Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Harassment of User:Dmitri1999 for having contributed content to the site.[edit]

Resolved, promotional material removed with consent of editor. NE Ent 12:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seriously, now? Having professional photographers contribute their work is now grounds to delete his userpage - less than a day after the point was first raised, and before anyone could have dealt with it - see User_talk:Dmitri1999 for rather shocking unilateral behaviour on User:Hoary's part - and go around removing his photos from English Wikipedia because he dared to contribute high-quality photos, then mentioned "I can do this kind of work"?

One may say that's unfair. However, given the precipitous behaviour of deleting the userpage instead of treating the person like a human....

Look, no matter how bad the userpage was, the slightest bit of working with the individual would have likely kept us a talented photographer. Instead, it's already got to the point where he's asking for all his work to be removed, because of the systematic harassment campaign dedicated to removing his work.

Is this really what we want to do here? Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I am not surprised that he is pissed off. This could have been handled better.--ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is not atypical on Wikipedia, it's widespread; I've seen several somewhat similar situations in just the last few days. We really need to change the way we deal with good-faith editors when we think they're doing something wrong. The reaction we shouldn't take is immediately kick them in the nuts with the justification "well, policy was being violated, I had to kick them in the nuts. Please show how they weren't violating policy". Have the policy discussion first, and the nut kicking will, 90 times out of a hundred, become unnecessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:IGNORANCE (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that some professional photographers may come here not with the primary goal of improving the encyclopedia, but because they see Wikipedia as a powerful promotional medium - and we do not allow that usage. (Of course it's not only photographers who thinlk this way, many businesses of all sorts attempt to use us for their own purposes.) To me, the key is this: if the person involved has it explained to them what we are about and how they can help – as seems to have happened here judging from their talk page – and instead of sticking around and contributing they take their ball and go home, then they were never here for the right reason to begin with. We do indeed need professional photographers, and experts of all kinds, but we need them on our terms, not on theirs. I see no "harrassment" here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
05:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Ken, WP:AGF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
One assumes good faith until the evidence shows otherwise, as it did here. Keeping an open mind is good, but not so open that one's brains fall out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The point is not that I think Dmitri1999 is perfect, or innocent. The user page seems a bit promotional. It's also been there for more than 2 years, so there was no crisis that needed to be solved by its immediate deletion. The point is that it is unproductive to treat someone editing in good faith but making mistakes like dirt, order them to change, and then expect them to stick around and continue to help out. It's more productive to not treat them like dirt and ask them to change, and listen to their opinion too. At least try it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I have not much time, and will be back on Monday. But before I leave I would like to advise you, before giving (too) fast judgments, and talking of "good faith", to study the history of his contributions (and comments) in the last week or so, included the part of his Talk page that he deleted yesterday. After that, maybe you will change your mind. As a matter of fact, Hoary was the second or third admin ( plus several users like me) who had to deal with this guy in the last days. For me, this was a clear "nut kicking" case. Hoary did a great job, and if he had hesitated, I was ready to take this guy to the noticeboard for edit warring (after advice of another admin). Alex2006 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The point is not that I think Dmitri1999 is perfect, or innocent. The fact that he was edit warring or getting upset at rude edit summaries and using even ruder edit summaries of his own, doesn't alter my point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Aside from Dmitri1999 himself, the only user mentioned in the message that kicks off this thread is me; indeed, there's not even a reference to any unnamed users.

I infer that I am charged with:

  1. Harassment of Dmitri1999 for having contributed content to the site
  2. Deleting the user page of Dmitri1999 on the grounds that he is a professional photographer contributing his work
  3. Rather shocking unilateral behaviour
  4. Going around removing Dmitri1999's photos from English Wikipedia because he dared to contribute high-quality photos, then mentioned "I can do this kind of work"
  5. Not treating the person using the username Dmitri1999 as a human
  6. Failing to do the slightest bit of working with Dmitri1999
  7. Conducting a systematic harassment campaign dedicated to removing the work of Dmitri1999

Quite a list. One at a time:

  1. What "harassment"?
  2. No. I deleted it because it was promotional (check for yourself in my log file). Or anyway this was my stated rationale. Of course, it's conceivable that I was and am lying about this. Am I charged with lying too?
  3. Please specify the behaviour that you have in mind.
  4. No. I removed some of Dmitri1999's photos for the reasons I gave in the edit summaries. Or anyway these were my stated rationales (see my second response, above). Incidentally, my edit summaries now strike me as worded unfortunately.
  5. Please specify the way in which I treated Dmitri1999 as less than, or other than, human.
  6. Yes, you are correct, I failed to do the slightest bit of working with Dmitri1999. Why? Because I could say nothing that had not already been said straightforwardly on his user talk page and in edit summaries. I'd observed his recent pattern of edits (epitomized here, in dispute with User:Velella and User:TheMindsEye). He'd already been warned about the user page. Incidentally, I now think that it was wrong of me to delete it just fifteen hours after the warning was posted (and I elaborate on this below). Any administrator is free to restore it (but see below).
  7. See the first item in this list.

So, I plead guilty to deleting his user page too quickly, and to wording two or more edit summaries poorly.

If I deleted his user page too quickly (as I now think I did), why was this? Probably because, as my log file will confirm, a large percentage of my recent administrative work has been dealing with what's thrown up in Usernames for administrator attention/Bot. There are false positives, genital/rectal-related names (presumably from children and drunks), but also a depressing number of corporate usernames whose activities quickly turn out to combine the spamming of articles and the posting of an advert on the user page. Such promotion-only accounts are nuked on sight, together with their self-promoting user pages. So I probably mis-applied to Dmitri1999's user page practices from "Usernames for administrator attention". Which I say not to justify the mis-application, merely to explain it.

I can restore the user page if asked. Incidentally, I checked just now to see if it had been restored in any way. It has. It now reads: Total bullshit! Blanking the page would be more considerate and less contentious, assholes! (This eruption is not from Dmitri1999 but from User:Canoe1967.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The page was somewhat promotional, but not so bad that speedy deletion was necessary. I think that it would have been best to have asked Dmitri to have toned it down a bit, but the changes wouldn't have need to be major. Jumping in and deleting it before he could respond seems a bit over the top. I've seen academics with user pages which, quite appropriately, list their fields of expertise, major publications and contact details, and an approach like that would have been in order. User:JJ Harrison's user page also provides a possible model; he describes his expertise and showcases his best work, and notes in passing that people who'd like to license his excellent photos can contact him via email. Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
That said, Dmitri has been seriously out of line calling people who remove his photos 'vandals' (eg, [1], [2]) and taking a high-handed approach to the removal of their work in general (see the edit summary here). Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If I might make an observation, I think people are perhaps being a tad too hard on each other on both sides here - there is good faith all round, and we need to keep that in mind. Has Dmitri1999 been trying to promote himself professionally using Wikipedia? Undoubtedly - adding his wedding photos (excellent though they are) to articles about places just because they happen to have been taken in that place is about as blatant as it gets. Has he been using his photos decoratively rather than to illustrate an important encyclopedic point? Yes. Was his user page unduly promotional? No idea - I can't see it. But on the other side, did anyone really take the trouble the properly explain the use of images in Wikipedia articles? Nope. Was the deletion of his user page a little heavy-handed? Yep (and credit to Hoary for the comment above - I think it would be worth restoring at least temporarily, so that we can at least all see it). Is he worth engaging with in order to help improve the encyclopedia? Undoubtedly. Dmitri is a very talented photographer who produces some superb work, and rather than adopting the "He has to toe *our* line if he wants to use his photos here" approach, I think we should be approaching it more from the angle "We have a very talented contributor here, so what can *we* do to get the best from what he is offering us". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    Oh, and Canoe1967's version of Dmitri1999's user page should be promptly deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    I invited Canoe1967 here, but he doesn't seem to like the idea. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Responses to remarks above (but not Nick-D's or Boing!'s, which I'll get to a bit later):

I don't think I did anything that can reasonably be described as kicking somebody in the nuts.

I'm glad to see that Beyond My Ken sees no harassment. However, I don't fully agree with him elsewhere. I know a fair number of professional photographers, and none has an easy time supporting him/herself, let alone feeding kids and putting them through college. (Of course the observation that photography is going through hard times is unoriginal.) It's unrealistic to expect that pro photographers, other perhaps than a few in extraordinary circumstances, will put time and effort into disinterested contributions to Wikipedia or Commons. Meanwhile, although there are pros whose work I loathe and amateurs whose photobooks I buy, on average pro photographers are better at their jobs than are mere amateurs. I think that pro photographers can constructively make contributions to Commons/Wikipedia while they actually have their own interests firmly in mind. However, this requires calmness and sensitivity. Looking at Dmitri1999's edit summaries since his return to WP in late January, I don't see this at all. He adds his photos for their professionalism, he decries their removal as vandalism.

Floquenbeam: The user page seems a bit promotional. It's also been there for more than 2 years, so there was no crisis that needed to be solved by its immediate deletion. True, there was no crisis. However, his edit history shows a great number of edits since 23 January (after an eleven-month break). All those that I looked at seemed to increase the salience of the photographer, and some were quite extraordinary -- notably this one, in which Dmitri1999 adds a (good) photo of his own to the top of "Photojournalism", thus placing it together with (but above) a small number of the most renowned photographs in history (an edit that brought no favorable comments that I have noticed, and unfavorable reactions from User:Antique Rose and User:Dougweller). -- Hoary (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: In accordance with the majority sentiment above, and the specific request from Boing!, I have restored all earlier versions of User:Dmitri1999. The result was of course that these became earlier versions of a page written by Canoe1967. I then reverted Canoe1967's edit, but I did not delete it. (I have no objection to its deletion or its existence.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Within an amicable and constructive message above, Boing! writes: But on the other side, did anyone really take the trouble [to] properly explain the use of images in Wikipedia articles? Nope.

