblock request?? NE Ent 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request but then he changed it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of dispute resolution volunteers -- including admins -- is (or should be) to resolve conflicts, not administer "justice." Although it's not written down -- because we are not (supposed to be) a bureaucracy -- it's generally understood editors involved in a conflict -- regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong" -- should not be posting on the talk page of a blocked editor. Had DP addressed that issue first, the situation was much more likely to be resolved. NE Ent 03:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if "acceptable", are the actions "helpful"? At this point it seems that the actions on all sides are merely winding the spring tighter and unlikely to help achieve any beneficial outcomes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a growing and disturbing trend for admins to indefinitely block content builders, demand that they grovel as a condition for their return, and then gag them by blocking access to their own talk page when they get upset. Another point of view is that this is a destructive strategy that unnecessarily alienates content builders from Wikipedia. That included content builders who just see this nastiness going on from the sidelines. Presumably admins who employ these methods feel that the mission of admins is to severely administer discipline to the rabble of content builders and show them who is boss. After all, there is no mission statement for admins. No one knows what they are here for, and individual admins are free to make up and follow their own ideas. There are many other ways of resolving behaviour issues, but admins are not taught about them, and generally seem to lack skilful means for resolving them. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, here is my take on the situation. This has nothing to do with blocking "content builders". DPs response was to a situation involving disruption of an AfD and personal attacks for which, not unreasonably, a 96 hour block was imposed. That should have been the end of it but BtBB chose to engage in further personal attacks on Bearcat, resulting in an indef block. BtBB's subsequent unblock request claimed "I haven't done anythign (sic) wrong" when in the preceding Talk page section he had once more attacked Bearcat. That led to the withdrawal of Talk page access, again, not unreasonable given the circumstances. Disruption and personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia and in my view DP has acted correctly and in no way become "involved". The standard OFFER will apply if and when Btbb choses to return. Meanwhile, the mission of admins (yes, there is one) is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, prevent disruption and ensure that editors do not engage in behavoir that is considered unacceptable by the community per AGF and CIVIL.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That's unclear on just about every point, Phil. To mention a couple, where is this mission statement you refer to and what is this "integrity" admins are supposed to be protecting? Who ensures the integrity of the admins themselves? I'm not sure why you think BtBB doesn't qualify as a content builder. You say that the "standard OFFER" applies to BtBB. According to that offer BtBB is in effect now banned for six months, after which he may shop around and see if he can find an admin to grovel in front of, a grovel which "usually takes a few days". In the meantime if BtBB want to return, he would be "well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects". That's sickening. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if you find my thoughts unclear–let me clarify. I didn't use the word "statement"—I said "mission" while the "integrity" I refer to is ensuring compliance with the corpus of guidelines and policies that shape Wikipedia according to consensus. Admin's are !voted in as trusted members of the community and you are free to question their interpretation of community consensus through discussion. I also didn't say BtBB did not "qualify as a content builder", I said that the matter under consideration had nothing to do with content building, which it doesn't. The standard Wikipedia procedure in the case of an indef block is covered in WP:OFFER. If a review is considered appropriate before the expiration of six months, then everyone will have the opportunity to comment at the subsequent discussion.  Philg88 ^♦talk 07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of a mission statement, the "mission" you refer to is just one you decided upon yourself. Which is the point I was making, that admins just make up their own mission. Likewise, the guidelines and policies are controlled by and largely written by admins, not the community. There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. But admins have appointed themselves for life. In long past halcyon days, would-be admins including school children needed do little more than ask to be an admin. Many of these legacy admins would not get community approval if they ran again. Nor would many of the more recent entrants to the admin corps. So it is not correct to say that admins as a body have the trust of the community. The admin corp might gain trust and respect from the community if enough admins found the courage to address the absurdities of their own system. Rational change can come now only from within the body of admins. Content builders are powerless, and recent events have clearly shown that Jimbo and the Foundation lack the insight needed for helpful intervention. Wikipedia has been hijacked by an admin system which controls its own terms and refuses to look squarely at what it is doing. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The admin in question was in fact rejected once by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DangerousPanda (redirects to /Bwilkins) in April 2009. Later, they were accepted by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2 in January 2010. This was four and a half years ago, and the last discussion had 116 participants, the overwhelming majority of whom were in favor of adminship for this editor. Your generalizations are moot at best. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your strange "rebuttal" has nothing to do with anything I said. In fact I said the diametric opposite to what you apparently understood: There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. Bwilkins was not remotely in my mind when I wrote that. My generalizations are in fact accurate and easy to authenticate. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Bit hard for barney to respond to the all encompasing witch-hunt now that he's had all editing powers removed. Maybe unrevoke his talkpage first to see if he's able to discuss this now he's had a chance to sleep on it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I second this. But I suggest a 48 hour cooling off period.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't do anything that EVER resembles "cooling off blocks" - that's a dangerous suggestion. This is the second time I've removed talkpage access - it was returned, and they continued their attacks. They've had a couple of weeks to "cool off" if that was indeed possible. Barney still has many avenues of appeal open to them; let them use those wisely once they have formulated their appeal offline the panda ₯’ 09:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well as long as you look like a reasonable human being and not some crackpot on a powertrip. Good work! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If letting him edit his own talk page hasn't worked in the past, how about if we make a couple changes that might give us a better chance it will work this time? First, ask Bearcat to stay away. His stirring the pot isn't helping and the fact you defended Bearcat's boorish behavior rather than stopping it isn't helping either. Second, let's ask you to stay away, too. I don't think Barney is ever going to "knuckle under" for you but I also don't think that should be the condition for being able to edit here. The condition should be that he behaves himself. Let another admin decide whether Barney can behave himself at least on his own talk page if there are no new provocations. If we can make these changes, I think it can work. Msnicki (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You know what? You need to screw off with the suggestion that I'm trying to make him "knuckle under" and the "gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave" bullshit. I don't play power games, and such suggestion are inflammatory rhetoric in and of themselves. Those are serious accusations that you neither provide proof of, or withdraw. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment Having had implications made about my competence and knowledge by BtBB at discussions surrounding Talk:Jacob Barnett, to the point where he/she tried to get me topic banned, I have been following the above discussion. The problem is that when you are subjected to personal attacks, it becomes very difficult to maintain the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia rightly demands. The signs of emotion are usually there, I see them in the above contribution. Therefore I would tend to support the view that DP should withdraw from this case, and should probably have left it to another, previously uninvolved admin to extend the block to the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment on the propriety of the block but this is another case where watching a blocked editors talk page allowed us to get exercised about inflammatory comments which would otherwise have been read by nobody. We should have some sense of proportionality in these situations. Protonk (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Indefinite Block Be Limited?

There are at least two questions here. The first is whether User:DangerousPanda became involved in the block of User:Barney the barney barney and should have let another administrator handle it. The second is the length of the block for User:Barney the barney barney, who is currently under an indefinite block with talk page access revoked. The first question is about the past. The second question is about the future. I propose that we discuss the second question. In my judgment, Barney is a contentious editor who is a net plus to Wikipedia. I haven't located the AFD that was the original locus of the dispute, but I infer that it has been closed. Disruption of an AFD and personal attacks are inappropriate, and are appropriately dealt with by blocks. However, indefinite blocks should be reserved for editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, such as vandals, flamers, trolls, or incompetent editors. Barney isn't one of those. Barney isn't the sort of editor to whom the standard offer applies, to see whether the editor has learned and can become a net plus, but a contentious editor who is already a net plus. I propose that the community change Barney's indefinite block to time served, slightly less than two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as described above. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Yes. It's time to move on. But to avoid new problems, I would also ask that Bearcat avoid interaction with Barney, especially on his talk page, for a period of 3 months to let this heal. His behavior, continuing to stir the pot, even after Barney had already been banned, is a big reason we're here and coming from an admin, I find this inexcusably boorish. Additionally, I would ask that DangerousPanda avoid interaction with Barney in his capacity as an admin for a similar period, again, simply to let this heal. There are lots of admins; if Barney has done something new and even more egregrious, surely another admin can be found to deal with it. And I would ask Barney, try to move on, behave yourself, learn from this experience, don't blow it. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd advise you to read my response above to the first time you characterized my actions as "boorish" — users and administrators are allowed to respond to namecalling attacks and mischaracterizations of their actions, especially when their attention to the discussion is being actively @pinged. Perhaps I misread what the result was going to be, but my intention was a good faith attempt to clarify the matter rather than to "poke" it or "pick at a scab" — and there's nothing "boorish" about politely responding to a personal attack. I gave my promise above to step back as you requested, but I'm not going to accept being described as "boorish" in this discussion for simply responding to personal attacks in a polite and civil manner. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I read your earlier comments about being pinged whenever he had something nasty to say about you. Like Robert, I haven't even been able to find that AfD that apparently started it all and frankly, I don't really care that much how it got started. I do care about fixing this and getting good behavior all around. I don't think this is about the AfD anyway. I think it's just about people who don't like each other.

I am not calling you to task over any response you might have made before he was blocked. I am calling you to task for this specific post to Barney's talk page after he'd already been indefinitely blocked. This was over the line. You had to know this couldn't possibly improve the odds the situation could be defused. I think the whole point was to give Barney another poke and see if he'd make another mistake. You should have simply walked away. That post was where I became sympathetic to Barney's position. If you were that boorish (and, sorry, that is the word), that determined to keep beating the dead horse even after you'd won and gotten Barney blocked, I thought it seemed a lot more possible you could have been truly annoying in a heated debate and not nearly so innocent. Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have the right as a Wikipedian to directly respond to any and all attacks on my intelligence, integrity and capability, regardless of the venue in which they're occurring — it's not my responsibility to have predicted that he would respond by ramping the attacks up even further, nor is it my responsibility to ever leave a personal attack on me sitting on the table as the "last word" in any discussion. My responses were always polite and WP:CIVIL — I've been accused in the past of being a bit too blunt, and sometimes coming off more aggressively than I intended to, in my writing style, so I (a) make every effort to be careful about how I phrase myself in a conflict situation, and (b) only ever respond to the substance of what the person is saying, and never attack or insult the individual who's saying them. I'd certainly be willing to accept "boorish" if I had lapsed into responding with similar insults, but I refuse to own that adjective for responding civilly to personal insults that I had no responsibility to not respond to. I'll certainly own up to misreading how productive the attempt was actually going to be, but there's still a massive gap between "misread the situation" and "acted boorishly". Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

For those who care, this is the AFD that some people are pretending doesn't exist. Look at the edits. Look at the hatted comments. Look at the edit-summaries. Every editor has a right to nominate an article for AFD if they truly believe it's not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. They do not deserve to be called a "liar", a "troll" and/or an "idiot" simply because they nominated an article for deletion and defended their nomination. It is the behavior on this specific AFD that led to the original ANI report, the original block, and BtBB's behavior has led to all escalations since. This block is NOT about "boors" or "people who don't like each other", it's about one person's behaviour; period. Indeed, I have neither likes nor dislikes for any of the editors on this site - you're simply someone on the other end of a computer. I may dislike behaviours, but that's not the same as disliking a person. Sticking one's head in the sand and pretending this AFD is not the reason for the block is short-sighted, and fails to get to the true root of the overall issue. If you want to have someone unblocked, the root behavior needs to be addressed the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a real misunderstanding of the purpose of an indefinite block above. "Indef" means "until the community is convinced that the behavior will not recur". I blocked BtBB originally from an ANI report about disruption and personal attacks, primarily in an AFD. When he continued his personal attacks, I removed talkpage access. Following a brief discussion at ANI, I returned their talkpage access. They then used this newfound freedom to not only continue their personal attacks, but to increase their ferocity. This led to me increasing the block to "indef", using the definition above, and when they continued further, re-removal of talkpage access - no member of this community should be forced to live with continual personal attacks. I have admitted more than once that BtBB can be a beneficial content creator, but that the personal attacks MUST be curtailed before the block can be lifted. The process for unblock is clear in WP:GAB: they need to recognize their behavior was contrary to community norms, and give the community (or at least the reviewing admin) that there will not be a recurrence. In the times that BtBB has had access to their talkpage, they've done nothing but attack another editor. As such, there cannot be an unblock at this time, based simply on the process for unblock. When they're able to make a WP:GAB-compliant request, they're welcome to use UTRS for that purpose. There's also ZERO question about me being "involved", as there's simply no proof put forward that such a relationship existed: calling me involved does not make me involved the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose barring some sort of recognition on his part that those personal attacks are inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I supported Robert's proprosal but per my comments above in the main section at 03:03, I would also support proceeding in steps, first lifting the talk page block and setting as a condition of lifting Barney's indef that he state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. But to make any of this happen and make it stick, I think we need to ask that both Bearcat and DP step back. Their continued involvement is no longer helpful in achieving the desired outcome, the one in which Barney is able to contribute and there are no behavior problems. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The block was justified and necessary to prevent further disruption. All Barney the barney barney has to do is convince the community that the behavior will stop. The amount of time served has no bearing on whether he understands why he was blocked and what he needs to do differently to have his edit privileges restored. I disagree with Robert McClenon's premise that indefinite blocks should be reserved for editors who are NOTHERE. - MrX 16:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per my comments above.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But, as shown above, your comments are not correct. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per EatsShootsAndLeaves; behavior needs to be addressed first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral. It's not like he's banned. He doesn't even need to grovel or apologize. All he has to do is convince the community that his disruptive activity will end; that could easily take the form of a classic non-apology like, "Mistakes were made, and I regret my involvement. I am ready to drop the stick and move on." Alternatively, he could be given a chance to hang himself, which I am sure he will do rather quickly given his prior behavior. He's really not doing himself any favors by aggressively dismissing the possibility of collaboration with others. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This matches the advice I gave Barney on his talk page when all I knew was that he'd gotten himself blocked and probably deserved every bit of it. It's still my advice. But I think the real problem is 3 people who don't like each other and have become locked in a pattern. Expecting Barney to offer up even a non-apology to an angry Panda who also happens to be defending Bearcat's continuing stirring of the pot is just silly. The simple answer is to separate these 3, at least temporarily, and see how much of the problem that fixes. If you think of this as a problem in negotiation, of negotiating good behavior from Barney, I'm proposing what's known as changing the negotiator. Msnicki (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There you go, suggesting I'm "angry" or dislike BtBB. False on both counts. I have no emotional involvement when it comes to BtBB at all ... you and your false and unfounded statements on the other hand ... so seriously, screw off with that bullshit. the panda ₯’ 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right. "I'm not angry, not a bit!" For more on just how not angry you are, please see here. Msnicki (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As noted already multiple times, that is nothing to do with BtBB: that's being "angry" at you and your unfounded accusations and lies, plus your inability to address this with me directly rather than embarrass yourself with such false statements due to horrible assumptions. Yeah, I'm "angry" that I've lost all respect for someone who I once considered a respectable person the panda ₯’ 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my. Now I'm a liar? Isn't that one of the characterizations that got Barney blocked? But how much sweeter when you say it, I guess.

