Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive699

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

Noticeboard archives


Second day of religious-based personal attacks (and expressed contempt for WP NPA/civility/blocking policies)[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per Kiefer.Wolfowitz's request and the likelihood that nothing good was going to come out of keeping it open. 28bytes (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The ANI's failure to act after the previous abuse of User:Keepscases has been interpreted as a license for further insults/personal attacks/baiting by User:Snottywong.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

[...] shut the hell up and keep your misguided religious blubbering to yourself. —SW— spout 14:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
[...] If you feel the need to block me, then just block me. Empty threats will not change my behavior (but then again, neither would a block). You can get a preview of what the community's reaction to a block would be by taking a look at the recent ANI thread started by User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. —SW— speak 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Whatever. I'll let the recent additions to my userboxes speak for themselves. Thanks to Keepscases for alerting me to their existence. —SW— soliloquize 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing the ANI alert on Sunday (18:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)), this noticeboard failed to act after yesterday Saturday's abuse:

Seriously, why don't you try to keep your religious biases out of your opinions at RfA (and anywhere else, for that matter). No one cares which version of the 2,000-year-old fairy tale you believe in, and nothing could be further from relevant when voting for adminship. No one likes people who constantly refer to their religion, push their religion on others, or publicly announce that the decisions they make are based on their religion. If anything, it makes you look more like an idiot. —SW— gossip 21:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • That was three days ago, not yesterday. Anyway, the emboldened section is the concerning part, although it is well worth reading the context as well to get a better understanding of what was actually being said. Aside from all this, an admin has already told Snottywong that if they make a comment like the emboldened section again, they will be blocked. So, regardless of the fact Snottywong seems unimpressed by being told that, I don't really see there's anything to do here (yet more drama?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree that the emboldened section is the one that generates the greatest concern. But I'm also concerned by some other aspects of this -- the statement that blocks for misbehavior will not lead him to alter his behavior, for example. And (indirectly) calling someone an idiot does seem somewhat outside of what is contemplated in wp:civil.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Blocks for misbehaviour will not lead him to alter his behaviour? Well, an excess of honesty is not a crisis - if he ends up blocked then that admission can be taken into account when deciding the block length. And yes, there's a distinct lack of civility. Something for WP:WQA or some other similar forum, not another huge drawn out drama thread here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes -- I agree that wqa would have been a more appropriate noticeboard.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)--Epeefleche (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The claim that WikiProject Atheism is a hate group is obvious trolling. With a mere 1650 edits in 4 years (roughly 1 per day) and the overwhelming majority of them to project and user talk space, Keepscases looks like a troll sock that should simply not be fed. (I vaguely remember similar earlier incidents, but with such a low intensity of participation it can take many years for someone to get banned.) It could of course be a good faith editor with a temporary failure of mental capacities, in which case that editor should also not be fed. Overreactions to Keepscases feed Keepscases, and reactions to the overreactions also feed Keepscases. Just stop them all and the problem will be much easier to solve. If Keepscases is a good-faith user, it will simply disappear. If not, then the user will increase their activities to get attention and will then be easily blockable. Hans Adler 18:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hans, your statement is contrary to the no-retaliation policy. You are condoning a second day of personal attacks on KS, interpreting SW's abuse as justified retaliation against a troll. Further, you add a personal attack against KS, here on ANI.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Atheists, being a hate group, have committed many lynchings, church-bombings and cross-burnings over the years. Haven't they? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Not to mention the great Atheist crusades of the Middle Ages, as well as the Atheist Inquisition in Spain. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't know posting comments in a smaller size of font allowed you to post non-constructive off-topic ramblings on ANI, which could be read as attempting to provoke a response from other users. May I join in? -- (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This IP (says with utmost disgust =p) has a good point you know. There's no sense bringing up medieval and colonial history which might provoke an annoyed response. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 21:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, you want some hard facts beyond those I have mentioned already, so it can't be classified as a personal attack? Keepscases' 20 most frequently edited pages: (1) ANI, (2) WT:RfA, (3) User talk:Keepscases, (4)-(20) include 10 individual RfA or RfB pages. This is essentially an RfA/RfB-voting single purpose account, and there were at least two attempts to ban the user from RfA/RfB, ending in no consensus. (At least in one case with much participation and numerically slightly in favour of the ban, I believe.)