The use of images, possibly not. Self-promotion, certainly yes. A bit more digging in contribution histories suggests to me that Dmitri1999 started as a self-promoter. Only admins will be able to see the history of the deleted article "Toronto Wedding Photography" but I think that an uninvolved admin who looks will confirm that this started as a blatant self-advertisement on his talk page, underwent various changes, and when moved to "Toronto Wedding Photography" was still a feebly-disguised self-advertisement, starting in the third person (Dmitri Markine is...) but continuing with Due to very high demand,starting in 2008,destination wedding photography services will be introduced for a maximum of 4 events/year. Please call or email to schedule an appointment. As early as 22 September 2007, Dmitri1999's user talk page was given a COI template, politely dissuading him from editing where there could be a COI, and ending For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest (admins, see this deleted version of what was then his user talk page but would later become the deleted article "Toronto Wedding Photography"). Dmitri1999's user page now is very similar to his user talk page as of 31 March 2010; two months later, this got a db-spam template from the alarmingly named User:Mean as custard. This "speedy" template remained for a leisurely six months, whereupon the entire content was blanked by User:Protonk (who rather inexplicably cited WP:REFUND). [No: on the contrary, quite explicably. See the detailed history below for an explanation. -- Hoary (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)]

Dmitri1999 seems to have lost patience with WP in February 2012: see this (about licensing, not advertising). He returned in late January 2013. Only four days later, he was warned by User:Janweh64 about excessive insertion of his own photographs. Dmitri1999's response starts I am not self promoting myself so I have no reason to stop. I've already responded to a similar allegation in commons. If you don't like it, please report it. Surely an acknowledgment of a charge of self-promotion.

All in all I think a self-promotional motif in Dmitri1999's editing patterns has been clear for over five years, and that he has already received sufficient warning about this. And while I do not claim to have looked at all his talk-page edits, within those I have looked at I have not seen either honest mystification or requests for clarification. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Green (for those with CSS) interpolation added 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that he has been using Wikipedia for promotion. I removed two images recently he added to language articles - [3] and [4] as inappropriate - see French language for an article using images appropriately. He also added an image to Photojournalism [5] which I believe was both inappropriate and promotional. See the discussion at Talk:Photojournalism. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Good faith is a two way trade. Dmitri1999 started his editing career by posting several promotional links into articles , examples here and here. On 28th March 2008 he renamed his talk page to Toronto Wedding Photography and then blanked it and marked it for speedy deletion under G11 which happened on 29th March here. It is reasonable to assume that it contained several warnings about promotional conduct which he took great care to make disappear. These actions are the not the actions of a Wikipedia novice. It is clear that the impropriety of commercial promotion was evident to him from the very first days of his editing career. To continue to pursuing promotion of his own business from then till now seems to be taking a blatant disregard to the mores and etiquette of Wikipedia. He is cocking a snoot at the rest of Wikipedia.
I have a concern about licensing which is probably better addressed at commons where his requirements that his commercial web-site addressed must be used in any reproduction of his images.
I also have an issue that many of photographs are not that good or not that relevant. They are probably excellent for commercial weddings but highly manipulated and cropped shots are often un-encyclopaedic as they have lost much of the context that made them accurate, reliable and informative. One replacement made by Dmitri was replacing an existing shot of a Mursi woman with one of his own. Whilst his shot is very dramatic, it is also highly digitally manipulated and has not got the wealth of ethnographic details in the original including the background vegetation, the body jewellery and the original natural colours. On another occasion he replaces a shot with one of his claiming the original has copyright issues here; it doesn't.
My conclusion from all of this and much more including his attacking and belligerent edit summaries is that on Wikipedia his behaviour is disingenuous. There are on Wikipedia very many excellent professional photographers giving their skills for free, unannounced and without fanfares. I am sorry, but in my book, he has reneged on any good-faith that should be extended to him. His material is often worse than other contributors and he hacks off other users with abusive and frankly bullying edit summaries. His behaviour is much more likely to loose other editors and I, for one, shan't put out my hand to say please return. My support if for Hoary  Velella  Velella Talk   21:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
(Further comment inserted here to keep my arguments in one place). The argument that Dmitri is a professional photographer and therefore to be valued for that does not hold water. I know of several very eminent contributors in their respective fields, eminent scientists, business leaders, doctors (physicians) etc. who neither advertise their eminence nor react in an aggressive manner when challenged. I cannot of course verify this without outing named Wikipedians but I am sure than most long experienced Wikipedians will acknowledge that this is true. It is also the case that Dmitri has long experience here and will have encountered the Bold, Revert, Discuss mantra. This has never happened. For Dmitri, it is Bold, Harangue, Restore boastfully. If he were a teenager editing on a school, computer would we have cut him anywhere this amount of slack? I don't believe so.  Velella  Velella Talk   10:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done some more rooting around in the history of Dmitri1999's description of himself:

  • 2010.03.31: Dmitri1999 has his user talk page describe himself, very similarly to the way his user page will later describe himself (before I deleted the latter, and as it describes him now)
  • 2010.05.05: Mean as Custard applies db-spam to the user talk page
  • 2010.05.05: HJMitchell deletes the user talk page (edit summary: Deleted because "CSD G11- advertising or promotion". using TW) (as shown in the log page)
  • 2010.12.04 (04:20): Dmitri1999 voices his displeasure on HJMitchell's talk page. (HJMitchell seems not to have been impressed. The message remains unanswered.)
  • 2010.12.04 (04:28): Dmitri1999 appeals at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion
  • 2010.12.04 (05:56): Protonk restores the user talk page (edit summary: 36 revisions restored: Undeleting since it is a talk page, but will blank) (as shown in the log page)
  • 2010.12.04 (05:56): Protonk blanks the user talk page (edit summary: blanking, explanation at WP:REFUND)
  • 2010.12.04 (05:59): Protonk replies at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion: I've restored the page and blanked it. Notwithstanding the fact that it is your talk page, you may not use any wikipedia page as a personal advertisement. Wikipedia is not the place to host your cv. I can see in the history that you have added that material several times. [...] (There were no later additions to this RfU thread: see archive 25.)
  • 2010.12.07: Dmitri1999 adds this material to his user page.
  • 2011.01.01: Mean as custard blanks the user page (edit summary: Remove self-promotion)
  • 2011.02.21 (03:15): RN1970 reverts the blanking (edit summary: It's a user page, not an article)
  • 2011.02.21 (03:19): RN1970 self-reverts (edit summary: rv. myself, after re-reading WP:USERPAGE)
  • 2011.03.27: Dmitri1999 readds the material to his user page

As I look at this sorry history, I have trouble justifying the presence of this material in the user page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC), slightly edited 03:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The user page should be deleted as blatant advertising, a clear violation of WP:User pages. (But, then, I have virtually zero tolerance for people using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.) I'd nominate it for AfD myself if it wasn't such a pain (since I don't use Twinkle). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't use Twinkle either. The process is indeed a bit tiresome, but most of my time is consumed in thinking about the delete rationale, articulating this, and debugging and polishing the result, tasks in which Twinkle would surely be of no help. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It's following the steps in setting up a discussion which is hard for me - the writing goes easily enough after that. The difficulty isone reason I generally don't nominate articles for AfD (the other is my generally inclusionist leanings). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Commons discussion[edit]

Apologies if this has already been linked, but there is a concurrent discussion happening on Commons' Administrators' Noticeboard. I can't be bothered to read the whole thing, but it appears that the userpage has been restored over there and there is now a proposal to "formally censure all people involved with harassing Dimitri off Commons". I have no opinion on this issue, just pointing it out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the user page there was ever deleted, but I'm not sure how to check. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope, it has never been deleted on Commons. Graham87 07:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Deleting Dmitri's images from articles, and more[edit]

  • I was just browsing wedding articles for an article I am writing for my

photography program at college and after some browsing I found this thread, as I recognized a photograph in the article. I am very surprised he is donating his images. There's a good reason why there are almost no professional photographers contributing...

Dmitri is actually a very well known in Canada among photographers. Even our teacher was mentioning him as one of the best Canadian photographers. I've never met him,but heard a lot of good things about his work over the years from others. His pictures speak for themselves! I can only guess that there's some kind of professional rivalry or personal vendetta that is coming from people who is against him. He is clearly a good photographer and we should be very happy that a photographer of such caliber took the time out of his busy schedule to donate a few pictures.

I don't believe how you've treated(and keep at it) is professional. It is not what Wikipedia should be about.

I found thatUser talk:Velella, User talk:Alvesgaspar and User talk:Hoary have been deleting Dmitri's images from articles even after this discussion had started. Since those users did not care about others opinions, they should be banned or punished. What I understood, Dmitri took it personal when his pictures were being deleted from articles, with accusations of him being a spammer -all of us would be angry! Just look at his latest uploads, they are not linked to any articles,because of the actions of select few people here who took it upon themselves to be the final judge.User talk:Velella in his angry harsh statements above,critiquing the images is clearly someone who is either a)very angry at User talk:Dmitri1999 b)Does not know anything about photography c)color blind As a person who've been involved in photography field for many years, his angry statements are not only wrong,but quite laughable.

I think there are a few things that have to be done to resolve this:

  • Apology to the photographer.
  • Perhaps some disciplinary actions against those 4 individuals(I think it's

only 4,but maybe more were involved.)

  • Maybe creating some kind of a safeguard to avoid the same issues at a later day
  • We may also consider deleting some of defamation statements that were said

by a few of the mentioned individuals. Since you can't proof that it was self-promotion and spam(I can't see any), what you said can be interpreted as libel. In theory, Wikipedia can be taken to court,since it was said against his business.