If indeed you aren't invested in this, not emotionally involved, why is it so hard to walk away? Why is it important that you have to be admin who reviews Barney's next unblock request? At minimum, you know he doesn't like you. So why can't that be handed off to someone else? What is the benefit of your continued involvement? Is it more likely or less likely the problem can be resolved if you handle it? Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Who says I'm going to handle anything? Jumping off into bizarre conclusions, aren't you? You would have been better off discussing this like an adult with me before coming here, rather than attacking and making random, unfounded accusations. All the best to you - I have little time for people who choose this bizarre stance the panda ₯’ 22:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Does that mean you're willing to walk away? If so, I think this can be solved. Msnicki (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I said I would refuse to respond to your insults, false claims, and baiting, here is my response: I will continue to use appropriate restraint in all situations with all editors, and act what I believe to be appropriately when a) needed, b) not involved (except in emergency situations). If there's ever CONSENSUS (not unfounded accusations) that I have erred, I will deal with that accordingly as I always have in the past the panda ₯’ 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This proposal is not aimed at enhancing admin privileges and power. The usual voting pattern with such proposals is opposition from admins and would-be admins and support from content builders who are not admins. That is the voting pattern above, with just one possible exception. Admins and would-be admins have a conflict of interest here. A parallel would be allowing the military in a country with a military dictatorship to decide what powers and privileges they should have. There is a lot of appeal to the "community" above, when what is meant in practice is merely the views of a blocking admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose A misunderstanding is that indef means forever, it doesn't it means when an uninvolved admin sees fit the block is lifted. Indef blocks are also not to be confused with bans. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Indef is not infinite. Also the WP:STANDARDOFFER is there for any and all blocked editors to return to the editing community. Epipelagic if there is empirical evidence to support your blanket statement please present it. Otherwise please mark your comment as opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 September 2014
• Oppose Indef doesn't mean forever, and considering the circumstances, I think the appropriate block is in place. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Indef is often used to quickly get rid of an issue, but i think indef should be only used in very rare cases, for users who have been blocked repeatedly, without any signs of positive contributions. My suggestions if for indef in general and i do not want to judge the particular incident discussed here. --prokaryotes (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I hope Barney will eventually satisfy the Wikipedia community that he/she will refrain from referring to other contributors as liars and idiots but from his/her most recent posts I see little evidence that that is about to happen. Viewfinder (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (reading section titles is hard) Wikipedia is certainly strong enough to persevere in even these strenuous times when a blocked editor calls another editor a liar, idiot or troll on their talk page. Protonk (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose lifting of block without concerns leading to the being addressed. Having said that, no objections to restoring talk page priveleges to allow for normal block appeals. It is of course understood that misuse of the user talk page again will lead to revocation of talk page again and likely be seen negatively in later requests as well. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose reducing block length until BtBB makes some sort of commitment to tone down the attacks. This is troubling; even a token gesture of a non-apology apology is needed here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A different proposal

There's clearly some but not a lot of support for Robert's proposal that we simply lift the indefinite block on Barney, turning it into time served. Many editors cite (correctly) that all Barney has to do is promise to stop making personal attacks. And while I supported Robert's suggestion, it was more generous toward Barney than I came seeking and, if none of the rest of the people dynamics were changed, I questioned if it would actually work. Here is my proposal, which I think will work.

1. The indefinite block on Barney's talk page should be lifted, i.e., Barney's access should be restored to his own user talk page only. I contend that the talk page block serves no purpose except to pour more salt in the wound and make it less likely a positive outcome can be achieved, especially under the circumstances at the time, with Bearcat stirring the pot and DP supporting that boorish behavior.
2. Standard conditions should apply to lifting the indefinite block on Barney's privileges outside his talk page. As NinjaRobotPirate points out, this could take the form of the usual non-apology, though personally what I would like to see from Barney is that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat.
3. Another uninvolved admin should monitor Barney's talk page and review any new unblock requests Barney may make.
4. Bearcat should be asked to avoid interaction with Barney, especially on his talk page, for 3 months, simply to let the situation heal. I agree he had the right to post to Barney's talk page even after Barney was blocked, but that doesn't mean it was the right thing to do. Bearcat's actions clearly made it more difficult to resolve the situation and as admin, he should have known better. I called his actions boorish because they were; the word simply means "ill-mannered". It's not a crime but it's not helpful. There was already an admin on the job ready to take immediate action if Barney didn't behave himself and the idea that Bearcat needed to defend himself is just silly.
5. DangerousPanda should be asked to avoid interaction with Barney in his capacity as an admin, also for 3 months, also simply to let the situation heal. DP claims he's not at all emotionally involved, not a bit angry, but his acting out and disrespectful behavior toward me (calling me a liar, telling me to screw off or that I should "act like an adult" and that he no longer considers me a "respectable person") simply for having raised the question all completely belie that. Of course he's angry. The thing is, all of us are human and we all experience human emotions. There's simply nothing wrong or surprising about that. And as Viewfinder points out, when you're being attacked personally, as DP was by Barney, "it's very difficult to maintain the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia rightly demands." So DP's behavior is completely understandable. But an admin who's beginning to experience emotional involvement is compromised. He's no longer able to manage the situation dispassionately. An admin should be able to recognize the signs of his own rising emotions and voluntarily step back to let another admin take over. That didn't happen and it should have. Further, even if DangerousPanda doesn't dislike Barney, it's obvious Barney dislikes DP and that requiring Barney to submit unblock requests to DP is not helpful. Even if DP doesn't think that amounts to "knuckling under", it's pretty obvious Barney does. And it's just not needed. Barney needs to behave but he should be able to demonstrate that to any uninvolved admin. There's no reason it has to be DP.
6. As nom, I also would voluntarily agree to avoid interaction with the parties, namely, Bearcat, DangerousPanda and Barney, for the same 3 month period and for same reason, to allow healing. As Gamaliel correctly points out below, my bringing this to ANI has also stirred some emotions.

If we can agree to this, I think we can de-escalate and resolve the situation. Msnicki (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• This seems like a solution in search of a problem. This is all standard stuff that should happen or is happening anyway. Regardless of whatever potstirring may or may not have occurred, I see no evidence of continuing disruption on the part of DP or Bearcat which requires intervention or all this talk on this page. But I will support this proposal in order to bring this matter to a close, on the condition that the nominator also avoids any interaction with the parties or this matter for three months as well, as I feel that the vigorous pursuit of this matter has exacerbated a situation which would have come to a natural resolution on its own. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, NP. You make a good point. I've revised my proposal accordingly to incorporate your suggestion. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: any "evidence of continuing disruption", what evidence would you expect? Barney is now completely blocked, even from his own talk page. Bearcat might have enjoyed potstirring when Barney could be provoked into another poorly-chosen response, but what would be the point now? And I wouldn't expect DP to be reviewing new unblock requests if Barney's not able to post them. The question is what happens if all we do is unblock Barney from his talk page. If we don't ask Bearcat and DP to avoid him, I think we're doing what didn't work last time and expecting a different result. Bearcat volunteered above that he would avoid Barney. I asked DP directly but he hasn't answered. I think it would be helpful to put this into an actual agreement, one that was Barney also could rely on in choosing his response. Msnicki (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as I think there's no reason to needlessly hammer on an editor for attacks made while they're blocked there is also little reason to enact some sort of ad hoc framework to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. If we can ask bearcat to ignore the personal attacks made we can surely ask barney to ignore the comments made on their page and get on with editing. I suspect DP will exercise their judgment in interaction w/ Barney--that's not a euphemism for "won't interact" but a statement that we should trust them enough to interact in a reasonable manner as judged by them, not a random AN/I discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No problem exists here. The suggestion above is that I've somehow done something wrong, which consensus says otherwise. The sole person launching shyte all over the place is MsNicki who continues to make false claims, attribute false intentions, not just about me, but about other editors. IMHO Msnicki should be blocked for these continued unfounded, unproven personal attacks which she makes simply because she (as she already admits) refuses to actually read the entire situation. Neither Bearcat nor I have acted in any way uncivil, boorish, or inappropriately, as per continued consensus. If a block is going to get Msnicki to drop the WP:STICK and go back to what they do best, then great. BtBB's way forward has already been set in stone. Close this farce and move on people the panda ₯’ 19:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I'm saying your choices weren't very good and that I thought they were adversely affected by your emotions. I don't blame, dislike or disrespect you for any of that. I get mad, too, like everyone else, so I know how my decisions become compromised when my emotions are running high. This is what it means to be human. But I thought your escalation to blocking Barney even from his own user page was too fast and that your defense of Bearcat's posts was unhelpful and I suspect your emotions were an unhelpful factor in how it played out.

Fundamentally, my complaint isn't that you did anything wrong, it's that you didn't perform very well. You started with a routine situation involving two otherwise productive people who'd been fighting over something apparently quite unimportant, one of whom had now crossed the line into silly playground personal attacks. Eleven days later, you'd escalated it into a situation where one of those editors will likely never be back. The successful outcome should have been, the behavior problems have ended and both those editors are now productive again. Sure, you could argue, that's all on Barney. But it's not. As the admin, you were the manager of this people problem and it's reasonable to ask, can you solve a people problem like this or not. Here's one that only got worse, the longer you worked on it. Frankly, as soon as you knew Barney disliked you so intensely, that alone should have been a reason to hand him off to someone else, even if only so that Barney could know for sure that what was happening to him wasn't personal and he really did need to shape up. But I think Barney probably got to you with his insults and that's why you couldn't give it up and why you were so inclined to support Bearcat's actions even though obviously they were torpedoing any chance you had of a successful outcome. When I asked you to reconsider the talk page block, you blew me off. That's why we're here. When I asked (above) if you'd now be willing to walk away, you didn't answer. That's why we're still here. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't answer above because I told you in advance that I wouldn't due to your continued false statements, personal attacks, and bullshit which you've merely rephrased and repeated above. I have more than once disproven your "emotion"; you call Bearcat's post "unhelpful" when it's been shown by both a good reading AND by consensus to be otherwise; I have no knowledge nor understanding that BtBB "dislikes me intently", nor do you have such confirmation - it's not inherent in any of the written words so far, so we cannot assign background "hatred" to anything; what you NEGLECT is that I once already returned his talkpage access, and returning access led to BtBB escalating his attacks - even you have admitted that you have refused to read the actual DISCUSSION that led to his block. You jumped in mid-situation, read the entire situation wrong. CONSENSUS through multiple discussions has said otherwise, yet you continue to refuse to drop the stick and and gigantic chip on your shoulder. BtBB's block AND removal of talkpage access has been determined by the community to be valid; Bearcats comments and ability to comment have been confirmed by the community - now you're simply attacking Bearcat and I, hoping that some shit will stick - modifying your words, and modifying the locus of blame to where it doesn't exist does not make for some special kind of velcro. Cut it out, becausr this bullshit harassment has got to stop the panda ₯’ 21:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? You're not sure how Barney feels about you? Wasn't this a clue? Msnicki (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Never saw that before. Entertaining, but it appears that he removed it before anyone could see it. I don't get rattled, nor put stock in what someone says in the heat of the moment and then remove after rethinking; it's continual insults like yours that rattle me :-) the panda ₯’ 21:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The proposal I've put on the table is that we all just walk away. If we have an agreement, I am done. There won't be anything continuing from me. Barney becomes someone else's problem but he does get another try on his talk page with a different admin and less provocative conditions to do the right thing.