With my comment I was trying to make Snottywong stop these silly personal attacks. That would be the best way, because then Keepscases would no longer be rewarded by drama. Hans Adler 19:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on the boomerang issues, I'll just say I agree that the issues raised as to SW are not warranted by any behavior (or misbehavior) by the complainant. Personal attacks (which most of us seem to agree were present here) are never excused by complainant behavior, and disregard for core wiki principles (a block will not change my behavior) are never a good sign.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Its looks like Keepsakes made the most absurd neutral vote in an RfA I have ever seen, obvious trolling whether as a joke or something else. Snotty bought the troll bait. He should ignore the troll going forward, as should we all.--Milowenttalkblp-r 19:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It would have been better to post something like an UNINVOLVED template at the page. (EC3)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It's fair to say that Keepsake's questions to admin candidates are at least entertaining. Like, "Is it possible for wikipedia editors to fall in love?" What that has to do with adminship is anybody's guess. But it keeps things light. Until he meanders into the "hate group" nonsense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keepscases, as Hans Adler demonstrates, is basically a single purpose account with the intention of disrupting RFA with nonsense questions and soapboxing his hatred of atheism. Just look at all the disruption caused by the single neutral vote (though this isn't the only time). He's long overdue a ban - we should not tolerate SPAs on Wikipedia. While I probably wouldn't have commented the way SW did, I can honestly understand his frustration. Is Keepscases a positive asset to our encyclopedia? Not at all. We should stop being over sensitive when it comes to these things and take a strict stance. AD 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Keepscases is simply an RfA troll as far as I'm concerned. His questions serve no other purpose than to mock the process, and his decisions whether to support or oppose a candidate have nothing to do with the interests of improving the project but rather if they meet his own personal moral standards. -- œ 19:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Following Hans's explanation, I looked at Keepscases's contributions, and I agree that much of it is trolling, particularly at RfAs. Perhaps Snottywong remembers this question? I think that banning Keepscases would be good for WP. I no longer view Snottywong as issuing personal attacks against a nice but misguided person (like many Americans I know), but as being sidetracked and then being uncivil towards a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talkcontribs)
  • Keepscases is harmless. He has a beef with a Wikiproject he thinks is belittling religion, and votes accordingly on RfAs. The entirety of his "disruptive" RfA comment that sparked this iteration of the drama was "Neutral I cannot support an RfA with that nominator, though I won't oppose." Why people can't just refrain from arguing with him about it all the time is a mystery to me. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It's a mystery to me why people continue to support an obviously disruptive SPA. He's not harmless, not everyone knows his history so someone is always going to respond to his trolling. That's why we have 2 ANI threads, plus a very long discussion on his talk page about it. If he was harmless, we wouldn't even be discussing this. AD 20:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess I just don't find "Neutral I cannot support an RfA with that nominator, though I won't oppose." to be "obviously disruptive". I think he's wrong not to support that RfA, of course, since I Supported it, but people are wrong on the Internet all the time. We have two ANI threads because the normally-clueful Snottywong, who does know the history, couldn't refrain from hurling insults. 28bytes (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have any problems with that vote, until the rationale was given. Keepscases keeps insisting and repeating that a group of editors here are on par with the KKK. He may well be allowed to do that, but some people don't appreciate this sort of labeling, just as some people don't like being labeled with other epithets. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose silencing Keepscases (largely for reasons given by 28bytes) or blocking SW (comments are unfortunate but well short of blockable). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 28bytes sums it up quite well. And RfA could use a little mocking-of-the-process from time to time. Get a neutral vote like that, save the nugget about being able to laugh at our own processes but ignore the urge to reply to it. Basically a win-win if the user is mature about it. -- ۩ Mask 20:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice if these two could just stop with this and agree to respect each others' religious beliefs before things get worse. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Keepsakes clearly worships Satan while pretending to be religious, so that will probably be difficult.--Milowenttalkblp-r 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It looks to me as if Project Atheism was displaying anti-theism userboxes, not just atheist ones, and I think it's that that Keepscases objected to - and I would object to it too. I've no real problem with users having anti-theist userboxes (other than that I generally prefer to see pro- userboxes than anti- userboxes), but I don't think projects should associated themselves with them. Project Atheism, Project Islam, Project Judaism, Project Christianity, etc, should all be about promoting the well-sourced coverage of their topics on Wikipedia, and *not* about promoting the belief system itself. Thus, whatever my own belief system, I should be able to feel equally comfortable should I choose to become a member of them all and try to contribute to them all. Project Atheism is NOT for atheists - it's for people who wish to improve Wikipedia's coverage of atheism, whatever their own beliefs. And Keepscases has done nothing wrong in acting according to what seems to be a similar opinion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz clearly has no idea what ANI is for, and has now created enormous amounts of unnecessary drama by starting two ANI threads on me in as many days (despite the first one being quickly closed as frivolous). I propose that he be restricted from starting new discussions on ANI, unless he first consults an admin for approval of the topic of discussion. —SW— chatter 21:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I support an uninvolved admin closing this whole thread. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I also support closing this thread. I have already acknowledged that an uninvolved template would have been more appropriate. A suggestion that newbies consider first using the uninvolved template could be added to this page's directions.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This can clearly be closed. Snotty has cooled down, and Kiefer seems satisified as well. Close before more people have chance to stir it up again.--Milowenttalkblp-r 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mass removal of Flagged revision from BLPs[edit]

Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been mass removing Flagged Protection from multiple articles because "the trial is over".

Generally, I have no problem with this -except he is also removing them from BLPs without any discussion. In many case, FR will have been set on a BLP because of serious libels or complaints, and administrators and others will be watching edits to the articles to prevent further trouble. If someone wants to remove FR from the article, and it has been set for BLP reasons, then there needs to be discussion FIRST to ensure that we don't suddenly expose living people to libels (particularly where the article may have been sensitive - or have been protected due to a valid complaint).

I need administrators to help me go through the recent removals and replace flagged revisions on any BLP from which it has been removed, until such times as we can be sure that it is safe to remove it from that particular article, and in particular at least until the protecting admin has a chance to comment on the article.--Scott Mac 17:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at the RFC was that FR's was over and no longer available as a protection option. People have been removing it for a while now, usually replacing with semi-protection if appropriate - this appears to be what KWW is doing... so I'm not sure what the problem is? --Errant (chat!) 17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I would note that per the RfC pending changes would be rolled back in general starting today, however Newyorkbrad also noted that removing it from BLPs without a good look would be irresponsible[1], and I have to agree. I would hold off on removing protections from these articles without a thorough look, which glancing at Kww's contribs does not seem to be given to each article. Semi-protection may not be an effective replacement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Consensus at the aforementioned page is for PC to be removed. For BLPs a careful look is needed and it either needs to be replaced with semi-protection or left unprotected. N419BH 17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not like I'm using a bot or anything here, people: I look at each article one at a time, review the history, and look at the protection state before the trial started. If I see the anonymous edits during the trial have been getting rejected or it was indefinitely semi-protected before the trial began, I'm semi-protecting it. If things have been quiet, I'm unprotecting it. Can people disagree with individual judgments? Certainly. Feel free to change an individual mistake to something you think is more appropriate.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

At very least, if an article has been flag-protected for BLP reasons you must contact the administrator responsible. Often semi will do the job. But FR may have been applied for specific reasons, and that needs explored on a case-by-case basis to see if there is a suitable alternative. Don't assume that you can't have missed something with a look for a few minutes.--Scott Mac 17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
You are incorrect. The consensus is to remove BP from all articles. The consensus is to not retain PC on any article for any reason, including failure to contact the administrator responsible, failure to explore on a case-by-case basis, or any other reason. You can keep coming up with new reasons why it is OK to violate consensus all day and the answer will be the same. All articles means all articles. You are required to abide by the consensus or step aside. This is not optional. Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PC: Blocked[edit]