Then and only then it's fair to assume he may come back. I don't personally see him coming back anytime before at least most of these measures are taken

What's the point of all this discussion if in a week or a month another "hot shot" will come in and start deleting his images from articles. Nobody likes their time and hard work wasted. (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)JWong74.198.9.33 (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It is nice to hear from someone who doesn't have any stake in this whatsoever. Thank you for taking the time to express your unbiased opinion as an unbiased observer. It was lucky that you happened to stumble across this discussion when you did. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Interesting to note that originates from Toronto, which just (coincidentally!) happens to be where Dmitri1999 is from. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, that's some interesting class the IP editor is taking. Talking about notable Canadian photographers, and it's not Yousuf Karsh or Edward Burtynsky they're discussing, it's an obscure wedding photographer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, one class could be about wedding photography. And let's not make gratuitous use of words such as "obscure". -- Hoary (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The use of "obscure" wasn't gratuitous at all, it's based on some Google searching. I also submit that any well-known notable wedding photographer wouldn't have the need to use Wikipedia to promote his or her business. Word-of-mouth would have taken care of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that "obscure" isn't accurate/justified. Or indeed that it is. (Of course, I have my own opinion on this.) I merely say that such a description isn't helpful here, now. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Come on, there's no reason to tip-toe around this and pretend we're all the best of friends, and this is just a misunderstanding between respected colleagues The guy is trying to use us for his own aggrandizement in ways that we don't allow, and then slips in here with a cheap wig and a glued-on mustache pretending to be someone else, so he can wag his finger at how badly we've all behaved. There is absolutely no point in not calling a spade a spade and giving this guy the old heave-ho out the back door. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Emoticon. Now try these discussions, which I venture to say have a certain unintended comic appeal in places. -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
May I start by seconding DC's welcome to you. (Note to others: the discussion that the IP stumbled across was the one at Commons. Seeing that the IP's comment there was at least in part about Wikipedia, I invited him here.) You say:
User talk:Velella, User talk:Alvesgaspar and User talk:Hoary have been deleting Dmitri's images from articles even after this discussion had started. Since those users did not care about others opinions, they should be banned or punished.
And your list of demands includes:
Restoring all the images in articles where User talk:Velella, Alex2006, User talk:Alvesgaspar and User talk:Hoary deleted his images
Before I am banned from Wikipedia and thus unable to make any of these changes (or indeed even apologize for earlier misdeletions), please specify the three most egregious examples of image deletion, whether by me or anybody else. Thank you. -- Hoary (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. Just because Dmitri1999 is a good photographer, doesn't mean any of these are actually useful for an educational project. Everything's staged, full of photographic filters, and of incredibly low resolutions. However, the Commons are likely going to deify him because the community at the Commons praises providers of free content, regardless of the content's possible use amongst the Wikimedia projects or other educational settings. As I can see, this is already happening.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think these factors come into it at all. It's almost impossible to know what some Wikimedia project might need to use in the future, so it's rare that I think an image is out of scope for the Commons -- although it has happened. The important thing (at least to me) is not the technical quality of the images, or their content, but the attempt to use Commons and en.Wiki for promotional purposes. That's an extremely dangerous thing to allow to happen, since it can knock NPOV right off its keester, and there goes any amount of good reputation we've managed to build up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Let's be polite about both the JPEGs and the photographer. But yes, this new discussion, to which you point, about the alleged hounding of Dmitri1999 is fascinating. Surely the tastiest comment is this one, in which an editor recommends righting the injustice by cannibalism. (Of myself, if I understand correctly. Note to anybody salivating: I'm old and lean.) A great pity that this straight-talking editor, briefly mentioned some way above, has declined to join our little discussion here. -- Hoary (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Not so Ryulong. Commons is not, in any way, trying to deify Dmitri's contributions. Look better! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
    It certainly looks that way.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Dmitri1999 may have been treated rather extremely, but... is it just me or did he make a small number of worthwhile edits back in 2007-8, then replace his talk page with a link to his commercial website, hold some brief talk page conversations for a few years, then suddenly reappear on 23 January and start posting a lot of photos on articles? There's nothing wrong with increasing the number of photos on articles, but most of them appear to be his, and this seems to imply he is here to advertise his own commercial venture. No one appears to have contacted him on his user talk page and politely requested that he actually work to improve the encyclopedia a bit before adding any more of his own photos to articles. The Wedding photography article doesn't need any more photographs: it is a mess, with a 5-paragraph-long intro, possible OR issues, and an average of 1-inline-citation-per-400-words. How about requesting that he actually write something to demonstrate his good faith (he is obviously a SPA, but that may or may not be a problem), and then moving on? elvenscout742 (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

For instance, he could add references for "WPJA awards an annual Photographer of the Year Award to recognize the best in wedding photojournalism" before he adds his own photo and claims he won it
Also, I know he's allowed upload photos and ask that due attribution be given off-wiki, but is he allowed upload photos and then insist that we are not allowed to use them on-wiki? Hypothetically, his photos could have been used in 100 articles by now, and asking that they be taken down just because he is the one who took them seems to have that effect.
elvenscout742 (talk) 07:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, he was away for eleven months before reappearing on 23 January, adding his photos. I think that different people have different aptitudes and preferences, and I don't think it's a good idea to expect people to write before they add photos. However, it would of course be good if they at least corrected things here and there, thereby suggesting that they had read the articles and cared about what they said. I also wonder about the wisdom of asking somebody whose edits are in some way problematic to write about the awards that he's won. ¶ Yes, the Wedding photography article is indeed dreadful, and it has long been something of a battleground between would-be (self-) promoters, plural, and defenders of the (crappy) status quo. I suppose one problem is that there's not so much in the way of reliable sources that anybody other than a would-be or current wedding photographer would actually want to read. (There are plenty of books, of course, but who'd want to pay for them?) Perhaps the article most needs one or more contentedly retired wedding photographers, who have a sense of perspective and also have one or two books lying around. As for the use of images, one uploads them to Commons with this or that appropriate license, and that license then stays. (I so I thought.) Wikipedia can then use those images. -- Hoary (talk) 09:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Dmitri has removed most of user page[edit]

With the edit summary "I can see there's a lot of anger so I've decided to delete any "promotional" material so that it would not even be here. I am sorry(I really do) it had caused so much anger in some people towards each other. Life is too short,lets just move on". He's just left "I am a photographer from Canada. I love photography and have dedicated my whole life to it: teaching,taking pictures and traveling the world" with a link to his web page - that should settle this issue. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That's a graceful rewrite; good for Dmitri. This edit inspires me to say that I'd be happy if the discussion above were hatted. -- Hoary (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion under consideration regarding withdrawn case requests[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is currently considering a motion on withdrawn arbitration case requests. The community may comment on the proposed motion in the community comments section.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 21:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am Redux[edit]

Dear all,

Forgive me for posting these lines in the Administrators' Noticeboard, but I figured there would be no other place suitable for this that would provide the visibility I thought would be desirable. I chose the "general" area because this (thank goodness) does not require any specific Admin action.

Anyone who has not been on this project for a long, long time will probably never have seen me around. I have been absent for a long, long time. I left without previous notice or goodbyes, which is something I have always regretted. For whatever it's worth, I am sorry for that.

At one time, I held the flags of Admin (elected in 2005, if memory serves me well) and Bureaucrat on the English-language Wikipedia and Steward of the Wikimedia Foundation, in addition to having the Oversight and Checkuser permissions on the English-language Wikipedia. Since my final departure, in July of 2009, all of those flags have been removed. I support those removals completely and I have no intention of seeking to regain any of those flags.

I had intended to return to the project on several occasions exactly to relinquish the tools, since I felt I had lost the right to have them on account of having left the project and, most importantly, because I could no longer consider myself as being up-to-date with policies and going-ons, and thus could not in good conscience presume to retain the community's permission to use the tools. I noticed, however, that the permissions had been removed due to my inactivity, and since it was more than fair that they would be removed, I decided to move on.

But in all this time I never abandoned Wikipedia, at least not completely. I return to the website daily for its most precious asset: knowledge; and on occasion I read threads on the Noticeboards to try to keep a minimal understanding of the administration of the website.

I return now to say that I would like to contribute once more. Just in a different capacity. I may not have the Administrator tools anymore, but I can perhaps still help with input if it is required. The current Bcrats may also ask any help I can possibly provide... I'm not exactly Cecropia, but maybe my years of experience can still count for something positive.

Thank you all, the current Admins, Bcrats and users for keeping this project alive and well for all these years. Without your selfless dedication, Wikipedia would not be what it is now. It is an honor to rejoin you all in this project I have loved for almost 9 years now. Redux (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, welcome back. I wish more of the old-school admins from the "bad old days" had such a grounded perspective. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Even if you return without any extra bits, oldtimers in general (since I don't actually know you) tend to have more clue than the current average, and any net increase in average clue is welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back! I look forward to seeing you around! --j⚛e deckertalk 01:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Your input would definitely be welcome. We judge cases by individual merit, not the experience of the users; and in many issues, leaving Wikipedia for any length of time would still allow you to give us considerations which perhaps we wouldn't have thought of. And some times, when trying to discuss a potential change in policy, understanding its history may help us make the right decision. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Welcome back, happy editing! GiantSnowman 09:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Welcome back. It is always great to have access to someone who knows the history, and can shed light on why certain things are done this way.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Bem-vindo! When you left I was already around for some time but I don't recall any interaction. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RfA RfC round two[edit]

Hi all, the second of three rounds of the RfA request for comment has started. Please comment with your proposed solution there! Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for interaction ban-lift[edit]

About two months ago, I accepted a ban on interacting with User:Tristan noir.[6] Tristan noir volunteered the same.[7][8] I volunteered for this, because the user had been harassing/undermining me on numerous articles, and seemed to have no other purpose on Wikipedia (almost every edit the user made was to this end). I figured that if I just got him/her banned from following me around various articles, he/she would probably stop editing Wikipedia entirely, and then I could go about my normal practice of improving Wikipedia articles on (classical) Japanese literature. My assumption appeared to be correct, as once the ban was in place the user refrained from making any edits at all.

This worked until about two weeks ago, when I happened to edit[9] an article that I wasn't aware the user had also edited two months before.[10][11][12] The user almost immediately posted a message to the admin who had put the ban in place, and complained about my edit.[13] My edit had nothing whatsoever to do with his/her previous edit, and I made no indication that I was attempting to undermine his/her edit. The user, though, appears to have been watching my edits (or at least that page, although that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban) and waiting to get me blocked if I ever edited that page.

The admin sent me a warning[14] and told me that, even though the original wording of the ban had been to refrain from editing articles that the other was "working on"[15], this now applied even to edits made two months after the other party had made a minor edit to the article. I had been very clear[16][17] when I initially took the ban (I stress voluntarily) that I did not expect to be treated like I had been banned for disruptive behaviour; the admin's applying harsher restrictions on me over a month later, when I had not in fact breached the original ban, therefore seems inappropriate. I understand that the admin may have misunderstood the situation of the article in question, and it is not his/her fault in the matter.

Apparently emboldened by the belief that I would be automatically banned from ever editing an article that he/she had touched, the user then became active on Wikipedia again, and set to work making mostly minor edits to numerous (13 and counting) articles on classical Japanese literature, which is my preferred field.[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] The user had previously only ever edited such articles in order to insert references to otherwise non-notable modern American poets, and as far as I can remember those articles could be counted on one hand, but he/she suddenly became highly prolific when told that I was not allowed edit any article that he/she had ever touched. When I made some edits to a couple of those articles, the user immediately told on me again[31], and I was blocked for 24 hours.[32] The admin also further emphasized the new strict restraints on my ban.[33] While it might look like I followed the user to the latter set of articles (though not the first one, so the initial warning was essentially invalid), the fact is that my edits[34][35][36] were all completely benign and did not mark an "interaction" with the user in question. They had no impact whatsoever on what he/she wrote, and in fact, one of those edits[37] was primarily made to wikilink a relevant article I had just created, and I even took care to maintain his/her prose despite it not matching the article I had started.