(Barney, if you're reading this, you need to know that I'll be really disappointed if I discover I've gone to this much effort, basically for a stranger I felt sorry for, and you blow it. If you get a second chance, you do need to do the right thing and move on. I won't feel sorry for you a second time.) Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "proposal" is based on a bunch of lies, a bunch of incorrect readings, and a bunch of things that have been rejected again and again. Again, your harassment and personal attacks are unwelcome. Stop, and drop the stick. If anyone has damaged BtBB's case, it's you by screwing this up so royally. I have advise BtBB that I fully support them making their appeal to BASC or OTRS. Drop the stick. This is a massive blemish on what has been until this date a pretty stellar wikicareer for you...but this one has been a doozy that you could have avoided by a) reading, b) following process, c) re-reading the panda ₯’ 23:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You've persisted in this and I've tried to ignore it. But I think it's time to remind you, as KonveyorBelt already tried, that per WP:NPA, "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." An admin who can't resist making personal attacks of his own doesn't seem to me like the best choice to manage people problems involving personal attacks by others. 00:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump in on either side, but personal attacks don't further your cause. KonveyorBelt 21:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose MsNicki keeps making blanket statements about how things "are" yet provides no evidence to back up these assertions. De-escalation has already occurred and, as stated more than once, BtBB has a way back to editing - it is called the WP:STANDARDOFFER. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but that standard offer starts with demanding that Barney wait six months. I don't think that's justified. I'm asking that we dial back and let Barney try again under less provocative conditions to post a suitable unblock request on his own talk page now. He could turn around and blow this, in which case, you can bet I certainly won't be rushing back to his defense. But I think this is worth a try for an editor with a history of otherwise generally helpful contributions. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I personally don't think that the standard offer is required. As I've said before, he can formulate his unblock request offline, submit it through WP:OTRS or even the Arbs unblock process (wasn't WP:BASC a way of doing this, or did they stop). Last time he was granted access to his talkpage, it didn't go well - we have no proof that's going to change. Using OTRS or BASC will allow him to create a WP:GAB-compliant request, realizing that he's going to have to abide by his promises - this cannot be empty words. Indeed, OTRS or BASC might add additional limitations/restrictions on unblock, but that's not my purview. Nobody has provoked BtBB for the last 2 weeks, so people need to actually read the entire set of exchanges, and STOP suggesting that there's anyone's actions "at fault" but their own. the panda ₯’ 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think at this point, we're better off letting BtBB form the unblock request offline, as this is out of the line, and when taken the rest of the matter into consideration, I can't help but to think that there's not enough assurance that similar attacks on editors won't repeat if we return the talk page access to BtBB. So unfortunately, I must vote no on point 1. The rest I'm neutral on. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If Barney is unblocked from his own talk page and decides to use it for more bad behavior instead of doing the right thing, believe me, I'll be the first to ask that the block be reinstated. I'll be genuinely annoyed that I'll have wasted my time on someone so undeserving. But if the rest of this agreement is place, I think he'll do the right thing and I'd like to see him have the chance to show us. Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Msnicki: - at least 1 person (i.e. Knowledgekid87) thinks that your first point meant an unblock when what you mean to say is restoring the talk page access. I think fixing that would definitely help. (To Knowledgekid87: If I make the assumption erroneously, you have the permission to WP:TROUT me. Or even {{whale}}.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. That's very helpful. I've added some additional clarification that I hope will help. Let me know what you think. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should Barney be given another chance here? I mean what is the difference between him and all of the other editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference is that this situation was managed far more poorly than usual. Where else have you seen someone who's just been blocked suffering long argumentative missives like this one on his own talk page, stirring the pot just 40 minutes after the second block? Bearcat should have known better and when apparently he didn't, DangerousPanda should have stepped up to manage the situation and discourage this behavior. Instead, DP endorsed that boorish behavior, yet still expected Barney to cool down enough to prepare a suitable unblock request for an admin he likely began to perceive as one of his main tormentors. This was never going to work and that wasn't Barney's fault alone. DP mismanaged what started out as a routine problem that should have been easy to solve and that part's not on Barney. That's what's different. Msnicki (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - Based on the latest The unblock request, it is again attacking users and using the everybody but me wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikiproject

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

---

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – 1. Specific non-editor-behavior disputes between editors should be resolved on WP:dispute resolution pages. 2. Specific editor-behavior issues should be brought up individual editor talk pages and/or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct; e.g., this page is for incidents that need quick resolution. 3. The discussion, thus far, has no focus on which an administrator might take action (such as with a ban, block, page protection, whatever); e.g., the most that might be had would be a "be civil" or "stay on the topic of countering systemic bias". – S. Rich (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force ("GGTF"), it seems some editors believe that just because they may dislike or actively oppose some views, potential proposals or projects, and/or individuals who are part of a Wikiproject, it is acceptable to disrupt the project. They relentlessly badger individuals on the talk page with questions and criticisms, monopolize discussions, target and nitpick comments of active editors, or bait editors to angry retorts or sloppy mis-statements that invite further criticism.

I haven't seen this allowed on WikiProjects Countering systemic bias, LGBT, Gender Studies, Feminism, Disability or even WikiProjects Israel or Palestine or Islam. Yet it happens repeatedly at GGTF, despite requests by editors and administrators that it be stopped. On September 2 an editor started a thread "Disruption" noting the option of using WP processes. So here I am. Can we perhaps see a closing opinion that these activities are unacceptable per Wikipedia policies?

Also it would be helpful if someone could counsel effectively the three editors below who I believe have been particularly disruptive over the last month or so. (Note to all editors: To avoid off-topic requests for evidence of existence of/importance of gender gap/why women quit, etc., please see the Gender gap task force “Resources” page (draft) listing dozens of relevant research, news, Wikimedia/Wikipedia, etc. links.)

User:Eric Corbett

• Corbett’s views against civility policy were a major topic at this ANI complaint and this Wales talk page. Here Corbett states: "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars". He obviously dislikes the GGTF's interest in promoting more civility.
• On Wales talk page Corbett opines there are no problems existing regarding gender gap issues[37],[38]. On his own talk page he opposes allowing "..strident feminists to run riot.."[39] and criticizes someone's alleged "prissy militant feminist friends".[40]
• Given his POV, it is no surprise that at the Wikiproject itself Corbett has, among other things: said "bullocks" about two women's opinions; hectored other editors for opinions; disputed WP:NOTAFORUM comments; presented a strawman argument; hectored some more; made personal attack on Jimmy Wales for promoting the Foundation's goal of increasing the number of women editors.

User:Two kinds of pork

• His first posting at GGTF criticizes someone's proposal as assinine and asks if it's a joke. Later at this diff he wonders if systemic bias exists - in a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
• At this diff he proposes the Foundation pay "high school aged girls in the Philippines" to edit to close the gap. And puts a similar "Pay to play" proposal on the main page. Not sure if he's serious, I revert, and he defends his proposal on the talk GGTF page.
• At this diff he started a derisive thread about a phrase that needed tweaking; SPECIFICO joined the hectoring. ( Whole thread archived here.) See also his response to an editor's complaints about "personal attacks and derailment in these discussions".

User:SPECIFICO

• SPECIFICO has been obsessively harassing/wikihounding me for over a year regarding various political differences: posting on my talk page, following me to articles, reverting me and/or negatively commenting on my edits or talk page comments. See these earlier complaints my warning 6/23/13; my 6/29/13 ANI; my complaint to an admin 10/31/13; SPECIFICO's 11/31/13 block for "interpersonal behavior" against me another editor filed at TPNO ANI; my warning on harassment 1/14/14; my later complaint to admin 1/14/14. See also an uninvolved editor's comment regarding SPECIFICO's harassment of me.
• I have tried to ignore the many more recent incidents; see just April 1-September 3, 2014 Interaction Analyzers Results with examples of his following me to 20 articles or pages he had not edited before and harassing me, sometimes repeatedly.
• Examples of constant and disruptive harassment at GGTF, which also disrupts the project: His first at GGTF supports a visiting editor's criticisms of me based on past disputes; here he criticizes an editor objecting to the two of them airing "grudges" against me; a put down of GGTF; hectoring demands not made of an editor who made similar general statements; dubious accusations of sexism in discussions of women at GGTF.
• On SPECIFICO's talk page last week an editor noted that that last GGTF edit was problematic. An admin asks SPECIFICO to cut me some slack, later to keep the page friendly, and later asks him to "staying away from Carol's posts". He writes "consider me on hiatus". But two days later the first editor again has to comment on new negative SPECIFICO comments at GGTF. And on Sept 3. SPECIFCO hectors me about an obvious joke about recruiting admins and writes "please consider departing the Project".

So the bottom line is, can editors be discouraged from engaging in this type of behavior at the Gender gap task force? There are eight other Wikiprojects related to women, so I think they'd also like to know. Thanks.

• Notifications to GGTF, Wikiprojects Countering Systemic Bias, Gender studies, Feminism and Jimmy Wales talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question: Were these three editors' comments directed specifically at you, or at the wikiproject in general? Cla68 (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• My first reaction to seeing this thread opened about myself and others was I should probably not respond. I'm sure someone is going to tell me I should have gone with my gut. That being said, I'd like to address one of the "charges" against me that I was being disruptive asking if there really was "systemic bias". You will note in the diff above that I asked if there really was systematic bias. Systematic is not systemic, they mean quite different things. I clearly misread the word, and when someone pointed out to me, I apologized for my error. In this attempt to "get me" Carole conveniently forgot to include that little tidbit. The other diffs she presents (at least the ones I read about me) are similarly weak. If anyone wants me to elaborate on them further, I'll gladly do so. This ANI filing is a shining example of assuming bad faith on her part, which is a continuation of her behavior on the project's talk page.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• This has got to be one of the most biased and misleading AN/I| reports I've ever seen. To take just one example, Carol claims I opined that "there are no problems existing regarding gender gap issues". But as the diff she provides clearly shows I said nothing at all about any gender gap. What I actually said was "Where's the evidence for the existence of 'entrenched sexism' in WP?" How anyone could interpret asking that question to be disruptive is beyond me, but it sums up the attitude behind this report. Carol will make all sorts of claims on the flimsiest of evidence, or even none at all, and become aggressively feminist if anyone dares to challenge them. It is she who is disrupting the project, almost single handedly. Eric Corbett 08:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you say something about what you think would be the most useful approaches for the GGTF to take? Because looking at all the squabbling on that page ([41]), I see that you take vociferous issue with lots of things people are saying there, but I don't really see what your vision is of how the project should function. Andreas JN466 09:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no vision for the project. What I take objection to is the repeated claims unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, such as that there is "entrenched sexism" on WP, or that all male editors are "mad dogs" whose only agenda is to keep female editors downtrodden, and affirmative actions based on those straw men. Eric Corbett 10:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

      In the spirit of your own objections, I'd like to see some evidence that repeated claims that "all male editors are 'mad dogs'" have been made. BethNaught (talk) 10:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

      I didn't say that there were repeated claims that all male editors are mad dogs. What I said was that there were repeated unsubstantiated claims, and that was one of them. No doubt you already know where to look for the "mad dog" claim though, and who it was made by. Eric Corbett 10:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

      My apologies, I misinterpreted the syntax of your post. And after doing some digging, I found this – I think the point is distastefully made, certainly, but it says some men misbehave (and by analogy are so called dogs), but not all men. BethNaught (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

      • Goodness, Eric, you can find people who are wrong on the internet anywhere. You're not helping those people who are talking sense on that page by nitpicking every flawed statement made there. Andreas JN466 15:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I would be if they were open minded, but clearly not all of them are. Eric Corbett 17:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Having perused the links provided and keeping the allogation in mind ("relentlessly badger individuals on the talk page with questions and criticisms, monopolize discussions, target and nitpick comments of active editors, or bait editors to angry retorts or sloppy mis-statements that invite further criticism.") I cannot say these are in any way supported by the evidence provided. Offering opposition, different or even opposing views, questions and criticisms does not constitute "badgering" or "monopolizing discussions". Critisizing claims of others is essential to any form of debate and if anyone is "baited" into "angry retorts" or "sloppy mis-statements" they have themselves to blame. I _do_ get the impression that carolmooredc somehow has the idea that anyone who disagrees with her is somehow at fault simply by disagreeing. This ANI-request includes the risk of a chilling effect on the discussion, which I think is detrimental to the issue at hand. Kleuske (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur with this assessment. Given the pattern of notifications (to include the drama-fest of Wales' talk page) I'd say that the warning about a chilling effect is spot on. Intothatdarkness 16:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Before people pile on here, I'd counsel that they read not only the diffs provided in the report but also the background to them. The reporter has an unfortunate tendency to misrepresent/skew events, to cherrypick and to canvass via point-y edit summary etc. Given the history, there isn't much chance that this episode is presented accurately. There are past instances where these problematic methods of the reporter have been mentioned at ANI but I'm off out now and have no time to search the history. Stuff relating to the Austrian economics/Mises palaver was probably the last occasion here. - Sitush (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree about the need for reading the diffs carefully and for further background reading, but for different reasons. I'm not saying its happening here, any more than, I expect, Sitush is suggesting that assertions regarding 'the Austrian economics/Mises palaver' are repeating, but for some, culturally, the idea that women make false claims and men are always just misunderstood can be the default. Everyone taking time to unpack their baggage (and privilege/s) on this is worthwhile. AnonNep (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's time that the three editors above were told that their opinions are plainly unacceptable to the community, and if they don't like it, they should get out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Which community might that be? The one that tolerates lies and falsehoods, like your own? No doubt you feel emboldened in your crusade against me by Jimbo's ill-considered remarks at Wikimania 2014, but I've got news for you; I'll be here long after he's been ejected. Eric Corbett 11:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't get an invite to Wikimania, so I have no idea what Jimbo said. Did he read the chief's speech? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric's usual thin-skinned unearned arrogance aside, I'm not seeing the "plainly unacceptable" opinions -- or, for that matter, what makes them banworthy. For example, the above the list of charges includes [h]is first posting at GGTF criticizes someone's proposal as assinine and asks if it's a joke. Given that hethe editor was responding to this

Ought some "level" of protection be determined as applied affirmatively to women editors (for some useful period of a few months or even several months). For example, there could be an affirmative strengthening of registered women editors by requiring that two editors be required to form consensus before being allowed to revert edits placed by women editors. [emphasis mine]

that strikes me not so much an attack or "plainly unacceptable" opinion as it is an accurate assessment of the proposal. --Calton | Talk 14:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

An excellent proposal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If you seriously think that bit of "affirmative action" is an excellent proposal, you don't belong anywhere near this project. --Calton | Talk 03:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

How revealing that you choose to preface your remarks by making a personal attack on me, before deliberately misleading about who it was made the comment you quote. Eric Corbett 15:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Calton - asking for a special level of protection for one gender is not going to help fill the gender gap, it's going to create resentment and angst. That's going to do much more harm than good. Two kinds of pork's response was spot on.--v/r - TP 17:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric, Calton is praising you with faint damns, and does not mis-attribute the comment (he was responding to this). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

How revealing that you choose to preface your remarks by making a personal attack on me... Revealing what, exactly? What extraordinary insight has been let slip here? Was there an actual content to that statement?