Unfortunately Kww has persisted in removing FR from BLPs. I've asked him to stop and others here have expressed concerns. A discussion is needed. I have blocked him for three hours as a preventative measure. He should be unblocked immediately he sees the need for discussion before continuing with a controversial use of admin tools wrt BLP protection.--Scott Mac 17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reverse this asap. The PC trial is over, and the consensus of the RfC was that it should be removed from articles. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Unblock I don't see the problem, if he's just implementing the RfC, he shouldn't be blocked for it. Disclosure: I've worked on articles with Kww and sponsored his RfA on an earlier, unsuccessful attempt.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly a step backwards. What became of the alleged high-importance of BLP's? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Semi protection remains available.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see above. Serious concerns have been raised with lowering the protection on BLPs without discussion of the effects on a particular article. Kww has persisted without that discussion been concluded. This is not to do with a trial being over, but of a responsible way of changing protection on BLPS.--Scott Mac 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked per his talk request, but urged him to discuss before continuing. After all, his talk page isn't the place for a discussion on the merits of a WP-wide issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Unblock This block should not have been done by an involved admin. You are firmly on one side of the debate. --NeilN talk to me 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that I have been discussing. I've discussed it with Scott on his talk page. I've discussed it above. I've discussed it at the RFC. It's very simple: the RFC concluded that pending changes needed to be removed. Many admins have been stepping through and doing it. I've been reviewing articles individually, and making appropriate judgments. Scott seems to believe that I need to have an individual discussion on each and every BLP and that an individual admin's judgment is not sufficient. I pretty much reject that in it's entirety: it seems to be one more method of heel-dragging to prevent this trial from being switched off. If there's any article that I unprotect that others feel requires semi-protection, go ahead and semi-protect it. If there's an article that I have left semi-protected that requires full-protected, feel free to apply full-protection. That's the available set of choices. When I started this morning, there were 260 articles to get taking off of pending changes. Now there's 172. We can make Friday's deadline if we move efficiently. Individual per-article discussions in advance of each change is not the way to go, nor is not doing it a blockable offense in any reasonable sense of the word.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no individual discussion with admins when semi-protection was removed from BLPs and replaced with PC, and there doesn't need to be any individual discussion now either. The RfC was clear that it ought to be removed, and the admins doing it are looking at each case individually to see whether semi-protection is needed. There's no need to refer in each case to the admin who added PC, who may not even remember doing it. Everyone is equally able to look at the history and make a judgment. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Unblock, the trial is over. Removing PC is perfectly reasonable. Stop trying to create drama where no drama is needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good unblock. Blocking admin should be admonished. Kww should never have been blocked to begin with, especially by the complaining involved admin with a tin ear for the wiki-editors that have !voted. The overwhelming consensus is to remove PC. There is no consensus currently for its use. The trial is over. R. Baley (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott not listening[edit]

I think it's worth pointing out that Scott has stated he will reblock me if I remove protection from any more BLPs without individual, per article discussion.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

At which point Scott will be Wheel-Warring and would be immediately blocked by an uninvolved admin. N419BH 19:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's avoid doing that. Kww - I'm sure either discussion here, or an arbcom case (though I expect that to be declined), will resolve how best to deal with pages under PC, at which point we can go back to removing them. Prodego talk 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
May I assume that Scot blocked anyone who applied PC without individual, per article discussion? Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is rich. "Not listening". All I asked for was some discussion before mass removal of protection from BLP continued. I was only asking for some listening. I have filed an arbcom request.--Scott Mac 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And you've threatened to reblock, which is not listening in my book. N419BH 19:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll not need to do that. If we all put the admin tools down and start talking.--Scott Mac 19:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Is a year of discussion and a blatantly clear community consensus not enough for you Scott? - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Scott, you must not use the tools here no matter what anyone else does, because you're far too involved. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Don't think that'll help much since once again you've shown your contempt for community consensus. --NeilN talk to me 19:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked Scott the following question on his talk page:

"The consensus is to remove BLP from all articles. There is no consensus for leaving PC on any article for any reason, including 'removing PC in a reckless way without proper consideration.' Are you willing to follow that consensus?"