I requested[38] an unblock, given these circumstances, but my request was rejected by a second admin based on my having been in breach of a technicality in the interaction ban.[39] The first admin did, however, recommend that I come here to request a lift of the ban.[40]

So here I am.

I am not in any way interested in going back to "interacting" with Tristan noir. However, I need this interaction ban to be lifted (or at least lightened) so that I don't have to check every time I edit an article in my preferred field to see if he/she has edited it first, and don't have to fear getting blocked because of minor technicalities. My interaction ban was initially imposed because I asked for it, and I have since come to realize that it is having the opposite of the positive impact I expected. It is preventing me from fixing these and similar articles, and in fact allows Tristan noir much more freedom than it does me (I have no interest in going around "claiming" articles in his/her special field), despite the ban initially being proposed in order to restrain his/her activities. Most of Tristan noir's recent edits have been benign or somewhat positive. If he/she keeps up this kind of edit, I would be happy to edit the same articles as him/her in a peaceable manner; but under the current ban, I am immediately blocked every time I edit an article that Tristan noir has ever touched.

elvenscout742 (talk) 06:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: as far as I am aware, interaction bans normally do not prohibit the accidental and non-controversial editing of the same articles. Why was this one interpreted/enforced in this uncommonly strict way? Fut.Perf. 07:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
That was my understanding as well, but apparently it was not Tristan noir's, so when he complained about my edit to Mokichi Saitō, Drmies told me off and reverted my edit, even though that edit had been both accidental and non-controversial. In reality I think it was more of a breach for him to be closely following my edits and to immediately complain when I did something he didn't like. But the technicalities of this ban means he is allowed do that and not get blocked, while I am not allowed to edit any of the above pages unless I want to get blocked. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
After looking through contributions, I note that with the exception of Uta monogatari and two related articles, Tristan hasn't been editing pages that look like Japanese poetry until very recently. Were that not the case, your argument would collapse, but it strongly buttresses your case. Meanwhile, you're editing in topics that I can see you were doing at least as far back as 2008. More interestingly, Tristan violated the ban by editing the Mokichi Saitō after you'd done it; complaining about an interaction ban violation and immediately proceeding to do the same thing is a good indicator of lack of good faith. His request to Drmies to sanction you is a good enough warning to himself; I've blocked him for 24 hours for violating his ban. Now: why would he be aware that you'd edited these pages if he weren't watching you? And why would he begin to edit in a completely new field so suddenly? The first question means that he's not leaving you alone, and the second means that you're right about him trying to block you. For this reason, I support unbanning you but leaving his ban in place. Nyttend (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Nytend's proposal, undo the topic ban on Elvenscout only, leaving the topic ban on Tristan in place. My analysis is the same, Tristan violated the ban, not Elvenscout. GregJackP Boomer! 12:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support removing Elvenscout's interaction ban and retaining Tristan's, per Nyttend's analysis (with which I concur). I would also recommend increasing Tristan's block to indef, for wikihounding and gaming the system. Yunshui  13:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Nyttends proposal. Pass a Method talk 14:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Nyttend's analysis, with the admonishment to elvenscout742 to continue staying away from initiating interaction with Tristan as he/she has been doing. Zad68 14:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was not made aware until now of any violation by Tristan. If I had, I would have taken the exact same action I took against Elvenscout. You'll note that the terms of the ban included not editing the same articles (not the same field) because that was part of Elvenscout's original complaint (and it's still part of his complaint--the "undermining" references). Let me add something, if I may: that the ban was voluntary, certainly on Elvenscout's part, is immaterial for the terms of the ban, but shows Elvenscout's good will (which I never doubted), and I was and am more sympathetic to their side than to Tristan's, whose good faith back in November I wasn't completely sure of, but the way the cookie crumbled at ANI, for better or for worse, was the interaction ban with no further actions taken against Tristan. (I hope I am remembering all this correctly, and EdJohnston looked over the terms of the ban as well.) If, as it appears (haven't looked at the diffs yet), Tristan broke the terms too (whether they did it first or not is immaterial) then a block is justified, of course. If I missed, somehow or somewhere, that it was brought to my attention, I am very sorry for it.

    So, if the consensus here turns out to be that Tristan is in fact hounding Elvenscout (something which I did not disagree with at the ANI thread and in conversation with Elvenscout) and their behavior is disruptive enough for an indef block, possibly a ban de facto or de jure, I have no problem with that (or with a continued injunction for Tristan to stay away from Elvenscout, and not vice versa). And let me point out, speaking of crumbling cookies, that the ANI thread could already have ended with that had more editors/admins weighed in. As it was, Anthonyhcole agreed with Elvenscout's charge, but that isn't enough in an ANI discussion to lead to such a drastic solution; the proposed and agreed-upon interaction ban was reasonable given the discussion. We've already had more admin commentary here in less than a day than we had at the ANI discussion that ran for two weeks. I could give you my thoughts on why that went the way it did, but that's mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, it looks to me as if you were fed a rather disingenuous story by Tristan — you didn't know because he didn't tell you. Another sign of bad faith and gaming the system by Tristan, it seems to me: Elvenscout is giving the whole story (I investigated and found nothing substantial that was missing or misrepresented), but Tristan gave only the tiniest threads necessary to show that a ban was violated, with nothing about what he happened to be doing or why he happened to know about Elvenscout's actions. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt it, Nyttend, and I wish that we had had more involvement in the ANI thread: Elvenscout had suggested to me some problems with Tristan's editing (which included a suspicion of involvement with a now-indef blocked editor--don't remember the name, but I'm sure Elvenscout does, and again I hope I'm remembering this correctly) after we got to work on Tanka in English. BTW, the situation on Mokichi Saitō is not so simple since Tristan was indeed the first of the two to edit it; it was Elvenscout revert of those edits that prompted my first warning. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I have been avoiding further comment here to avoid jinxing it (this is the first really positive input I've had with a problem that has been bugging me since September, and I thank you all!), but I need to clarify something: My edit to Mokichi Saitō was not a "reversion" of TN's edit.[41][42] I mostly just cleaned up the refs. This is why I complained when Drmies reverted my edit, although I understand that TN was probably the one who misled Drmies into believing my edit had been in bad faith (it wouldn't be the first time). My edit was not an "interaction" with TN. TN's more recent edits, however, were obviously made in direct response to mine. Therefore, it seems reasonable that their edits should be taken as at least as much of a violation as mine. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • One-way IBANs don't work. A broad TBAN for Tristan would be a better solution. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No objection to that. Whatever's the best way to un-sanction a good contributor without permitting additional disruption from a problematic one. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity's sake (if someone can do this better in terms of lay-out, go ahead and tweak). IBAN for Tristan, supported by Nyttend, GregJackP, Yunshui, Pass a Method, Zad68. Indef block for Tristan: Yunshui. TBAN for Tristan: Nathan Johnson, Nyttend. I support any unban of Elvenscout and any kind of ban for Tristan at this moment. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I think if we are going to count GregJackP one way or the other, we need clarification. There seems to have been a misunderstanding, as neither of us was ever under a de jure TBAN, but my main problem now is that Tristan has been creating a de facto TBAN for me. GregJackP, though, seems to be in favour of a TBAN for Tristan. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd support a topic ban as well as/instead of an IBAN; Nathan's argument makes sense. Am I really the only one angling for an indef block? God, I'm an inhuman monster... Yunshui  23:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
If it means anything, I'd support an indef block. Tristan noir has essentially been following me for five months now, and the only edits he ever made to Wikipedia before that were to an article he created that I can't even show you because it was blocked for being a blatant copyright violation. But honestly a poetry ban would probably work just as well, since he'll stop editing altogether once he is told he's not allowed hound me anymore. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support lifting of all bans on User:Elvenscout742 and imposing topic ban on User:Tristan noir. Nyttend's analysis looks watertight to me, and it seems clear that Tristan noir has been hounding Elvenscout742 and laying traps in the hope of either provoking an inadvertent interaction ban breach or preventing the editing of a large number of items. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Response: My comments here may be wasted effort. It appears that Elvenscout742’s request above to modify or lift the interaction ban that we mutually volunteered to accept has now, through the zeal of various editors, been transformed into a general indictment of this user. That nine editors have cast a vote before waiting for my reply strongly suggests that any argument I offer is destined to fall upon deaf ears. I did not intend to try the patience of those present by my tardiness but my appearance was briefly delayed by my being placed under a 24 hour editing ban by Nyttend within one hour of Elvenscout’s opening of this appeal at WP:ANI. That troubled me briefly, as it seemed effectually to grant Elvenscout 24 hours to build a consensus while I struggled to dislodge the gag from my mouth, but c’est la vie where, in love as in war, all is fair. Nevertheless, let me attempt a summary, in good faith, of the situation as I see it.