Your reaction, certainly, is revelatory, in that it demonstrates once again your hysterical hypersensitivity and usual bad-faith misreading of others's remarks (which I have edited to remove the ambiguity you chose to misinterpret/twist to your ends) coupled with an overweening ego about your value to and role in Wikipedia. But this is not news, and my comment was aimed at those well-aware of your ways, so they wouldn't dismiss, out of sheer cussedness, the actual content of your remarks. --Calton | Talk 02:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7, it doesn't help the situation to make such a statement. You are openly hinting that some editors should be shown the door, without even a shred of evidence. You assert that some opinions are unacceptable. Which ones. Do you mean the opinion that editor making charges of sexism should provide evidence? Is that an unacceptable opinion? If not that one, which one? It is impossible to respond to vague accusations.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 was desysopped after blocking Eric whilst involved and wheel-warring (not to mention making snarky comments after blocking him). It is unsurprising that he would pop up here and equally unsurprising what his viewpoint on Eric would be. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

That is incorrect. I was not WP:INVOLVED and nobody said I was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What? You weren't desysopped for blocking Eric Corbett? Someone had better go correct the record, then, otherwise they might think that you are leaping into a faracs of which you have no other involvement merely so you can get your digs in at an old enemy. --Calton | Talk 03:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Asking questions is not disruptive. Disagreeing is not disruptive. Refusing to answer with blustering and obfuscation might be disruptive as might misconstruing requests to reply as personal attacks. Some editors on that page really don't help their perceived gender gap cause and they aren't the ones mentioned by the editor who brought this here. There might be some good sense written on that page but it is well hidden and some views certainly need challenging. I would disagree with any positive discrimination towards women. Not all women would support such a pov. What wikipedia needs is competency not pov pushing. J3Mrs (talk) 15:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  I completely agree. As you will know from personal experience, I've collaborated with many female editors on articles, so much so that I really find it difficult to believe that there are supposedly so few female editors. I can't recall even a single occasion when I've been berated by a female editor for not taking her opinion or efforts seriously or whatever simply because she's female, which is one of the reasons why I find this AN/I report so insulting. Carol frequently attacks male editors simply because they're male, but I've never done anything even remotely comparable. Eric Corbett 18:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note to @Carolmooredc, supporting evidence for editor misconduct is best left to the diffs representing their conduct, not diffs showing your reporting of their misconduct. The section on SPECIFICO is littered with such links and it makes it difficult to suss out the actual pattern you're alleging. Protonk (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of a Wikiproject is for editors to work together to achieve a common goal. If an editor attempting to be involved in the project does not actually share that common goal (i.e. addressing the gender gap), then that editor should not participate. If some editors are involving themselves with the wikiproject solely to disrupt it or to prevent it from achieving anything of value, or if their participation is having that effect, then they should be topic banned. There are plenty of other things for them to do, after all. 192.240.41.254 (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  But the question is, who's doing the disrupting? My contention would be that it's the editor who filed this report, which is really doing no favours to those who genuinely feel that the gender gap here on WP ought to be addressed. Carol is riding on the back of the project to further her personal feminist agenda, hence her unsubstantiated claims of "entrenched sexism" here on WP, which is one of the things I was complaining about. Eric Corbett 18:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  You've provided more that enough evidence of entrenched sexism here on WP. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'm really surprised that you've not been blocked yet. Eric Corbett 22:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Srich32977, I started to ping Carolmooredc and bring your suggestion (to start an RfC/U) to her attention,[42] but first, I reviewed WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. It says that ANI is one of the two DR processes for conduct disputes. I believe that her request on this page is absolutely appropriate, especially considering the behavior Eric Corbett has engaged in today. He has repeatedly questioned editors in Gender gap task force discussions even though it is clear he has no constructive input for that project. I have suggested at least twice today that he disengage, but he keeps on.

I agree with Carolmooredc that an Administrator should review the conduct of the editors she has listed. Lightbreather (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've witnessed Eric's interactions and collaborations with female editors over the years and I find the claims that he is sexist completely false. In fact quite the opposite, most of his work or interactions to me have seemed to have been with female editors and he seems to get on very well with them. What appears to irritate him is that people think that gender identity really matters in building an encyclopedia and he clearly finds it insulting that the foundation and whoever seem to want female editors at the expense of male editors. I think that is what is bothering him the most and he's sick of seeing the gender inequality argument on here. Personally I think a higher number of female editors on here would be a good thing, but like Eric I've never seen a gross lack of female editors on here as if it's a rarity to encounter a female editor. Like Eric, a good proportion of my collaborations and interactions have seemed to have been with female editors, but I never thought that their gender identify really affected the quality of work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of disruption from Evergreen Fir

• I am happy to see that this issue has finally be brought up. The talk page on WP:GGTF has been particularly plagued by polemic and disruptive comments by some editors. Of particular concern to me is Eric Corbett who has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks and general FORUM behavior. While no single edit was particularly egregious, their sum shows a pattern of incivility, disrespect, and disruptive behavior as well as the edit summaries. While he did relent a bit after I gave him a warning ([43]) (which he dismissed as "nonsense") and the resulting "conversation" on my user talk page, his actions continued. Eric appears to have a history of personal attacks judging by his extensive block log.

FORUM behavior and incivility

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49] ("feminist bluster")

[50] (see edit summary as well)

[51] (always has to have the last word)

[52]

[53]

[54] ("anti male editors")

[55] (forum)

[56] (commenting on other editors)

[57] (forum)

[58] (thinly veiled comment to Carol)

[59] ("launching a crusade the primary purpose of which appears to be to alienate every male editor by imposing a series of affirmative actions")

[60] (Accusing project of "hyperbolic rhetoric")

Personal attacks and harassment toward Carolmooredc and others

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66] (see Carol's comment above for context)

Of the 42 edits Eric has made on WP:GGTF's talk page, his only mildly constructive edit to date is to ask for clarification on an issue: [67]. Frankly either a topic ban on gender-related issues, a project ban, and/or interaction ban with Carolmooredc for Eric Corbett seems to be appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• You really shouldn't need to depend on Eric's block log to make your point. Frankly, his block log is controversial because any admin can accuse him of poor behavior and hit the block button and it stays there permanently. Not that I agree with that view, but that's the view.

  Your evidence in the forum and incivility section is plainly dull and uneventful. You accuse Eric of a whole lot of incivility but what you've displayed amounts to disagreeing with editors on that page. You seem to be of the opinion that editors are allowed to create Wikiprojects to push a POV without being criticized. Again, not that I disagree with the POV but it's still a POV.

  Frankly, what you've shown is that the project is so thinned skinned that perhaps the participants there are not qualified to operate a project as controversial as this one with the care and delicacy required not to alienate men and cross the line into militant feminist behavior.--v/r - TP 19:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  So the answer is that women just need to shut up and not offend the fragile egos of misogynist male editors? Need I add that opinions like this are morally repugnant, and have no place here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  • What is morally repugnant is that you feel it is appropriate to call male edits misogynists with fragile egos and that you think opposing piss poor examples of personal attacks equates to 'women just need to shut up'. Radical feminism has no place on a NPOV project anymore than MRM does. If that's what you propose to 'fix' Wikipedia, then you have no place here either. Proposals such as this are so far from equality and a respectable environment and if you are for equality then you should be equally outraged. Furthermore, you are committing the same issues that caused several editors to be topic banned in the Manning naming dispute. Please correct your personal attacks before you are likewise topic banned.--v/r - TP 20:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well behaved women rarely make history - or change male dominated editing environments. And you don't have to consider yourself a feminist to comment about sexism, gender gaps, etc. You can just be an annoyed woman. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tparis, I'm too lazy too google the source, but a quote from my college days that always stuck in my mind seems a fitting rebuttal at the moment; "feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Tarc (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So then are you for equality and truth or do you believe that [68] and [69] are attacks? I support feminism, I support equality. I also support truth. Fight the fight, but do it on honest grounds. EvergreenFir has presented some really poor evidence to support their accusation.--v/r - TP 20:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

TParis, your language is a bit... much. You are accusing the entire project of "militant feminism" and being "thin skinned". You are welcome to disagree with me, but please avoid polemics (I know I'm doing my best to do so). Eric's block log is simply supporting evidence of a pattern of behavior. While I agree that admin discretion may be an issue, there seems to be multiple admins who have come to the same conclusion. Again, no single edit is particularly egregious, though some are clearly personal attacks and FORUM. However, the sum of the edits clearly demonstrates disruption and incivility. To reiterate, only 1 of his 42 edits were truly constructive. Eric is "NOTHERE" when it comes to the project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not accusing the project of militant feminism. I'm concerned that some of the tactics have been used. In any case, perhaps you're right that I cast my net a little wide. Certainly the whole project isn't like that. In any case, EvergreenFir, it's is by your definition that only 1/42 of Eric's edits were constructive. Eric considers them all constructive. I read Eric comments and I find that when he points out inconsistencies or lack of evidence, that's being constructive. As you may have gathered from the comment you are replying to just above, I'm concerned that we 'get it right' from start to end. Evidence needs to be clear, substantial, and without bias. That hasn't happened here from you and certainly not from CarolmooreDC. What I see is appropriate responses to this proposal being removed from context and then paraded here as if they are inappropriate. If anyone here can read "there could be an affirmative strengthening of registered women editors by requiring that two editors be required to form consensus before being allowed to revert edits placed by women editors" without seeing clear sexism - then they are incapable of participating in a project promoting equality and bridging a gender gap. Do you agree?--v/r - TP 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) TParis - Eric's edits were by-and-large commenting on his opinions of the competency of other editors, thinly veiled personal attacks, and overall disparagement of the project itself. As I've heard here and on the ARBCOM clarification request, context matters. The context of these edits show clear disdain for Carol and the project and their tone is incivil and unconstructive. If Eric truly wishes to help the project be questioning various things, he is perfectly able to do so in a neutral and civil way. But he hasn't and doesn't. I understand we all get annoyed, upset, or angry sometimes and may be rude and incivil when our emotions flare. And those are excusable so long as it's not egregious. But Eric has demonstrated a moderate but consistent level of this behavior from the beginning. While rudeness is not a block/bannable offense on WP, this is above and beyond that. Frankly I wondered if I should whittle down the examples to only show the most most clear cut cases, but I am trying to show a pattern of unacceptable behavior. It is, at the very least, disruptive. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd only have used the parts that demonstrate attacks on Carol (not because she's a woman but because she is a person). The rest looks like mud slinging and it doesn't make your point at all. In fact, it makes the opposite point as I say above.--v/r - TP 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am attempting to show the larger picture. I separated out the personal attacks for that reason however. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Just noticed this question to me. I comment in my reply below that I removed the proposal by a guy myself. If it was brought up for discussion in an identifiable and civil manner, I would have said it was really dumb and would just bring back lash. I don't know if Eric linked to it at the time, but when I see obnoxiously phrased comments by people who think it's just great to throw around nasty words about women, I tend to ignore what the comments are about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't a question directed at you, but thank you for addressing it. Yes, you were responsible for removing it. You did it under a pretense other than what it was, but you removed it nontheless. Whom it was added by, male or female, doesn't quite matter. What matters is that it was added for awhile as one of the project's goals and that's a REAL concern that some elements of the project are only marginally connected to bridging a gender gap.--v/r - TP 21:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I totally agree with T Paris. There is nothing misogynistic about disagreeing and requesting answers. Demanding that editors conform to unrealistic demands in order to edit a project page is ridiculous. Counting edits and displaying them out of context achieves nothing except possibly avoids scrutiny of the rest of the page. Not all women editors hold the views exhibited by some editors here. J3Mrs (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As studies show if people bother to read them, the big civility/gender gap issues are a) that women don't want to deal with a lot of harsh comments directed at them and see them as "attacks" while males may not; and b) there is a double standard where women who make even slightly impolite comments are seen as attacking others, sometimes in absurdly trumped up accusations. (The diffs I could share.) Given proper provocation, I would LOVE to be able to throw the snotty comments around as often as Eric does, but I know I'd be in big trouble if I did. Because I got in some trouble a few times when I slipped up.

Guys like Eric need to learn to control themselves in company that is supposed to be civil per the editing agreement we have with Wikipedia under the Terms of Service which are at the bottom of each page. Peer pressure is the best way to do that. So hopefully his more civil peers will continue to pressure him - and others of his ilk. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: I am not arguing that any editor is overtly misogynistic. I am attempting to demonstrate a pattern of disruptive and incivil behavior. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No you are trying to suppress what you consider to be dissent. J3Mrs (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: No. Also, please avoid accusations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think what J3Mrs is trying to say is that this whole ANI complaint is coming off as a kind of "Boy's club" type of ordeal where only those who are rank and file are allowed to join. Whether that is true or not, that is exactly what this looks like.--v/r - TP 21:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Another personal attack against Carolmooredc by Eric: [70] (see edit summary). Pinging: TParis. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• And one against Neotarf: [71] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I just don't see the personal attack in either of those diffs. I can't get onboard sanctioning editors, and God and everyone here knows I dislike Eric, without solid evidence and that ain't it.--v/r - TP 06:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@TParis: "Carol's ravings" and telling users they are stupid are a personal attack and incivil last I looked. Perhaps I should just start a separate ANI for this one issue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

To me the biggest problem is that these guys join the project and make a lot of angry criticisms and ask a lot of questions, sometimes the same ones over and over, and expect to be spoon fed the answers on demand. If editors interested int he project discuss general points that may come from different articles or studies, things that might be worked into an essay, for example, they demand references now. I present them with all these articles and studies to read and learn about the issue, but they keep badgering others to do their work. (Tonight people started badgering Eric to prove his points, and I don't think there are any studies proving them.) We all have lives and can't spend hours a day answering every confabulation of dissent that may enter their minds, while real work is thrown to the wayside. That's why disruption is the big issue. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice anyone "badgering" me to prove anything, as I've made no points, simply asked questions and drawn attention to flawed logic. I note your interesting double standard though. You approve of me being badgered but come crying here if you feel that you've been badgered. Eric Corbett 15:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, your "real work" seems mostly to be an extension of real-life activism, as anyone who trawls through older versions of your user page could figure out. Whether that is justified here is sometimes moot, especially since often what you say does not actually agree with what your alleged evidence says or is let down by obviously poor evidence (eg: very small samples). That said, you are one of the most repetitive (and sometimes tendentious) contributors I know of when it comes to arguments, including some stylistic things such as a tendency to canvass and to promote your opinion by insisting on section breaks just for your comments. And that said, the nature of Wikipedia is that much of it is repetitive stuff unless the contributor sticks to article creation, when the repetition is mostly confined to setting out the structure and certain templates. I, for example, sometimes wish there was a one-click button for a selection of edit summaries via Twinkle's revert AGF function: please see WP:V, please see WP:RS, please see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists etc, and for certain talk page comments. You've been here a long time and despite the faux naivety, you should perhaps have realised this by now. We should all praise the bot writers for making it less repetitive than it might otherwise be. - Sitush (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Carolmooredc

1. Srich32977 is way too biased [clarify per request: from a year of nitpicking me and trying to shape my editing behavior] to be posting notices effectively chasing people away from this thread. I've had to ban him from my talk page at least twice for nitpicking. I think a neutral admin should decide if that note belongs there. Or can I just remove it myself, given his obvious [clarify: compulsive nitpicking] biases?
2. Second, I see all sorts of accusations that I think or wrote this, that or the other, but not many diffs. Aren’t we supposed to present diffs here??
3. Note to: Eric Corbett: “Sexism” - of whatever kind - is a gender gap-related issue all through society and here at Wikipedia. Note to Two Kinds of Pork: you were confused by systematic vs. systemic. You were in a project on "countering systemic bias in wikipedia" so your comments looked to some of us like clueless nitpicking, at best, hostile at worst. And constant nitpicking inevitably feels like harassment, not like an honest attempt to get a question answered, and thus is ignored. Think about it.
4. Above I mentioned Gender gap task force “Resources” page which took me a month to put together - among constant calls for "evidence" and mockery of my promises it would be contained in that page. It is chock full of evidence, commentary, etc. on various issues. Of course, when I announced it at the "Draft resources" entry on the talk page, there only was one reply from SPECIFICO. That gave me the impression there would be calls to remove much of the material. So today I realized the best thing would be to go through the sections one by one on the talk page. I started a relevant subsection. Maybe if Eric and Two kinds actually read some of that material they'll have a better idea of what editors familiar with gender gap issues have in mind for the project.
5. Re: the proposal temporarily on the main page that "two editors be required to form consensus before being allowed to revert edits placed by women editors". That was one male's entry which I took down as not discussed on the talk page; he never brought it there. I don't know if Eric bothered sharing a diff, but his hostile response re: "assinine" and "is this a joke" etc. did not invite serious discussion. Please don't knock a project about getting more women because a man put up a questionable proposal.
6. Re: vision is of how the project should function. Maybe I should have mentioned that the disruption by past posters, and especially lately the three mentioned, have made two women quit vocally. Several individuals with constructive ideas have just stopped posting. It's hard to create a visions with constant nitpicking of every constructive comment. Thus one is ends up only with the bickering an editor noted.
7. RE: posting on Jimbo Wales talk page. Coincidentally as we were trying to reboot the GGTF, there were a number of relevant discussions of gender gap issues at Jimbo Wales talk page. See recent archives 167, 168, 169 indicating he thinks civility and its relation to the gender gap are important issues. And his comment in reply to my notification of the ANI indicates he did not mind the posting.
8. FYI, I added a note about this ANI to WikiProject_Council's discussion of this issue I initiated August 11th. Over the years I've seen what I subjectively consider problematic and even horrific comments, proposals, and bids for support on a few Wikiprojects. I would have liked to criticize them, but I rarely did so because I thought it was unacceptable. So I am trying to gauge here what level of critique non-members, or even people skeptical of some of the aims or views of a project, can put into a Wikiproject, per community consensus. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The usual TlDR, then? I've read your last point and am mystified. Projects are not members-only clubs - Sitush (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

1. You have years of experience here. You know that you cannot remove someone els's comment here.
2. Diffs are good. I'd like to see more people supporting claims with diffs
3. As has been pointed out, sexism may be related to gender gap, but it is not the same thing. I've asked for examples of sexism. Other than the Filipacchi incident, which is more nuanced than some results, I haven't seen any examples of sexism.
4. I think the Resources page is a great page. It has lots of useful resources, and is very helpful. There is a lot of information abut gender gap, but much I knew already. I'm interested in the allegation of sexism, but when I ask I am pointed to the resources page, and I don't see the examples. I am sure they exist, but I've searched and haven't found them. There are a lot of links on the page, maybe I haven't clicked the right one, but after going through 30 or 40 and finding nothing, I gave up.
5. The proposal was a joke. Why is it wrong to point it out? We can't be sure whether it would have been removed anyway, but it is at least plausible that it was removed because it was pointed out to be a joke.
6. You keep asserting that three individuals are disrupting, but that's a claim in dispute. I've looked at the contributions of two of the three, and do not see the disruption by them.
7. I agree
8. I'm not sure I fully follow, but if you are suggesting that there are member only groups on-wiki, that is not supposed to be the case.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the big freakout about groups. There are all kinds of groups here, for instance, look at the membership list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes. What is it about groups with women that makes people want to puke all over their project page. I also don't understand the constant demands for links about sexism. Who cares? The group is about gender gap, why do people who don't want more participation by women be allowed to repeatedly make all these off-topic demands. Also my understanding was the proposal, that was made by a man, and framed as a possible topic for discussion, was not meant as a joke, it was a response to a specific research topic about the frequency of reversions of women's edits compared to men's edits. There is a link to one study further down-thread, if you can find it in this mess. And that is the real issue: people who oppose the participation of women who are disrupting the project, to the point where these content discussions become impossible. —Neotarf (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Warn Carolmooredc (talk · contribs)

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

---

IMO this filing is atrocious. Perhaps I'm a bit biased because I'm the target, but as I see above others agree there is no merit in any of her claims. Carole frequently threatens to take the whatever the issue du jour is to Arbcom, ANI, Wales in what has so far has been a fruitless attempt to silence those that disagree with her. I propose we give her a warning that the next frivolous filing will be met with a ban from initiating by herself or proxy to these "tattling" venues.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Let someone unattached to this propose something.--v/r - TP 17:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The only person who can really ban someone from Jimbo's talk page is Jimbo. Similarly, Arbcom might feel that the decision over whether someone can file an arbitration request is one that should be reserved for Arbcom, rather than also available to the community. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am in some sympathy with Two kinds of pork's suggestion above. I feel we have seen several previous unevidenced complaints from this editor. Asking for evidence to support an assertion is not inherently a hostile act. Calling an asinine suggestion asinine is not a personal attack. At some point we have to weigh up who is generating the disruption here. At the very least CaroleDC needs to be reminded not to CaroleDC should not come here with vague complaints without proper evidence, and should not forum-shop (eg at User talk:Jimbo). Perhaps there are other ways we can help her, but coming here every few weeks to seek unspecified sanctions against editors on the strength of vague and poorly-supported allegations simply will not do. --John (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC) edited slightly --John (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: While I believe that the filing was not particularly well done, and fired a shotgun at some of the wrong people, it was not frivolous. Carol has trouble distinguishing between attacks on her personally and attacks on women generally or women's projects generally (which IS a problem here there are trolls about, definitely). She also has trouble making her case clearly. Case in point: me: She didn't like what I had to say at the task force page - I made some pointed comments on how the project is not particularly well organized, has some really useless ideas about how to increase civility, and is generally shooting itself in the foot - and when she crriticized my comments, in doing so she also accused me of being male. (Which I am not, though I don't make a big deal about it) So, she is a messenger that has a thin skin and a misunderstanding of how wikipedia operates. But, that is NOT a sanctionable offense. It also would send a message that ANI is somehow "against women." You don't want to go there - that's as much a no-win as trying to sanction Corbett for incivility. I have sympathy with her legitimate frustration at some of the people who do troll that page and cause disruption. Pork and Specifico have not been a net positive to the gender gap project, and Corbett is, well, Corbett - and he got tossed some red meat. So no - a warning is NOT appropriate here. Drop the stick. Maybe someone sympathetic to her views and goals could just talk to her and see if she is open to mentoring. She identifies a true problem; she just isn't formulating an appropriate solution. Montanabw^(talk) 19:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm inclined to agree with Montanabw. I have amended my comment accordingly. --John (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Carol's filing of this report was indeed frivolous and pointed, unless you can point to any evidence at all that I am in any way biased against female editors. I look forward to seeing what you can come up with. Eric Corbett

Yes, banning Carole from filing at ANI will send a message that ANI is somehow "against women". And I'm done, here. Carole is making her own bed. If anyone thinks I need to respond, please ask on my talk page.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I think there is more that enough evidence in the above discussion that ANI is against women. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Opposing flimsy evidence on the basis that some editors disagree with the project's opinions is not "against women". It's against accusations without evidence.--v/r - TP 20:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "When all else fails, attack the messenger" is all this is. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose
• # This is not frivolous, it represents a sincerely held belief.
• # It is better that these discussions take place here than on the GGTF pages.
• # Even if Carol is wrong, raising these issues needs to be done to clear the air.
• # It is useful for people (including Carol) to see how their comments are taken. Without drawing the teeth of the argument it is usually possible to remove the offensive part.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

• Oppose Warning/banning Carol here will not solve anything, her concerns appear to be valid. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Oppose I agree that Carol doesn't yet know how to get the results she wishes on Wikipedia. She approached the problem in the wrong way. That doesn't mean she's wrong. Rhetoric is not truth: having a "good" (ie. superficially logical) argument doesn't mean you're right. Any good debater could construct an unimpeachable argument that black is white, but that still doesn't make it so. --NellieBly (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rich who has the singularly best viewpoint in this entire discussion.--v/r - TP 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Lacking a civility board, this is where we're supposed to bring these issues. Lightbreather (talk) 22:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone should WP:SNOWCLOSE this section. —Neotarf (talk) 23:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Result?