1) The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.”
2) Elvenscout violated these terms, as he himself admits, with an edit to Mokichi Saitō. He asserts that his edit was benign and that there was no cause for this user to complain to an administrator. What he conveniently neglects to report is that my complaint involved two edits. The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. In the past few days, Elvenscout on his talk page here, here and here might be viewed as having violated the interaction ban yet again by referencing this user by name and recycling old personal attacks against me.
3) One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. It appears that said editors are merely blindly accepting Elvenscout’s allegations at face value. The diffs I offer immediately above and below this paragraph show that if anyone is guilty of hounding or gaming, it is Elvenscout.
4) Elvenscout’s representation that I followed him “around various articles” is made without evidence. His recent 24 hour editing ban, however, came about as a result of his following me directly to five different articles, not one of which he’d edited previously, as documented in my complaint here. This is the same behavior that Elvenscout exhibited with me previously and is one of the chief reasons I volunteered to accept an interaction ban originally. Without dredging up the entire, sad history, I offer only a few examples of Elvenscout’s pre-interaction ban hounding. I attempted to disengage myself from earlier controversies with Elvenscout with an edit on Sept 18 of Haibun but was promptly tracked there by Elvenscout with this edit on Sept 21. Similarly, I offered an edit on Oct 6 of Prosimetrum but was shadowed there, within hours, by this edit of Elvenscout’s. In each instance, Elvenscout had never edited the articles previously and in each instance he engaged this user, and other participating editors, in lengthy talk-page debates that, with subsequent Rfcs and dispute resolutions initiated by him, further disrupted progress on the articles in question.
5) Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. He is entitled to his speculations, of course, but I don’t see why his idle daydreaming should be granted any particular weight in this discussion. No one is required to do more than they wish to do here at Wikipedia; all editing is voluntary.
6) Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban (and specifically Drmies’ decision that neither party was to edit an article the other editor had previously edited) somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. I’ve edited 13 articles (by Elvenscout’s count) since imposition of the interaction ban. A look at his edit history will show that he has edited considerably more. I will allow him to be his own accountant. My point, however, is that I’m thereby restricted from a much larger group of articles than is E. due to E’s prolific editing. And I am not whining about it.
7) Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind and, where editors other than Elvenscout have worked upon the same articles, I’ve had no complaints (and no controversies). No article on Wikipedia is the possession of any party, and much less does anyone hold a deed to his preferred field. Classical Japanese literature is somewhat larger, by my estimate, than a modest 13 articles and Elvenscout has room, and more than enough of it, to edit to his heart’s content.
8) Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Is seniority a factor in determining the issue here, viz., whether or not an interaction ban should be lifted or modified?
9)The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. As an aside, while Nyttend subsequently reverted my edits at Mokichi Saitō, he allowed the offending edit by Elvenscout to stand (since Elvenscout had unilaterally taken it upon himself to revert Drmies’ previous revert of the same). That, along with the timing of the block that has delayed my response, call into question Nyttend’s neutrality in this matter.
10) Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked.

If I’ve neglected anything in my comments, I’m confident that I can rely upon my old friend Elvenscout to point it out.Tristan noir (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to points where you mention me. (8) Elvenscout obviously was editing in this field before the ban, but you essentially weren't. I brought it up simply because it's part of the evidence that you're following him around and trying to get in his way. (9) You got Elvenscout blocked for editing an article you'd edited; what do you expect to happen when you edit an article he's edited? Who created the page is irrelevant; it's the fact that you're sticking to the letter of the law and ignoring its spirit, a course of action that's generally seen as problematic. One final thing: I know absolutely nothing of Japanese poetry; the only reason that I got involved here was this thread. I was convinced that Elvenscout was in the right and you in the wrong, both because of Elvenscout's arguments and because I investigated and saw his statements to be true; I've never heard of either of you before, as far as I can remember, so I couldn't be biased or think better of one of you beforehand. Nyttend (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I see, Nyttend, how in good faith you may have misinterpreted the editing situation with respect to Mokichi Saitō and judged at that time that your 24 hour block was just. However, Drmies, with this edit two days ago, informed you that the situation with respect to that article was indeed as I described it and contrary to how Elvenscout has misrepresented the facts here. And yet you continue to impute bad faith (immediately above) to me on this score and continue to believe that the block, despite the clear history that Drmies offered you, was justified. More disturbing, however, is that you limit your comments to points I made about you and ignore the substantial evidence I provided above of Elvenscout's questionable edits and behavior.Tristan noir (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT) I don't know why I even need to bother at this point, since everyone present knows what's going on, but I will attempt to briefly explain TN's above misrepresentations anyway.
      • The terms of the interaction ban were set by the closing administrator, Drmies, and not by me. The terms of that ban, as Drmies can testify, departed slightly from WP:IBAN in specifying that neither user was allowed to edit an article that the other user was “working on.” I read Drmies’ original ban and understood it. Elvenscout, by his own admission, read it “differently.” Yes, I read it as meaning what it says: if TN "has been working on" an article, I am not allowed show up suddenly and begin editing it, which would be a clear interaction. One short series of edits several months earlier does not count as "being working on", and my making a benign edit to clean up the citations a bit does not count as an inappropriate interaction. At least in my reading.
      • The other edit specifically references this user by name, in clear violation of the interaction ban, and merely regurgitates personal attacks he had made regarding me on various pages. I specifically did not ask Drmies in my complaint to ban Elvenscout; I simply asked if he would remind Elvenscout of the terms so that we might all proceed down our separate roads amicably. I didn't mention it (except in a parenthetical statement) because I felt it was irrelevant to my request to be allowed edit articles on classical Japanese literature. (Did I not say "that seems unlikely given his other claim of me breaching the ban"?[43] I also provided the diff, so that anyone reading could judge TN's words for themselves.) I did, however, point out that TN's noticing my edits to completely unrelated pages indicates that he spent the two months he was not editing articles closely following my edits. The fact is that it was not a violation of an interaction ban with TN, because it was a direct response to another user who brought TN up without knowing the facts. That user has since been blocked indefinitely for harassing/threatening me.
      • One or two editors above assert that I have been wikihounding Elvenscout and gaming the system. Elvenscout has offered no diffs to demonstrate that this is the case nor has any other party to this discussion. By my count I have provided 33 diffs in my above post. TN's edit history clearly indicates that, when told he was not allowed interact with me, he stopped editing for well over a month, and his first edit upon returning was to complain about me.[44][45][46] Shortly thereafter he started editing prolifically[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63] [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] [75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87], in an area he knows I am interested in (no diffs -- just look at Talk:Uta monogatari/Archive 1 and Talk:Tanka prose for myriad examples of me showing TN my reverence for this area -- well, just the first time we interacted maybe[88]). He must also recall that I created the article on uta monogatari[89], and he recently attempted to block me from editing the article on the second most famous uta monogatari, Yamato Monogatari.[90][91][92] Why did TN suddenly become so interested in classical Japanese literature when he was told I was not allowed to edit articles that he have edited? And why, when he had only edited around 10 articles in his previous four years on Wikipedia, did he suddenly edit 13 such articles in the space of a week?
      • Elvenscout makes much ado about my absence from editing Wikipedia from Dec 9 until Jan 20. One has to admit, it is suspicious that between August 2008 and September 2012, TN made only about 30 edits, all to the same article, then when I edited that article he suddenly started editing on an almost daily basis, interacting with me constantly, and then he suddenly stopped editing for close to two months.
      • Elvenscout complains above that the interaction ban ... somehow favors this user while excessively inhibiting him. Yes, I do. And I specify the reason. I am not interested in "claiming" articles that I am not interested just to spite TN. His actions over the last few days clearly indicate that he is. Therefore, while TN is not prohibited from editing in his favourite area (apparently modern English poetry) at all, I am currently banned from touching the 14 or so articles on Japanese literature that he has edited.
      • Elvenscout above implies that my editing of 13 articles in his “preferred field, classical Japanese literature,” somehow impinges upon his freedom. That he had not chosen to edit these articles prior to my doing so may call into question exactly how he has been constrained, but . . . . He also repeatedly remarks that I am somehow “claiming” these articles as my own. I’ve done nothing of the kind Which other editors has TN allowed to edit? The early history of the article at Uta monogatari clearly showed (at least until it got blocked for CO violations) that while TN will allow edits he likes, he will not allow edits he doesn't like. And this post clearly indicates that he doesn't want me editing these pages, regardless of how benign my edits were. Did he intend to add a link to Tōnomine Shōshō Monogatari to the article on Fujiwara no Takamitsu himself? Or would he have allowed another user to introduce that wikilink at some time down the line (who knows how many years that could take)? What is wrong with me introducing the link immediately? Given that the previous article I created was shortly accused of being an orphan, surely it is natural to want to link the article to its most obvious partner?
      • Nyttend’s argument above that I only recently began editing Japanese articles and that Elvenscout has done so since 2008 seems beside the point. Actually, I agree that seniority is not so important here. That is why I didn't point out that actually my first edit to Wikipedia under this account back in 2005 (I edited anonymously for a while) was about Japanese literature (interpreted broadly, if the Kojiki is literature). However, the fact is that TN only started editing these articles immediately upon being told that he could block me from editing them. I don't know why he thought he could get away with such blatant gaming of the system, or why he thought I would not appeal the ban under such circumstances.
      • The 24 hour editing block that Nyttend placed me under at or about the same time that he offered his argument above was for edits to Mokichi Saitō that, in his judgment, violated the interaction ban. The fact, however, is that I first edited that article, that Drmies with his warning to Elvenscout reverted the same’s transgressing edit, and that I therefore believed, given the terms Drmies had previously stipulated, that I was free to continue to edit that article. Ummm... actually, as I have stated numerous times now, my initial edit was not a violation because it was an accident. It was made two months after TN's most recent edit.[93][94] The edit that got TN blocked, however, was made nine hours after my most recent edit, and not long before he contacted Drmies making it clear that he was aware of my most recent edit and was unapologetic about editing the article nonetheless.[95][96][97]
      • Drmies, above, refers to “a suspicion of [Tristan’s] involvement with a now-indef blocked editor.” I’m not certain where that odd tidbit came from, but I do not now nor have I had in the past any involvement with anyone indefinitely blocked. I have already posted on Drmies' talk page about that. Basically, he was confusing TN's meatpuppet Kujakupoet with the now-banned user who bizarrely cited TN in a dispute I was having with him, User:JoshuSasori. Also, it might be noted that TN was clearly reading my page User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal, as he referred to it in his first edit of this year.[98] So he was clearly at least aware of my dispute with JoshuSasori.
And that, my friends, is why the previous ANI (and numerous other earlier attempts to deal with this problem) failed: TN posted a massive diatribe against me, taking various facts out of context, forcing me to respond in an equally lengthy post.[99][100][101][102][103][104] It's a good thing some good admins were able to follow this problem before this happened this time. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── And the above complaint of a “massive diatribe” from yours truly, my friends, is further evidence of Elvenscout’s hypocrisy. Read the prior ANI at your own risk and you will discover how Elvenscout can, by sheer doggedness, talk friend and foe alike to death.

Or look at the simple evidence before you here. Elvenscout has contributed eight posts and nearly 3000 words to this ANI thread. This is my third post and I’ve yet to hit the 1500 mark. True, he did have the minor advantage of a 24 hour headstart. How has he used it? To argue in self-serving fashion that Japanese literature “broadly construed” is his “preferred field” and one that others should not be allowed to trespass. One might humor his flawed logic if he were not on the verge of convincing others here that Japanese literature as broadly construed is indeed his personal possession.Tristan noir (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • My misremembering an association with a blocked editor (Elvenscout has cleared this up on my talk page already) has no bearing on this dispute: if Tristan had been associated with such an editor that wouldn't change the facts of the matter. I mentioned it to indicate that early on I was already convinced that one side in this ongoing dispute was more right than the other, not to taint the other side. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Break for convenience[edit]

Regarding the block, I don't generally see this kind of situation as an interaction worthy of a block, but in this situation, Tristan had seen it as an interaction, and since everyone should be treated as equals, I decided to respond to the situation on Tristan's terms. I would have hesitated anyway if I'd not been convinced that Tristan was editing in bad faith. Can we declare right now that Elvenscout is unbanned and then return to Tristan? Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that consensus was already pretty-well established. I am sure Tristan doesn't want to see me unbanned, but this isn't his decision. How does unbanning work? elvenscout742 (talk) 09:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
We say, "you're unbanned," and you are. Since I think I'm right in saying that all commentators so far have accepted that elvenscout should be free to edit again, I think it's safe to assume that the consensus is precisely that. You may freely edit articles on which Tristan has been working (although use your common sense and try and avoid getting into another spat with him - if you find yourself heading that way, ask for help). If anyone disagrees, this would be a good time to say so. As for Tristan, I've already said my piece, but the consensus seems to be to allow him to edit under some sort of ban - I'd propose a broadly-construed topic ban on articles relating to Japanese literature, myself. Yunshui  11:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
That seems good. No one has been arguing for a narrow TBAN, but Nyttend mentioned Japanese "poetry" a few times. Banning Tristan from only poetry articles seems inappropriate, though, since of the thirteen articles I mentioned above, only three or four could possibly be taken as "poetry" articles. Japanese literature (broadly-construed) sounds like a good idea. I am also worried that without an IBAN (and I agree a one-way IBAN is problematic), Tristan might follow me to, say, Talk:Tales of Moonlight and Rain#Requested move 2, but a Japanese literature ban would prevent this. elvenscout742 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I misread what you said originally about Japanese literature, thinking that you'd said just poetry. No objections. Nyttend (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Earlier today, Elvenscout sought to assure Drmies here, contrary to my assertion in point 2 of my Response above, that he had never violated the interaction ban by referencing me on Wikipedia by name. His exact words there are as follows: Additionally, he has claimed that the other edit mentioned him by name: you will notice that nowhere in the prose of any past version of User:Elvenscout742/JoshuSasori rebuttal did I use TN's name.

This is typical of the misrepresentation of fact practised by Elvenscout and is further reason why participants here should look closely at the diffs I offered in my response. Elvenscout, as I reported to Drmies in my original complaint and as I reported on this thread, did indeed violate the ban not only my mentioning me by name but by launching a personal attack here on Jan. 19. His exact words in that edit, contrary to his denial before Drmies, were: This is a reference to a dispute I had with another user, whose activities on Wikipedia were limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars. The user had also continuously worked to undermine my edits to numerous articles on Japanese poetry and art, and continuously relied on ad hominem attacks against me rather than reliable sources. The hyperlink leads the reader directly to my contributions page and the whole remark is placed conveniently, lest the reader not get Elvenscout's point, under the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir.

In a similar spirit, Elvenscout, in edits to his own talk page on Jan. 30 here, here and here, again violates the ban by referencing me directly while recycling for the thousandth time his old attacks against me.

These four instances, and the vitriol of the remarks made by Elvenscout in them, seriously call into question Elvenscout’s good faith and veracity.Tristan noir (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves, Tristan mentioned my name four times in his block appeal, so why is he allowed mention me by name and not vice versa? elvenscout742 (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I looked through contributions and followed links carefully, not knowing whether to trust Elvenscout or to disbelieve him because I'd never heard of you or him. This includes edits that I checked because I felt like it even though nobody had linked them; if Elvenscout were trying to frame you, I would have caught it. Yes, Elvenscout's comments are rather long, but why do you look at the speck of sawdust in Elvenscout's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to him, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from his eye. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I recognize this logion of Yeshua’s from my visits to Sunday School, Nyttend, and I will thank you for reminding me of it. We are all sinners. I wish, however, that you would address my remarks immediately above, since they, like my initial response which you seem largely to have ignored, are pertinent to any argument being made about lifting or modifying an interaction ban.Tristan noir (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Tell me Tristan: can you demonstrate that your activities on Wikipedia were not limited almost entirely to posting spam links and the fringe theories of non-notable pseudo-scholars?? How would you have me respond, when another user who knows nothing of our interaction attempts to misrepresent me as a disruptive user by pointing to your negative interaction with me? Should I just ignore it?? What about when that other user is threatening my real-world career and basing it purely on a misunderstanding about my motives? Or, did I accidentally threaten your real-world career by deleting the advertisements you posted on Haibun[105], Haiga[106], Tanka prose etc.?? If so, I apologize, but you really shouldn't have posted those links to Wikipedia in the first place, as WP:SPAM and WP:OVERLINK, as well as WP:ELNO, are quite clear on that. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Elvenscout, I’m sympathetic to the straights you were placed in by Joshu Sasori’s real-life threat and I agree that his indefinite block for making that threat was justified. What was not excuseable, and what was a direct violation of WP:IBAN, was your dragging my name into your conflict with another user and, while doing so, taking the opportunity to attack me personally yet again. So, I’m sorry about your problem with the other user. Beyond that, my above comments stand.Tristan noir (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
As Tristan well knows from reading the page, I did not "drag his name" into anything. What he above calls "the clear sub-heading User:Tristan noir" is not a sub-heading and he knows it. The page does not have original sub-headings as JoshuSasori's attack page did; it consists of a series of alternating quotations from JoshuSasori's page and my responses. The headings in the article contents are all JoshuSasori's original headings, but any other text he used has been marked as a quote. Since Tristan brought a specific edit I made to the page to the attention of Drmies, he must be aware that the code for the "sub-heading" as he calls it was "<blockquote>[[User:Tristan noir]] - []</blockquote> ".
I have now pointed this factoid out numerous times, and yet he has persisted in honing in on it rather than focusing on the problem. This is something he engaged in on Talk:Tanka in English and numerous other pages, where he will go off on rants about the publishing industry and completely ignore the actual content of my edits.[107][108][109][110][111][112][113] THIS is why I volunteered to initiate an interaction ban with him, a ban he broke when he started closely following my edits despite not making any of his own, and when he tricked Drmies into thinking that I had reverted his edits to the article Mokichi Saitō.
Also, this discussion of whether or not I violated an interaction ban is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Consensus was already established that the interaction ban never should have applied to me because I did not make any disruptive edits, and the interaction ban has already been lifted from me. Now we are trying to disuss what should be done with Tristan noir: I therefore would like to politely ask Tristan to refrain from any further discussion of my behaviour, and instead focus on telling those present why he should not be placed under a broad TBAN for his recent pattern of disruptive behaviour. Perhaps he should start by explaining to us why he made a pointy edit[114] to Tanka, a couple of spammy edits[115][116][117] to Haibun, and the now famous edits to Mokichi Saitō, but otherwise showed no interest whatsoever in JLit until told he could block me from editing those articles and suddenly edited thirteen JLit articles in the space of a week.
elvenscout742 (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I was unaware that you, Elvenscout, were directing traffic here. I thought you were merely another participant like me. Your "explanation" of your edits above, before you enter upon your Tristam Shandy-like digression, is amusing and disingenuous. Nevertheless, this discussion is open and ongoing. No one has formally closed it and no one has issued a ruling one way or the other. So, like it or not, your conduct, like my own, is open to review.Tristan noir (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Since not one commentator on this discussion (which has now been open for four days) has so much as suggested that elvenscout's IBAN be retained, I stand by my earlier statement, which I reiterate here for clarity: Elvenscout is, by community consensus, no longer banned from editing pages which have previously been edited by Tristan noir. The question now is whether or not to impose a topic ban, continued one-way interaction ban, or indefinite block on Tristan noir. Yunshui  08:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban/Interaction ban/Indef block of Tristan noir[edit]

Okay. I'm summarizing the above results in a table. If I can be forgiven for reading GregJackP's initial vote as being in favour of a TBAN (since he said "topic ban" twice, and seems to have simply misread Nyttend's proposal), and taking both Nyttend and Drmies as now supporting "any of the above" (whatever the majority consensus otherwise would be), it goes as follows:

One-way IBAN "Japanese literature" TBAN Indef block Any of the above
Pass a Method GregJackP Yunshui Nyttend
Nathan Johnson Stalwart Drmies
Boing! said Zebedee Zad68