I just want to ask what do editors want as a result of this huge discussion? How can we move forward to a solution rather than just talking about who did what? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• What I'd like to see is shared respect and open mindedness toward gender equality and creating a welcoming environment for all new editors. What I think we're actually getting is simple venting.--v/r - TP 22:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  With a straight face, you go from 'so thinned skinned that perhaps the participants there are not qualified to operate a project as controversial as this one with the care and delicacy required not to alienate men and cross the line into militant feminist behavior'[72] to Kumbaya and anyone who disagrees is 'simple venting'. I mean, really? AnonNep (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, indeed. I believe the question is "what do we want" and not "what do we have." You're doing a fair good job exemplifying what we have, thank you.--v/r - TP 23:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• So why add to 'what we don't want' if that's how you believe things should end up? AnonNep (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Because I'm human and I struggle with the same flaws that the people I am criticizing deal with. That doesn't change what my ideal is, though, and I'd like to see it from myself. Which is exactly what I said to EvergreenFir in this comment when I said he was right.--v/r - TP 23:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Someone recently said that words cannot be examined apart from their context. As I recall the context of that comment, the gentleman who made it was responding to a study that found female editors were statistically more likely to be reverted than male editors. As I recall, the suggestion didn't get any traction, but I don't think someone should be accused of misandry or discouraged from throwing out ideas for fear of being dragged off to some tribunal. If you still find the comment offensive when examined in context, perhaps you would like to take a stab at solving that problem. —Neotarf (talk) 00:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  Did the study determine whether the reverts had merit or not? That would seem to be pertinent.--v/r - TP 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  I don't have a clue, why don't you ask the guy who put it there. But just offhand it sounds similar to the concept of using 3 admins, and including a female admin to close on a gender-related case. The general principle might tweaked a little for deletion discussions with some gender component as well. Since you seem to be interested, why don't you start a discussion over there, you might have some useful input--I wouldn't advise you to try it though until those three find a different topic to get interested in. Now that I think of it, I don't believe the number of reverts had any significant impact on retention for either male or female editors, but it still might be worth kicking the concept around a little bit more to see if there anyplace it might fit. You might also want to find some of these studies and have them in front of you instead of depending on my memory--it's likely to be more accurate and give a broader picture. —Neotarf (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  The study Neotarf is referring to is this one, I believe. The substance of the reverted edits was not examined, except indirectly by discounting reversions that were "for the purpose of repairing damage or vandalism". 92.4.167.191 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  That could be it, but it doesn't look familiar. But the point of this ANI is not about specific content, the point is that these content discussions have become impossible because of constant disruptions. —Neotarf (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think many of us struggle with those flaws (I certainly do). It takes bravery to admit it. Even more to try and get those who admit nothing at all to begin to for the good of WP. AnonNep (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• What we have are editors blaming other editors this has gone on for awhile now everyone can see how far we are getting from that (or not). Admin can step in and topic ban/block editors here but what I think needs to happen is that both sides need to step back here and work out something. Or are some here going to go with the WP:ROPE approach? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is ANI:Incidents, when do we not have editors blaming editors? But because this involves men it is special? Or does it involve special men? Can you clarify? AnonNep (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Where did you get men out what I said? Both sides to the conflict, nothing is one sided even if small there are always two sides to a story. Yeah editors have blamed other editors that part is above, my question is what now? Is there a workable solution? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So, based on the other side of the story, whatever that may be, what are you suggesting in the 'results' section other than general banhammer? AnonNep (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Certain editors appear to have joined the project, or are commenting on the talk page, to cause problems, and specifically to bait Carol. It's obviously making Carol nervous and unsure of herself, so she's responding in a way that perhaps attracts more of it. This is a common pattern. I'm not familiar with the men's rights issues on WP, but there seems to be an overlap with that, at least with a few of the editors.

  A good result of this discussion would be simply that they take the hint and stop it, and that other people on the page help to stop it as soon as it starts, even if they disagree with Carol (or at least please don't say anything that might keep it going). I've been archiving some of the threads quickly, but I don't want to be archiving interesting posts, so it's hard to know what to do when good threads deteriorate. I'm therefore appealing to the editors who are doing it please just to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I Agree with Slim here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Completely disagree. This isn't an issue that effects one individual. Don't personalise it any more than the critics are. AnonNep (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a place in the Gender gap task force for "I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses, attacking windmills that are simply mirages" - link types of mindsets? If one's beliefs are so diametrically opposed to the aims of a wiki project, then they really shouldn't post there at all. If thy won't cease voluntarily, then it may be time for a topic-ban discussion. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Tarc if you are looking for topic bans there is always the WP:ROPE argument, admin cant do it alone though just like police cant patrol every inch of the city on any given night, editors have to help as well by talking on talk pages, informing the ANI board on a case by case basis. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have somehow gotten this project on my watchlist and for the last week have not been able to believe the stuff I have seen coming across my watchlist. This is supposed to be a project started to welcome new users and to encourage diversity, a goal that has long had formal support from the foundation. In the last hour alone, someone has stated "I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses" and posted an edit summary saying "can you read". Several people have posted to the project asking to have the disruption shut down, but various requests to individuals have not met with any success. Most of the commenters to the project are actually male, so it does not actually seem very successful at welcoming female editors at this point, but most of the comments are really quite well informed, except for the three individuals mentioned in the original request. Perhaps those three individuals would voluntarily agree to stay away from the project. I can't imagine, say, a disco project where someone was allowed to inject "disco sucks" comments into every thread. If these individuals want to discourage diversity, they should start their own "increase the gender gap" project. —Neotarf (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
• Editing in projects is like living together, if you can not tolerate each other then either A. Some people need to find other areas on Wikipedia to work on. or B. Topic bans. I do not think anyone wants it to come down to this but to me it seems like a take the hint or action result here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  I agree. Carol should leave the project because of her disruptive behaviour. Eric Corbett 23:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  Eric we just had a discussion about this above, Carol is not going to leave, That does not mean I believe she is 100% innocent but per consensus she has not shown to have done anything to warrent this type of response. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to see anyone blocked/banned. The 'take a hint' makes sense towards those who will have plenty of time to discuss these down the track. This group isn't making WP Policy and doesn't need warrior behavior against it. If you can contribute, without disrupting/derailing, then do, if not then let the discussion progress to the point it reaches your usual WP forums. To become policy, or anything serious, it eventually will. AnonNep (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So are you all saying that I should have just done a separate Wikihounding ANI vs SPECIFICO. I was getting ready to but decided to fold these three together since disruption of the project was my larger concern. Or is Wikihounding ok now? Despite multiple requests he stop posting on my talk page, he did it twice today.[73], [74]. Considering he was blocked for linking to some psychotic's blog that included a comment that me and my family should be gassed, I really find his constant harassment rather repulsive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• No wikihounding is not okay, a result of this discussion might be best in a block or interaction ban in these kinds of events. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Some guys just don't take the hint, a point rather eloquently delivered by Jessica Williams the other day. Repeatedly posting to one's talk page after a request to stop is harassment and grounds for a block. I never heard of the blog-linking thing, that sounds like something siteban-worthy. Tarc (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• "So are you all saying that I should have..." - I let you tell everyone what I'm saying and leave it at that, comrade. AnonNep (talk) 01:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• Carol, I don't always agree with everything you say and do, but there is no excuse for the way some of these guys talk to you and harass you. I absolutely support your coming here today, and I hope some admin looks this over and takes some ACTION. If you have asked SPECIFICO to stop posting on your talk page, he should stop. And the behaviors I'm seeing on the Gender gap task force talk page are disruptive, plain and simple. If these guys don't want to help the project, they should leave it alone. Lightbreather (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, none of these three editors has indicated that they are willing to stay away from gender gap project, in fact, quite the opposite, so the proposal should either be that they either stay off the project page or stay away from the topic entirely, not sure which is more appropriate. I'm not a member of the project, and don't want to be, but if no one else wants to make the formal proposal, I can do it tomorrow. —Neotarf (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, they've continued and rev'd up the bad behavior in the last 15 odd hours. But it's definitely better a neutral party with experience propose this. It might be nice to give them 24 hours to reform, assuming someone isn't rushing to close this. But being nice hasn't worked too well so far.. sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I know I am one who is barred from your talk page. Could you please list all of the others somewhere: it sometimes seems that there are lots who are barred. That might indicate your concerns with alleged harrassment or it might indicate concerns with your own attitude, or perhaps a mix of the two in a cause-effect type of situation. Anyone proposing that some people stay away from a project is likely skating on thin ice, especially when it is a project so mired in politics as this one. I realise that excluding dissenting males etc would make it easier for some but nothing worth achieving in life ever comes easy. Are there any males on the female-oriented mailing list that was set up some months ago? How do things work there? For that matter, is anything being co-ordinated there and, if so, to what extent might that constitute meatpuppetting? - Sitush (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "allegedly dissenting males", just in case anyone thinks I was referring specifically to those named in this report (I wasn't). - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any self-awareness at all at how boorish you come across as? Yes, I happen to be on the gender-gap list; rarely post, just there to stay informed. The mailing list and the wiki-project exist because of an identified problem, that the number of female editors is small compared to the male editors, that the gulf between the two is rather sizable. I don't think it really matters to them if you do not believe that that is a problem. You approach it as something to debate, whole others approach it as something to solve. If you don't want to address the subject matter, then you really have no place at the table, any more than a global warming denier should be invited to a climate change conference. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Who is the "you" to whom you refer, Tarc? Me? Find me a post where I've denied that a gender gap exists, please. Find me a recent post where I've even been involved in that debate. My problem is not dealing with the gap but rather the stupid remedies being proposed and the cheerleader, who really should have had far more sanctions imposed on her over the many years that she has been here. She does nothing but stir shit, be it relating to libertarianism, gun control, Palestine, feminism, gender gap or anything else. And her almost immediate reaction to debate that challenges her is to try to close it down. When she starts actually creating decent articles and making useful edits instead of engaging in campaigns, pedantry and whingeing, and when she gets her articlespace % over 50, I might have more time for her. I'm not holding my breath. - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your entire attitude, e.g. "I realise that excluding dissenting males etc would make it easier..." practically scrams it, along with Corbett. Carol has identified problems in this project, and the action that you cal "shit stirring" would simply be praised as "being assertive" if it were someone else. Article-writing is a poor metric for usefulness to the project; we have enough problematic content to deal with, creating more is hardly a priority. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You were asked to provide a diff to back up your usual nonsense. So where is it? Eric Corbett 15:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The part that begins with "Your entire attitude, e.g..." is sufficient. Tarc (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Hurtsme1 creating a lot of redirects

Hurstme1 has created almost 100 new redirects the vast majority of which go to Islamophobia. I'm sure they are all well intentioned but I don't know the likelihood of someone searching for these terms. Shiaphobic for instance is a term I have never seen and Antimuslimness just isn't even a word. Helpsome (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

wikt:shiaphobia - but is this really a form of Islamophobia? Or is it mainly seen among Sunnis? never mind, target is proper. But antinawasib and anti-Nawasib have different targets, so at the very least this user needs to be more careful. --NE2 13:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reopening a talk page discussion to continue making aspersions against other editors

Could an administrator review whether this edit reopening a discussion that has devolved to aspersions about other editors' motives is appropriate? The editor has been asked to revert themselves [75], and their response [76] [77]. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You and Kww do not own that article, it is time you try to get that. You do not have any business closing discussions you don't enjoy on talk pages, and even less complaining if someone reopens it. The discussion is about the page and the way it is currently owned and managed by you and Kww. It is absolutely proper to keep that in the talk page; if anything what is inappropriate is your arm-twisting attempt by closing it first and whining on the dramaboards later.--cyclopia^speak! 13:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And the continuation of aspersions with no evidence continues here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

aspersions, user TRPoD? um no. you are among the two usual delete advocates for content in the article in question. of course your actions get mentioned in the thread about deletions there. you then twice tried to shut down the talk thread by "archive" of it. for user cyclopedia to point that out is not an aspersion. it is a retelling of events which anyone looking at the talk page history can plainly see. further up in the thread, i had hoped an admin would look into the deletion criteria you and your ally editor use. my reason for undoing your "archive"-muzzle is self-explanatory on the talk page there --see: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths&diff=next&oldid=624152496 i rather hope some admins will look over the entire thread and give a ruling about the strict criterion (unless the source uses the exact word unusual about the event, you or the ally editor delete the entry) that you and a couple of tohers use on that article. i've seen nothing like it on all of wikipedia. this thread: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#don.27t_bother_adding_content._it_will_be_deleted. cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If some editors attempt to classify the application of standard policies that content must be verifiable as having been published in a reliable source and is not simply the interpretation of Wikipedia editor as "ownership", that is their problem not mine. And it is not a problem that merits the talk page becoming a free for all harangue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

User:SummerPhD

This user is on a bizarre rampage, undoing every single edit of mine that they can find. They have not attempted to explain themselves and there is no apparent reason for their behaviour. They have attacked about 50 articles so far. Examples include [wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Gomez's_Hamburger&diff=prev&oldid=624160858], [78], [79]. For the rest see [80]. 190.162.88.128 (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