-- elvenscout742 (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted GregJackP for his approval on my above interpretation. He did say he supported Nyttend's initial proposal, which was specifically an IBAN, so I guess we shouldn't count him out for an IBAN just yet. Also, can we take the TBAN topic as being "Japanese literature"? elvenscout742 (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm allowed count myself (is this a community consensus or, being AN, an admin thing?), but I must admit to an ulterior motive for being in favour of an indef block: if Tristan noir weren't still around, this redirect could finally be dealt with. It only exists because Tristan noir unilaterally derailed an AfD, and despite his promise he has made no attempt to perform the merge that was suggested. Thanks to Drmies's fixing the page, a merge is likely no longer possible. But none of the proposed solutions (other than indef) address this minor issue. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Comment #14 (and counting) by E. to this thread. I doubt that anyone here will object, Elvenscout, to your liberal offer to count yourself in the tally. Why not add your vote (or 14 votes, if you prefer) to your table above?Tristan noir (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding in a new heading since Elvenscout has had their topic ban lifted and the discussion has moved on to a discussion of sanctions that are to be applied to Tristan noir. I have no view in this matter, just merely making the threads easier to track. Blackmane (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I support a topic ban on Tristan, in the area of Japanese literature, broadly interpreted. GregJackP Boomer! 12:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Support some kind of action, elven shouldn't have to put up with nonsense, especially as elven is doing content development in an area that really requires a rare skillset on en.wp, consider my !vote to support any/all of the above. Zad68 21:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support indef block. I proposed the original mutual bans because the content disputes were distracting both from content creation. The lifting of bans for Elvenscout has been well explained and dealt with. As soon as the ban was imposed, TN disappeared after only two more minor edits in early December. With no further contributions of his own (but obviously all the while keeping a close eye on E's contributions) TN suddenly re-appeared out of the blue at the end of January to report a "gotcha" breach to Drmies. There's been a spurt of editing activity since to suggest a "contribution" but I'm not convinced. The hounding alone is concerning enough. Time to shut this down and move on. Stalwart111 22:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The facts are quite simple. E and I both volunteered for an interaction ban that Stalwart111 first proposed. Further, E, as I’ve demonstrated in the diffs in my Response above, violated that ban by referencing me (and negatively) in his user’s space and on his talk page, contrary to WP:IBAN. Elvenscout also violated the letter and spirit of the ban by following me to five articles he’d not previously edited, contrary to the specific terms of the ban as stipulated by Drmies, and he did so within days of being directly warned by Drmies that such activity would lead to a block. All of this is documented in my Response, and this evidence remains unaddressed by E’s apologists here.Tristan noir (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You hadn't made a single contribution since 9 December. On 19 January, E linked to your contributions to give a current dispute some context. A breach of the IBAN? Sure, maybe. But the very next day, you popped up again, having just happened to log back in the day after he made that edit? And you just happened to be looking through his edits? And you just happened to find the "gotcha" moment you reported? So my questions are these - how is that not hounding? And, how many times did you have to log in during that month-and-a-bit of zero edits to constantly trawl his contributions for mentions of you? Your 24-hour response time suggests at least once-a-day. But it doesn't really matter. Your wiki-stalking is far more serious and disruptive than a taken-out-of-context, context-giving link that might have breached a voluntary IBAN, in my opinion. And the other editors seem to agree, to the point where E's part of the ban has been lifted. Serious enough to finally confirm you are WP:NOTHERE to actually build an encyclopedia in a collegial manner. Serious enough to warrant a block. Stalwart111 08:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi everyone. Could some MiszaBot II guru take a look at history for AN/I archive #784, which is the current one as I write this? In these two consecutive archiving edits, MiszaBot appears to have duplicated itself, i.e. added the same three AN/I threads to the archive, so that they are currently represented there twice. Many thanks, --OhioStandard (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The Misza Guru is found here: User talk:Misza13 NE Ent 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks like the bot got interrupted between step one (copy content to archive) and step two (remove from ANI). Not a big deal, I've reverted the second archiving. NE Ent 03:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Ent! You're the best. Why aren't you an admin, btw? You'd sail through, and I expect half the admins ( or more ) on this board would be willing to nominate you. I'm not an admin, either. I'm far too sporadic in my editing for one thing, and I've edited in a very controversial topic area, which would certainly sink me, if I were to attempt it. --OhioStandard (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)*/
Because he doesnt want to be ;) Personally I think we should take the Pope route and elect him 'Admin by Acclamation' and his wishes on the matter be disregarded. (Just kidding Ent!) Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I agree; I hear the roar! Besides, who cares what he wants? ;-) It's not like he'd be forced to actually use the tools ... but I bet he would use them, once he had them. That was one of the funniest edit summaries I've seen in a good long while, too. --OhioStandard (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's one article that I found intriguing.[edit]

I was browsing the net rather lazily when I found this piece of article here in a personal blog that I think people should check once. It deals with Wikipedia's mismanagement of the RFP/C page. People, I ask you to give suggestions and opinions on what could be done. Thanking you, Wiki4Blog 16:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting. I wouldn't suggest "any admin", though, I'd suggest guiding them to a category (like we do for RevDel) of administrators with an interest in that particualr kind of request, presumably admins that would somewhat self-select for availability and newcomer-friendliness. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't find it particularly interesting except that I am pretty sure this user just blew their attempt at a WP:CLEANSTART because they are mad that their new account didn't get confirmed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I believe that my RFP/C was accepted in under 20 minutes. (I'd been working heavily in RCP, and AIV had been protected due to some IP-hopping troll.) So, clearly it's not an entirely useless process. That said, from an editor retention point of view, I think that there are definitely some processes here frequented by newcomers that are rather confusingly run. (WP:CHU would be another example.) Perhaps a bot or some scripts could help with them? I'm thinking here of the issue raised in the post of questions that go unanswered -- new users might not fully get how their watchlist works, so they can't be fully expected to see that they've been asked a question. But, as for any thoughts of shutting down the process, I'd say that that would be highly overkill. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course, I couldn't read the blog from here due to filtering, but found another way to read it. What a load of bollocks. Not just bollocks, but huge festering bollocks. I patrol RFP/C regularly (as in: multiple times a day), as do a few other admins. How "credible" is the blogger when they don't say that? I'm also the one who designed the {{RFPC}} template so that we had some standard, friendly replies to the most common questions/requests. Reality is that RFP/C is probably the most misunderstood board, but we've tried again and again to make it more understandable, all the way to the box at the top that says "if your sole reason for being confirmed is to upload images, go HERE instead". There's a good reason that a new editor is not autoconfirmed when they create their account. Manual confirmations therefore should be extremely rare, and indeed the following are almost instant: the Bot of an established editor; the alternate account of an established editor; someone who desires to save a Book. The nd95 switch on the RFPC template basically says "look, we protect pages for a reason, and here's how to proceed - with a couple of great policy documents to read...and hey, only some of our pages are actually protected, so you do not need to be confirmed to edit most of this project". Anyway, the blog is someone whinging, poorly. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that RFP/C is very well-run. While we're on the topic, though, I'd like to note that perhaps it would be useful to create a matching series of templates to drop on users' talk pages when their requests are denied or when they're asked a question? Seeing as it's a page frequented by users who don't quite understand how certain things work around here, some redundancy could be helpful. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 14:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


Everyone involved was unnecessarily rude, but further discussion is only producing more heat than light. No action is likely to come from this nor is any block warranted. Perhaps all the involved parties should go have a tea. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 13:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I reverted an uncivil and uncalled for message from Fram on Kumioko's talk page ("Of course, you have long ceased to be a productive editor, but why let reality get in the way of rhetorics?"). talk page history. Kumioko is "retired" and is editing from an IP. Fram reverted. I reverted again and left a message at Fram's talk page. Fram reverted with a the comment "Fuck off and reread policy, Bgwhite. You are out of line here" and left a message at my talk page.