IP appears to be sock of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP; blocked for two weeks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Appears or is?CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thats an epistemological question. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm really asking is this a WP:DUCK or confirmed by a check user? Because most of the edits I saw were at least marginal and most were good. I would say the burden of proof for mindlessly rolling back this users edits should be pretty high for that reason. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP explains the situation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I might be missing but "Confirmed and suspected IP addresses" CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying an IP from the same ISP and geolocation who edited the LTA page 5 times to complain [81] [82] [83] including claiming they'd been doing this since 2004 [84] and defending their crap [85] and for good measure, made at least 2 edits the IP is best known for (sorry couldn't resist) [86] [87] is not quacking loudly enough for you? Nil Einne (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm fucking asking hence the question mark. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But the page was already linked for you which explains the problems such as the IP's history of removing "best known for". And the IP contributions similarly easily checked since they signed their post. Note that I've never heard of this IP before this ANI. I simply checked the stuff that had been presented here since I felt it resonable that my fellow editors were probably right and may have a point when they linked to the evidence. I spent about 1 minute* finding evidence that the IP had followed the trend of removing "best known for" that they are best known for (which is normally the best quacking, not possible IP addresses), another 20 seconds to realise the IP had also edited the LTA, another 40 seconds to check the IP ISP details and geolocation details with those in the LTA and then about 15 minutes or more writing these needless replies. Really this thread should have been closed long ago per WP:RBI and I would have myself except for needless questions when the clear quacking was so easily spotted and linked to multiple times before I had even read this thread. Nil Einne (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• There are about 10 pages in the IP's edit history that sound like they may be people. Admitedly some including David Purley were edited multiple times. However reading the edit summary give you a good idea of what they were doing. In any case perhaps unsurprisingly, it was in their first few edits that they fell back on what they were best known for, i.e. removing "best known for" so they actually made it even easier to spot. Of course I'm not saying opening up the main suspect pages was the best way to spot the signs. A more holistic look at their contrib history may have been better here, since editing the LTA was a major red flag. Still however you spin it it, it was hardly hard to spot the signs that this IP was indeed a the same as the person discussed in the LTA, even for someone like me who had never heard of them before a few hours ago, and wishes this remained the case now. BTW, I simplified the way I looked in to this a bit. I actually started with SummerPhD's reversions, it was there I first spotted David Purley and then the IP's LTA page changes before I realised I was being silly and should check out the IP's contributions not the reversion and then found all 5 of the LTA contributions and also the other best known for removal. So the time frame is probably a little off. But this also demonstrates even when checking the reversions, it's not hard to spot the obvious red flags. Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew immediately that this IP was the same guy as the subject of the LTA because he occasionally follows me around. For some reason he can't resist it. David Purley was just the latest in a line of totally disparate articles that I've edited that he's hit upon: Jeremy Spencer, Phil Lynott, 1977 South African Grand Prix etc, all with the "best known for" fixation, and with the exact same pattern of behaviour. I realised that he probably didn't know about the LTA, so I linked to it when asking for David Purley to be protected. Then the IP went off and ranted at the LTA and the connection was very clear for all to see. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good block of the OP. This is clearly the same person in the LTA report, and is thus evading their sanctions. --Jayron32 20:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about the block myself, it does stop the edit warring for a bit, but he'll just switch IPs again and keep going. I'm not sure reverting his work was necessarily for the best. My recommendation is to leave the edits until there is a revert with an incivil edit summary, then silently block the IP and semi-protect the article for a week, and do nothing else. That way we prevent incivility and edit warring, but do improve the encyclopaedia - a compromise between everything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Historicity of Jesus

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

---

I'm fairly sure at least one person crossed the 3RR line here, but think someone else should figure out what to do. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at it both Fearofreprisal and Bill the Cat 7 are having difficulty agreeing, should probably have gone to WP:AN3. Amortias (T)(C) 19:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AN3. Amortias (T)(C) 19:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Reference Desk - disruptive user

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

---

My apologies if I'm not following the correct procedure, as I don't frequent ANI and am unsure of the precise steps to follow. However, a long-term issue has recently taken a turn for the worse, and I feel that more formal steps are necessary to resolve it.

User:Medeis has been making unhelpful and disruptive edits to the Reference Desk for a very long period, generating much unpleasant discussion in various forums in the process. Yesterday, this user posted a deliberately provocative and faux-ignorant statement to WP:RD/M, and a little (comparatively mild) flaming ensued. The discussion was hatted by User:Jayron32, which normally would be the end of it. However, Medeis has twice removed the hat, adding a further piece of trolling to the discussion. Relevant diffs:

• [88] [Original unhelpful post]
• [89] [First unhatting]
• [90] [Second unhatting]

Many more examples of Medeis' disruptive behaviour on the reference desks, recent and historic, can be provided if necessary, but this example (in my opinion) crosses the line from annoying to unacceptable. I would request that appropriate sanctions are applied to this user - what constitutes "appropriate" is not an issue I feel competent to offer any suggestions on. Tevildo (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nor do I feel competent or, really, willing to apply sanctions. I hope Medeis will not undo my hatting, and I have asked them on their talk page to refrain. If you feel there are bigger fish to fry, you may do so but an RfC/U is a better venue than ANI. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the ref desk question, posted by another user, is a rule in volleyball. I suggest anyone interested in this look at the personal nature of the "administrative" action "hatting trolling by medeis" not "by user or users, since there were about 4 absolutely sincere answers in response to my question". I grew up with 8 foot nets, reference to a 9m seemed like a possible regionalism, and I asked it: "We played volleyball long before meters even existed. Is t[h]is some sort of europeanism? μηδείς (talk) 3:46 pm, 2 September 2014, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)". That's the horrible disruption your time's being wasted over. Now obviously the "even existed" part was hyperbole, but it was meant to express the fact that the original measurements were English, and that the 2.43cm height of the net (i.e. 8 English feet) shows this. There's absolutely no reason for this hatting, nor for the restoral, there's nothing hostile or that violates any policy by my action--the reason given for the hatting is that it was I who made the edit, which was answered with the only ref in the entire thread. I'd appreciate the hatting being removed, as other than User:Jayron32's personal hostility toward me there's no disruption at all. If anyone has any questions, or a policy I violated or even veered close to, please leave me a talk message. μηδείς (talk) 00:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction --Jayron32 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
2.43 cm is a little less than 1 inch. Just thought you should know. --Jayron32 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting Admin Assistance with a closed and reopened AfD

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch (2nd nomination) was closed as a Speedy Keep and subsequently reopened by an editor who disagreed with the NAC closure. There is discussion at the AfD, on the editor's talk page and on the talk page of the AfD. To be clear there is no suggestion of bad faith editing here, but we do have a bit of a cluster bleep. Could someone please stop this from becoming more silly than it already is? -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am that editor who had reopened the afd and then ironically voted for strong keep. I felt that due to the nature of speedy keep, the non-admin closure, and the fact that socks/SPAs have contributed in the discussion, I saw fit that it be reopened for the full 7 days and assessed by an administrator for consensus in whichever way. Important note: I reverted the closure of the afd, Ad Orientum (the poster of this ANI request) reopened, and I did not revert again. I however did ask the closer (Davey2010) to reopen, which he did. Tutelary (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Afd closed as Speedy Keep. Please see the closing rationale here.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Abuse of deletion process

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

---

- Wrongly tagged for delete based on no sources - corrected without apology - Source wrongly tagged as self-publshed - corrected no apology - Extra deletion process started before discussing with editors on the page or on talk page - initiator withdrawn - Vote cast by policy acronym without anyone having read provided source or even asking what it says - Vote not withdrawn without any clear explanation. [[91]] FinalAccount (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• And the deletion discussion is still ongoing. You should wait until it's over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to have grasped that I, a Wikipedia content contributor, am asking for help from Wikipedia administration to discuss or help with what I perceive to be misuse of the deletion process, currently at the last point of misuse listed above? FinalAccount (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC) p.s. i have no doubt the article won't be deleted, it very obviously won't be, this is not a roundabout way of trying to get at that. I am talking about apparent user misuse of the process. FinalAccount (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say Final Account is correct. The delete votes were withdrawn, and now there are none, I'd say it's ripe for a close as keep. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 10:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As above, have closed the AfD as withdrawn with nominator, followed by withdrawal of only actionable !vote. Euryalus (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Well thanks for closing the deletion process but again I am asking for Wikipedia administration to make some comment about the user who started off by mistakenly using a delete tag that's for articles with no sources listed, when it had two listed, and hasn't acknowledged let along apologised for risking my hard work in this way, and then for voting delete before waiting for verification of one of the provided sources, and then, even when it's clearly obviously a non-deletion article and had even been reviewed and passed by someone separately, STILL just said 'can't confirm keep' thus stopping the article being deleted on the basis of the instigator withdrawal - apparently simply to annoy me, even though he started all this by his mistake. FinalAccount (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing matters here. The prod was added by User:Nafsadh, [92], it was then removed by User:GB_fan [93] as the reasoning seemed invalid (as you said, the article did have sources). It was then nominated for deletion by User:Stuartyeates [94].

The fact that a mistake may have been made in the rationale by Nafsadh doesn't affect the AFD nomination by Stuartyeates in any way. From what I can tell, Stuartyeates never claimed the article had no sources. Nor did they comment on an inability to verify. It appears that their primary problem was the sources you used at the time did not establish notability under the WP:GNG (and also I guess failed any subject specific criteria). Verification of the sources doesn't help if they either aren't WP:RS or lack sufficient coverage to establish notability.

To be clear, I'm not saying Stuartyeates was definitely right to AFD, I haven't looked at the sources present at the time so can't comment. I'm simply saying that whatever mistakes Nafsadh may or may not have made have no bearing on Stuartyeates AFD.

Also, even if Nafsadh made a mistake, you really need to learn to WP:Assume good faith and let things go or you aren't going to last very long wikipedia. Note also that even if a mistake was made, that doesn't mean there was any abuse of process. Contributors aren't expected to be perfect and it does sound like there were problems with the article at the time of the prodding, or at least one other contributor feels there was. So Nafsadh likely had a fair reason to be concerned, even if they may have made a mistake in the specific prodding rationale.

And no one is going to rule that someone made a mistake, that's not what administrators do. (Actually you're far closer to earning administrative attention i.e. a block if you continue to fail to AGF and make accusations like "apparently simply to annoy me". You seem to do good work, but understand wikipedia is a collobrative effort. So you need to learn to get along with your fellow editors even when you have disagreements or mistakes are made. And that includes not continually demanding apologies or confirmation of wrongdoing. It sounds like you may be a new editor. If so, may be seek help at WP:Teahouse if you're confused about something rather than coming to ANI and complaining about other editors.)

Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Obligatory Note from involved editor. The article concerned was PRODed during a regular NewPagesFeed reviews - a very affective practice withing Wikipedia, especially because a lot of hoax-pages and articles about non-notable subjects pop up. Subsequently it was AfDed again by another editor Stuartyeates probably mostly with similar concern as mine: no apparent reliable sources were present. Stuartyeates investigated and was not satisfied about notability, neither was I. Meanwhile original creator, FinalAccount, harshly attacked me in the PROD notice on his talk page [95] questioning my cognitive ability -- which by no mean nice, and I felt extremely offended. Off course FinalAccount continued to add sources about Ronald R. Fieve, but he (assuming FinalAccount is a he, correct me if wrong) was not ready to cool down on AfD. Consequently his comment, "No thanks coming from you are accepted - my work on the article has nothing to do with your tagging deletion efforts - you hindered what I was working towards anyway. And you are a policy joke" made me think whether I should go for a RfC/UC or not. Since he is relatively new contributor and as I was extremely confounded from his remark about himself on his page: "do have a mental disability" -- I decided to cool down. In the end, this ANI (without notice!) bothers me. -- nafSadh did say 23:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Nafsadh to begin with there is nothing obligatory to leave a note no matter how involved you are with a situation. Your inappropriate BLPPROD was the initiation of this entire thing. A BLPPROD should never have been added to the article as the very first edit had sources. You need to take responsibility that you did not follow the BLPPROD policy. Finally as I suggested to FinalAccount drop it because you are not helping. GB fan 00:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes that's all I want - some slightly sense of acknowledgement of some responsibility. Not just for my benefit but for Wikipedia content. And not just for the BLPPROD but Nafsadh then voted to delete WITHOUT EXPLANATION AND WITHOUT HAVING READ OR ASKED FOR VERIFICATION FOR OR ASKED ME ABOUT one of the extra sources I listed. Wikipedia administration - please confirm that this is not acceptable, or is it? FinalAccount (talk) 00:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no requirement to explain any !vote for or against deletion. No one has to ask for verification of any sources or ask anyone about any sources. FinalAccount drop it and move on to working on articles. GB fan 00:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The deletion process was based on a statement that there was no evidence of independent sources. I provided three, one being in a psychiatric journal. Nafsadh then voted delete without any comment on them and without even having read at least one of them. That's perfectly fine treatment of the general public trying to contribute to Wikipedia then is it? FinalAccount (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

BLPPROD stipulates that there shall be some reliable source. Sources did not seem to be reliable. I considered CSD/AfD and PROD. So, you can think the tagging is inappropriate, it is not necessarily a violation of BLPPROD policy. @GB. -- nafSadh did say 00:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nafsadh, You should go back and read WP:BLPPROD again. It says you can only add a BLPPROD to an article if it has no sources in any form. The reliable source portion only kicks in when sources are added after a BLPPROD is on the article. If there are any sources in any form that confirm any information in the article then a BLPPROD can not be added. There were sources in the article that confirmed information (reliability of those sources have nothing to do with it) so a BLPPROD was inappropriate. You were absolutely wrong to add a BLPPROD to the article. GB fan 01:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Extensive OR and POV-pushing by Zarpboer.

User Zarpboer appears to be on a one-man mission to show the WP:TRUTH about the South African Republic, throwing all consideration of WP:NPOV and WP:OR out the window and using highly inflammatory language both in edits and edit summaries. Despite repeated calls for co-operation and warning over their behavior [96], [97], [98], [99] Zarpboer insists on continuing. Edits like these clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR by introducing a highly personal view of history [100], [101] [102], [103], [104]. These edits are just a fraction of similar edits. Further, edit summaries like this one are not helpful either [105]. The user ignores all attempts to get them to understand and follow Wikipedia policies, and as the edits, though disruptive, are not vandalism, ANI remains the only option as the user refuses to stop.Jeppiz (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am simply contributing to wikipedia. I found an article about a subject in which I am well versed and the article had 0 citations, 0 references, the article name did not match the content and was generally of an extremely poor quality. I did not simply add my point of view, I added facts like actual original documents, constitutions, laws, and actual dates or proclamations as well as content, with citations, for all my additions. I am very new to wikipedia and i did edit a talk page, which another editor kindly pointed out and fixed for me, and i do apologise for that. but other than that i have discussed changes on the talk page and i have tried my best to add good quality content. whereas others simply go and undo, revert and delete paragraphs, for no reason other than their own opinions and without discussing on the talk page or adding citations or anyting of real value to the quality of the article. Zarpboer (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to add, I added over 40 citations and refs to the article that had 0 and did invest a lot of time and effort to ensure accuracy and quality Zarpboer (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, other articles affected (to a greater or lesser extent) by the contributor's POV editing are Transvaal Colony, Dutch language, Gauteng, History of South Africa, Second Boer War and First Boer War. I tried at first to help him edit Transvaal Colony within the rules but when the editor's POV agenda became clear to me I gave up trying and notified WikiProject South Africa about the issue. Unfortunately I'm very busy off wiki currently so I simply don't have the time to clean up after this editor. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information Roger (Dodger67), I didn't know the user's POV-campaign extended to so many articles when I started the discussion. All the more reason for action to be taken.Jeppiz (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Zarpboer is now actively edit warring, I don't want to risk a 3RR block so can someone else please undo the edits. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Done, but I hope others will get involved and that action will be taken fast. This is rather extensive.Jeppiz (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

He's now gone to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment In addition to all the violations of WP:OR, WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:3RR, the user has also decided to abandon WP:CIVIL [106]. As Dodger67 said in dispute resolution, the user Zarpboer is not here to construct an encyclopedia, just to push a particular POV by all means.Jeppiz (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Restorations of deleted pages

1. Gobautista (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

2. Gibson Torreon C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

3. Alejando Cuello (Spanish) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

--Juggler2005 (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to admit, this request makes no sense to me the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) As far as I understand it, it's about WP:User pages and a massive confusion between Wikipedia and LinkedIn. Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

These users restored your user pages deleted as advertising. I request to block them. --Juggler2005 (talk) 12:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Each of these pages has now been re-deleted. I don't think blocking is needed at this stage though. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I salted the first one as a repeatedly recreated page.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at #2, it looks to be properly deleted. I don't think it should be undeleted. User:Kleuske's observation sounds plausible.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ed. Seems like someone not quite knowing the rules. Doesn't deserve a block, unless the rules are explained and they continue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring and derailment on a SPI

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

---

I am having some strange inconvenience on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart. See the history of the complaint. Callanecc somehow confirms that there is connection with the reported sock and his supporter(Gauravsood0289),[107] I wouldn't disagree.

This may take a few days, but right now I have reverted the sock commentary on this report.[108] Notably, this sock master loves to edit war and he is obviously going to reinsert off topic content disputes as well as personal attacks.

The confirmed sock(AbhinavKumar1289) is a autoconfirmed user, same with Gauravsood0289, a suspected sock. If someone is going to protect this page I think I wouldn't be able to comment there. Talk page of this SPI page has been subject to personal attacks before. That's why I thought of bringing the issue here. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Just removed his slanderous comments to this page.[109] (DNR) Bladesmulti (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

At the SPI, Callanecc deemed AbhinavKumar1289 a likely connection to Siddheart. I've asked Callanecc whether he deems a sockblock appropriate; it would resolve the issue, but I don't know whether we issue sockblocks to "Likely" results based on CU information alone. Of course I know that we issue sockblocks for WP:DUCK reasons too, but there's no time for me to check through his contributions. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Likely means that sock is confirmed, but he somehow found Gauravsood0289 to be a sock as well, and he thinks that other CU will confirm it. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Question: if AbhinavKumar1289 is a likely sock per CU, why is the account not blocked yet? (I'd be happy to do the honors myself, just wanted to see if there was a compelling reason not to). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie Maybe because SPI is overloaded with many pending reports and pending blocks. I think any admin can block sock puppets. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Reptilians

User:MONGO declared his/her intention of edit-warring on the Reptilians article and talk page here and here, and has carried out the threat here, here, here and here. He/she has offered no constructive criticism, saying only that "That is the typical ploy of everyone that thinks they are right....to make others disprove their edit." When I tried to discuss it with him/her on his/her user talk page, my post was deleted with the edit summary, "dont start something you cant finish". Can this user be requested to edit civilly and collaboratively, please? Scolaire (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Scolaire wrote the section he has in the article in his sandbox then circumvented discussion in much detail by moving the entire passage to article space. That is not editing collaboratively. He has repeatedly reinserted PAs in the talkpage made by an IP because the IP supports his edits. His post on my talk page wasn't anything other than threats and snide insinuations. No need to provide the diffs as they are already above. Looks like an ownership mentality on Scolaire's part...he should learn to build an article within that space and seek consensus for his changes before assuming all would be in agreement.--MONGO 15:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Those diffs you provided of Mongo "edit warring" on the talk page are diffs of him removing personal attacks, which is entirely appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A defence of removing personal attacks might carry more weight if the deleted post had not been a response to a personal attack on the editor by Mongo: I'm just going to remove your adolescent posts on sight no matter what IP they come in on and you can take that to the bank. --Scolaire (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Then his comment can be removed as well, but it is disingenuous for you to call his removal of an attack "edit warring" and doesn't cast the rest of your complaint in a favorable light. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Scolaire (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I recommend Scolaire post his material to the article talk page and if concensus is the references are neutral then no reason the material cannot then be added.--MONGO 15:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

A pity you could not be as reasonable on the article talk page or your user talk page. Scolaire (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure...you've been spreading love and joy everywhere as well...--MONGO 16:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that article just got off full protection a couple days ago and reverting is still happening, perhaps full protection should be restored until meaningful discussion has resumed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No need to on my account. I have started an RfC as suggested. I will not revert before it is resolved. Scolaire (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the most inflammatory editor is an IP, perhaps it would make sense to semiprotect article and its talk page for a while. Cardamon (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The wonderful IP editor is back...accusing myself and another editor of being hypocrites and that I'm his meatpuppet...I see no reason to not simply remove it for the long winded trolling it is.--MONGO 20:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Emanuelito_martinez political edits

I came upon Emanuelito_martinez making this edit saying a political party's website was NOT RECOMMENDED. I reverted and warned by the continued both on that article and then on another. It turns out, this editor has been making edits like this for a while. (see 1 and 2 for example) as well as blanking content they don't like. I don't have time to scour all of their edits but I would imagine there is more of this kind of thing. Helpsome (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations by Comicking123

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

---

Comicking123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted seemingly copyrighted content on the page Michael Colyar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It was reverted by Stesmo. Stesmo also warned the user, but they subsequently readded the content. I then removed it and warned the user, only to have it added back again. The copyrighted page is [110]. User does not appear to assert that the content has been licensed on the article talkpage or elsewhere. BMIComp 18:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The user has been blocked for 3 days by Protonk. Mike V • Talk 19:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate threats by User:Fram

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

---

Hi folks,

I understand that developing software in a community context is unusual and requires lots of patience and sensibility to user needs. I also understand that given recent events, there's still a lot of emotional heat surrounding deployments and configuration changes. Nonetheless, this kind of threat against a Wikimedia Foundation staff member by an administrator is really inappropriate, and I would ask other admins/bureaucrats to step in as needed.

For context, the background here is that Flow's use was expanded to test pages, purely for the purpose of giving community members involved Wikipedia:Teahouse an idea to see how it works. It was not deployed to additional production use cases. Even if it was, this kind of overreaction by a single admin (who, as far as I can tell, made no attempt to achieve consensus for such a dramatic action) would be wholly inappropriate.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Erik, I don't see where you've tried to discuss this with Fram directly, or even told them of this filing. I also think that blocking in this case and threatening to block are 2 different things. If you think the behaviour is beyond what is expected of an admin, we have the RFC/U/ADMIN process the panda ₯’ 22:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I used to watch the Flow discussion, but I had stopped for a while. I went back to look at the context of the warning, and I can see Fram's point of view. It looks like WMF is doing a poor job of working with the editing community, leaving members of the community feeling like their sincere input will be ignored. This looks to me like something where everyone needs to dial down the temperature a bit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There's honestly not much dialing up that's happening on the WMF side. We turned it on on an additional test page for feedback and announced it. It's about as exciting as a sack of rice falling over from a scope of deployment perspective.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

And once again, you've got it backwards. Announce, wait a couple days for feedback, then deploy. How hard is it to understand this?? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously too hard for Herr Moeller. How the hell did he get that job that he's so clearly unsuited for anyway? Eric Corbett 23:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a software company or an encyclopedia? Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If it was a software company it would have gone bust years ago. Eric Corbett 23:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I had already pinged Fram on Danny's talk page about this, but also left him a message just now.--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric, nobody is going to "emergency lose" their admin rights for a "threat" to do something. You're either going to have to prove long term issues at RFC/U/ADMIN or Arbcom, or wait until they actually block for something contrary to the Admin policy and go straight to ArbCom. ANI has no authority right now, and this thread will just become a magnet for those who dislike FLOW as a whole the panda ₯’ 23:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

RFCU is a fucking joke. I can't believe we tell people to go there with a straight face. Protonk (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, neither can I. Eric Corbett 23:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I hear you, and I was not arguing for that. I think it's important for other users to be aware that this is happening, so it doesn't just become an "us vs. them" conflict. We need to establish clear parameters for working together, and this kind of behavior would IMO be outside any reasonable parameters. I hope other users agree, and help de-escalate, in other venues as appropriate. Thanks,--Erik Moeller (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Too late, it's already become another "us vs. them" conflict. Eric Corbett 23:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Am I taking crazy pills? In what universe is it ok to use the tools to threaten someone like this? Protonk (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Btw here is where the block threat is mulled. Fram: "If they roll out Flow to any more pages without any ability for us to undo this: block! If they continue to roll it out without consensus and with this many bugs, even if the "undo Fow" fature is enabled: block." Protonk (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, can you link to the announcement that this was going to be put in place yesterday? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously??? Just when the Media Viewer fracas -- which included the OP making a similar totally inappropriate threat [111] -- is dying down, WMF opens a drama board thread in response to a totally toothless "threat"? That's not a threat, that's a joke. NE Ent 22:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Fram already said here, that their aim is to do things that the WMF "seriously dislike", so I guess this thread is just that goading paying off. Whether such goading and baiting is an appropriate thing for an admin to be engaging in, is perhaps what Erik is asking. Maybe it's fine, maybe it's how admins are expected to act here on English Wikipedia. If so, fine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right, admins should not act like this ... but ANI cannot solve it the panda ₯’ 23:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Fram could be asked not to further disrupt other editors' testing work by his abusively fully protecting Flow test pages that they have requested. If Fram chooses to continue to be disruptive in that way, other measures would quickly be effective. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Petition to the WMF on handling of interface changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• While we're at it, Erik also seems to be using HHVM on enwiki, maybe this is an unauthorised trial too, so some worthy admin should rush over to berate and threaten about that as well? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  Erik has no right to be using en:wp as a test bed, so maybe he does need to be reminded of that. Eric Corbett 23:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

While I can understand where Fram is coming from the warning was probably not the best idea. Since no admin tool was used here I don't think there is anything actionable unless the situation escalates further. Chillum 23:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, at our team's request, a flowboard was implemented at a subpage of the Co-op, which is an in-progress mentorship space supported by an IEG grant that I am managing. Our intention was to test Flow internally, as a team, because we believe the system may be useful in our space, though we wanted to test it locally and see how well it interacts with other gadgets we will implement. We were not going to direct new editors to use it, and this was explained to Fram very clearly; we don't even have a real interface, and there are no links to the Flowboard other than the few discussions that have popped up. Today, I find the page is fully-protected because Fram says it's not ready for rollout. I agree with that it's not ready for that purpose, but this is completely irrelevant when the space is intended for internal testing, not rolling out for any actual communication. Fram has been very thorough about testing on his own, and I believe has legitimate concerns about Flow, but to disallow our team's ability to internally test the space is disruptive. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

In addition to which, Fram's abuse of his admin rights by fully protecting a test page that had been requested by the Co-op editor team was justified by his belief that such pages should not be used for testing; he then went ahead and used such pages for his own tests anyway. This seems to be an over-reaching of Fram's authority, not anyone else's. It's OK for Fram to test on, but not for ordinary editors? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Fram deserves a barnstar for courage in the face of the WMF's overreaching authority. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

  We don't agree on many issues, but we agree on this one. Eric Corbett 23:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• Burn it must, all must burn !!! —TheDJ (Not WMF) (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
• How about splitting the site up into 1) people who want to write, and 2) people who want to create software? Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think there's a bot for that; [112] [113]. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Ok. Go get your pencil and paper 'cause I got some bad fuckign news for you. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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