Fram's comment to Kumioko is obvious trolling and is a derogatory comment, which can be removed per WP:RUC. Fram's comments to me to Fuck off is also uncalled for. Fram being an admin makes this even worse. Bgwhite (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Demiurge1000 has since reverted Fram's edit on Kumioko's talk page and also left a note at Fram's talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that Fram's comments were inappropriate. For the record, Kumioko and I have not gotten along, but Fram should not have left those derogatory comments regardless. --Rschen7754 10:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, as I noted on Fram's talk page, it's Fram's comment "I miss my weekly dose of Kumioko-getting-laughed-out-of-the-room" that I personally consider to qualify as "derogatory" as listed in WP:NPA. (It's also tasteless grave-dancing, given its placement on the talk page of another editor that Fram has apparently succeeded in driving from the project.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh, quite a neutral comment there. "another editor that Fram has apparently succeeded in driving from the project." No, it was Kumioko's block (under his previous account) and his failed RfA that drove him off the project, basically; neither of which I had anything to do with. But please, feel free to list the other editors I "succeeded in driving from the project". Fram (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
By the way, how can it be "grave-dancing" if it is a reply to a comment the editor made about me today? Please stick to the facts. Fram (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Below you say "Kumioko was blocked for making a personal attack about me", but here you think you don't have anything to do with him "retiring"? Facts, we've certainly heard of them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Hey Bgwhite, you know, you are an admin as well! You could have followed WP:RUC and come to my talk page to discuss things, instead of just removing my comment from someone else's talk page. Or you could have checked the background a bit, and have seen that my comments were rather accurate. Kumioko has changed from a productive editor into an time-wasting but otherwise ineffective (and often inadvertently quite hilarious) troll.
Over the last few weeks, Kumioko has accused me of harassing an editor, tried to get an interaction ban between me and Rich farmbrough (swiftly closed), and started 4 AfDs on articles I created (all speedily kept). All quite funny, but even the best jokes can get tiresome if they continue for too long. What directly lead to the current situation is the discussion about what to do with Richard Arthur Norton, with the pending ArbCom case I started. Since I wille be offline for the next week (starting tomorrow), I created User:Fram/RAN evidence. You can see the note I put at the top of that page and judge whether creating such a page is acceptable or not. Kumioko felt the need to jump into the middle of the Richard Arthur Norton discussion and post (as an IP, without disclosing who he actually was as an editor): [118]. This is basic trolling and harassment, but I didn't feel the need to waste the time of AN (or another venue) with such rather pathetic attempts, instead giving Kumioko a mild version of what he deserved on his talk page instead. Some editors clearly fail to see the whole picture, so here we are.
But since we are now here, and we can't have an AN section without some admin action being called for (what admin action did you want, Bgwhite?), I would propose that Kumioko (and his IPs obviously) is indef blocked for trolling, and/or topic banned from commenting on me. IF more diffs are neede for this, just ask and I'll provide! Fram (talk) 10:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Demiurge doesn't like Fram. Fram doesn't like Demiurge. Okay. Unless you two want to kiss and make up, I don't see this portion of the discussion going anywhere. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 13:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bgwhite is an administrator? You should count yourself lucky then, Fram. If Bgwhite went by the same approach you do in handing out blocks to people you've disagreed with, they wouldn't have needed to revert your personal attack and post to your talk page - they could've just gone right ahead and blocked you instead. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Demiurge, you are getting way out of line here. Can you please post any evidence of my approach of "handling out blocks to people you've disagreed with"? Accusing me of violating WP:INVOLVED certainly warrants some evidence. Fram (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure thing, Fram. Here is a diff to my second comment in opposition to your ultimately unsuccessful attempt to get User:LauraHale banned from DYK; on 6 November 2012. Here is a diff of your deciding to block me on an unrelated matter two weeks later (a block which at least two uninvolved admins said was unnecessary). And then here is a diff where, about two weeks later again, you bring up that block as a reason why I shouldn't be allowed to review, oh, surprise surprise, a DYK nomination by, surprise surprise, User:LauraHale. (A nomination which you at least twice tried to get marked as failed.) If your block was nothing to do with the disagreement over LauraHale's DYK nominations, why would you bring up the block in that context only a couple of weeks later?
Now, should you be blocked for your personal attacks, or should we start looking at other ways to curb your abuse of your administrator privileges that were so wisely conferred upon you in 2007 with a few dozen "per nom" and "looks good to me" comments? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
At the time of the block, no, I did not remember that you had opposed a proposal I made. That block was upheld by multiple admins (one of the admins that disagreed with it, Fluffernutter, later changed his mind, see the "ETA" post he made afterwards; I see no other admin disagreeing with the block there. Full discussion at [119]. But I block so few editors that at the time of the second discussion, I clearly remembered having blocked you. But thanks for pointing out that your reversal of my comments on Kumioko's talk page, and your comments here, are not really observations by an unbiased outsider... Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
So this is a cute reversal of the Mbz1 strategy, is it? If you block enough people that disagree with you, then you can discount their opinions as "not really observations by an unbiased outsider" whenever your abuse is exposed?
You haven't explained why you felt it appropriate to raise the subject of the block in a discussion about a completely unrelated content issue two weeks later, if the block was (so you'd have us believe) nothing to do with a dispute about that same issue that occurred two weeks prior to it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Again: when I blocked you, I didn't recognise your name as someone I had been in a dispute with (I recognised your name, but your involvement in the LauraHale topic ban discussion didn't specifically register). At the later DYK discussion, I recognised your name as that of someone I had recently blocked though (I still didn't seem to remember it as someone who had also opposed the LauraHale topic ban, judging from that discussion). The reason you came to that DYK review seemed to be solely to oppose my view and to start attacking me ("Sorry, but DYK is not Fram's personal playground. And my apologies to Crisco (and anyone else involved) for my accidentally implying any complicity with, or support for, the mudslinging.") Note that after you approved the hook over my objections, other (unbiased) editors came along, and agreed with me: Template:Did you know nominations/Eric Bickerton. So perhaps I wasn't so misguided in doubting your motives there. Fram (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
No, actually the nomination was ultimately promoted despite your failing it twice. Why is it that you have the right to malign other editors' motives, but if someone questions your motives, we're treated to this ridiculous whining? It's really stretching credulity to imagine that we'd disagreed over DYK several times within a period of a few weeks but you "still didn't seem to remember" any of it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I can only give my take on this, I can't make you believe it. I am not in the habit of storing the names of all people who oppose me at one time or another for future revenge. I would need to block many more people than just you in that case. No, you didn't register as someone who I had a conflict with. Fram (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, this is serious. I know there are conflicts between Fram and Kumioko. There is an escalation which some may say it's uncalled and some may not. For me the most important is that Bgwhite correctly removed the comment and even if he was wrong the use of expressions like "Fuck off" is really unacceptable. Fram, please WP:CALM. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of unacceptable, User:Rschen7754 has felt the need to suppress the edit summary "Fuck off and reread policy, Bgwhite. You are out of line here" Isn't that misuse of the admin tools and a severe over-reaction? It's not because people believe that I shouldn't have used that edit summary that it suddenly falls in the "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" instead of the things where it shouldn't be used. From WP:CRD: "not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations". I'm basically accused of trying to correct perceived misbehaviour by misbehahing myself, but I have to say that things like this fall in the same category (things like Demiurge's statements above are a lot worse though, they are simply incorrect, unfounded and serious accusations). Fram (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Would you rather that I have blocked you instead? I recall another very prominent and recent case where an edit summary using the same phrase was revdeled by an arbitrator. --Rschen7754 11:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall it, and if it was truly comparable to this one, then it was also wrong. And blocking someone for saying "fuck off" is rather an overreaction, don't you think (since that's the only thing you revdeled, I suppose that's the worst thing I did)? Of course, some people here are much quicker to react to clear but limited uncivility than to civil but incorrect personal attacks like Demiurge's statements, but that regretful state of affairs is nothing new. Fram (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
You and I both know that I largely do not approve of Kumioko's actions, but that does not justify incivility on your part. --Rschen7754 11:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
But incivility is not a reason to revdel edit summaries. Fram (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just responding to the note left on my talk page about this discussion. I just wanted to clarify that I have made a couple of edits since my "Wikibreak/Retirement" and wanted to clarify. I still intend to "retire" but that doesn't mean that I will never edit anymore. Only that I intend it to be infrequent at best and likely not as my username or as an active participant in the community. I have made about 8 edits as I recall. A couple on my userpage with my retirement (that's 2), 2 on the RAN discussion, 2 more as an IP to fix a couple of minor typos on articles I found when reading, and I think 2 more on my talk page regarding being accused of edits that I did not do. Other than that nothing. Aside from that I suspect my opinions on Fram's contributions in Wikipedia are likely the same as his are of mine. I will respond if someone has a direct question of me but other than that I will let this AN play out however it results. Two more small note. Fram was not the main reason I left but was a contributing factor and in response to Fram's comments above regarding my edits as an IP. At this point, I have absolutely zero chance of not being "identified" as an IP or otherwise. Although there is the occassional false positive I have no delusions on that my edits are easily identified as me. Anyone who clicks the contribs of this IP will clearly see that so there is no intention of "hiding" my edits as an IP and zero chance that would be possible anyway. (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Can something be done to stop this please? Nothing useful has come out of any of this, and it is getting rather boring. Fram (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you (politely) asked him not to post on your talk page? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
If Kumioko's activities were confined to Fram's talk page that might be an option. Even Kumioko recognises his activity here is being disruptive, hence his 'retirement'. The problem is he isnt actually retiring. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Just for clarification I didn't retire because I felt my editing was a problem or disruptive. I retired more because the things I am interested in doing are unavailable to me. Also because after three years of trying to make WikiProject US work, I found that too many editors want to protect their own swim lanes than to collaborate to build an encyclopedia. As well as a relatively small cadre of editors who seem to be more interested in tearing things apart or preventing things from being done than actually building anything (disclaimer: Statement not targeted specifically at Fram). So there is no reason to stay and continue to edit. My edits may "seem" disruptive because I have in the last few months focused on problem areas and editors whom I felt were a problem, some of which are admins. (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
He's certainly not the only editor who "retires" then keeps on editing.
As for activities outside Fram's talk page, what do we have that's such a serious problem? A suggested interaction ban that's roundly rejected, three AfD nominations that were not quite within policy, and a misguided comment about his opinions of a page created by Fram? Pass the popcorn. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It's the combination of activities on and off my talk page, obviously. And "were not quite within policy" is quite an understatement. Basically, the only thing he does at the moment is wasting the time of other editors. Fram (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
And why is it that edit-warring on his talk page is a good way of dealing with someone "wasting time"? Doesn't edit-warring tend to waste more time? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That's why I have now proposed a better way to deal with it. Fram (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Telling anyone to fuck off (admin to user, user to admin, admin to on.... ) is unacceptable. Civility is policy, no one is exempt nor can they exempt themselves from it. Further, you're still acting incivil throughout this discussion.

 KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  12:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We really need to get that changed, as the reality is actually that 'Civility is policy badly enforced depending on who is doing the blocking and who is being blocked.'Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Oh, I know that I shouldn't have told him/her to fuck off. Discussing things first, instead of twice reverting me before even starting to discuss things with me, can have that effect on people who are already tired of the antics of another user though. Neither Bgwhite nor me handled this in the best possible way (and my way was probably worse). Getting someone like Demiurge, who seems to see this as his chance to get revenge for being blocked a few months ago, joining the circus doesn't help to calm things of course. But where have I been incivil throughout this discussion? I think I have been rather restrained here, discussing things frankly but without incivility. Please indicate which replies (or parts) here you consider incivil, so that I can reflect on them. Fram (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Exactly right, Only in death. If a non-admin used that fuck off edit summary while edit-warring on someone else's talk page to re-insert a personal attack, they'd find themselves blocked in an instant. But no-one has the guts to deal with Fram because they know very well what would ultimately follow. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Um, what would actually "ultimately follow"? Apart from that: blocking people depends on what they do, and on the circumstances. Perhaps I haven't been blocked because people tend to look at the circumstances as well, and not because they are afraid of me. I doubt that many admins here really are that frightened of what I might "ultimately" do. Fram (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The "circumstances" are very clear. A non-administrator would've been blocked for that, no two ways about it. You should be held to the same standards you take such glee in seeing imposed on others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
For someone complaining about incivility, you certainly aren't giving the best example. "Glee"? Where do you get that idea? As for whether non-admins would be blocked, I'll give you an example I was involved with recently: at Gargamel, and editor stated[125] ",this statment sounds rather ANTISEMITIST!!!" in his edit summary, about an edit I made. Block? No, patient explanation on the article talk page, and a warning on his talk page[126]. Most admins aren't the trigger-happy fellows you seem to believe they are. Looking at recent changes, I note e.g. [127]. I doubt he will be blocked for this. Fram (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
(ec)You can look at e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Beyond My Ken and Yworo, which deals with unacceptable edit summaries. Non-admins, but no blocks were given. Does that mean that their behaviour was accepted? No, but blocking isn't usually done easily. We generally understand that people can overreact, and try to find a resolution that doesn't involve blocking. If blocks need to be given anyway, there normally isn't any "glee" involved. I feel happy when I can create decent content; I feel happy when there are no disputes; I at most feel relief when some problematic editor is being dealt with as necessary. Fram (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This discussion is not constructive. Fram made a strong comment on Kumioko's talk page. It's not clear to me that it was even uncivil, but I suppose, given the all-over-the-place interpretations of civility at Wikipedia, some might think it was. Bgwhite reverted. In my view, he shouldn't have, but it's not the worst revert I've ever seen. Fram restored his comment. At that point, any further battling on the talk page should have ceased. Bgwhite should not have reverted yet again. He should have taken it to Fram's talk page, which he did, but after his second reversion, and if he still felt Fram was wrong, he could have then come here. Then Fram reverted again with the later-deleted edit summary (that everyone knows about anyway from this discussion). He, too, should not have insisted and left it alone, sought input from others, whatever, but the edit-warring was inappropriate. Finally, as long as I'm expressing my opinion on two admins, I might as well add another. Rschen should not have rev/del'ed the edit summary. Most important: This discussion should be closed, and, as an uninvolved admin, I'm tempted to do so now as I think it will only get worse, but I need to go to work, so I'm not.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I basically agree with all your points, but would prefer to hear some further uninvolved comments about the underlying issue (Kumioko and me, that is). But don't worry, I'll not edit war if the next person decides to close this instead :-) Fram (