He responded that he was not willing to follow consensus.

See his talk page for context. Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Newyorkbrad's close specifically mentioned "that there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible". I don't see what the hurry is for removing PC from articles, and why there shouldn't be time for discussion between stakeholders. Let's do this in an orderly fashion, with due diligence and care for the BLP issues involved, rather than hurriedly. --JN466 23:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad asked a question about whether there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible. The answer he got back was crystal clear and the consensus overwhelming that no such article exists, and that in even the worst imaginable case replacing PC with full protection would be just fine - not irresponsible at all. Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PC: Interim Measure[edit]

How about all PC'd BLPs are semi'd until the protecting admin makes the final determination. PC is no longer a protection option until community consensus is established with regard to its implementation, and KWW is right to remove it, though I share the concerns with leaving BLPs unprotected. I agree that BLP concerns require protection to be fully examined, though I wonder why we're relying on a specific admin to memorize the reason and don't have a log of this somewhere. N419BH 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue of dangerous BLP's; a problem does need to be demonstrated here (i.e. show us some of them) by Scott. I have a quick flick through some of the unprotects and they all seem fine. Requiring that the protecting admin be contacted in each case is pointless beurocracy; in most cases the admin probably won't even remember! Sure, care should be taken of biographies, but I can't see evidence that this has not been the case. Does Scott have an example of a specific problem caused by kww's actions? The block was extremely poor judgement. --Errant (chat!) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Errant here. So far Scott has claimed that it could be problematic but they did not actually shown any example where it was problematic. Blocking another admin you disagree with like he did deserves a huge {{trout}}, even if Kww could just have stopped doing it for a while. But the consensus at the RFC does not require any admin to check with the previous protecting admin nor to semi-protect all BLPs. We can discuss such requirements of course and if there is consensus for it, we can implement it. On a side note, Scott didn't even leave Kww a notice about this discussion as far as I can see. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
If there are concerns about leaving BLP's unprotected apply semi/full protection to the relevant articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protection does not monitor all edits. I have two articles which I've been monitoring all edits for BLP issues, Kww removed the monitoring without discussion of the merits of doing so on those articles. With BLPs we don't wait until someone can show a problem, we exercise extreme and particular caution. Simply removing protection, without discussion some attempt at discussion on a particular article is reckless in the extreme. You need to establish that other methods will do fine. That needs at least a check with the admin who set the protection. This is a bare minimum. If you can show that there's no higher risk by an alternative means of protection, then fine. But you can't assume that.--Scott Mac 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure nobody's going to die if a page is unprotected for a little while. RFPP exists for a reason, and everything can be undone. Hell, we even have revdelete now. I don't see why you're making a big issue out of nothing, except maybe you're annoyed that PC is going away. If that's the case, that's something you're just going to have to drop. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is going to die either if PC is removed from an article on Wednesday rather than on Sunday. --JN466 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
It has been ten months already. Three more days, then seven, then two more weeks... Where does it stop if we don't stop it here? Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So as to avoid parallel discussions, it would be best to continue this line of thought at the existing talkpage. Skomorokh 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold the phone. This is not some trivial content issue to be shuttled away to some obscure page. It has been made clear, countless times, that BLP's are of very high importance. This so-called "consensus" seems to mock that alleged importance. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The exact same issues are discussed at the talkpage of the linked sitewide, heavily-advertised, just-closed-with-firm-consensus RfC. And had those opposed to Kww's actions been paying attention and participated there, we wouldn't be throwing this drama party. Skomorokh 18:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Since when does "consensus" somehow override BLP concerns, which are supposedly of paramount importance to the owners of Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
When did you stop beating your wife? Your reply bears no relation to my comment, which is simply asking people to keep the discussion in one place so as to forestall chaos caused by admins trying to enforce contradictory conclusions. Skomorokh 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
If Baseball Bugs has a BLP concern, he can address it by removing PC from all BLPs and replacing it with full protection. That would prevent any possible harm to the BLPs while still following the clear consensus. It is unacceptable to propose a limited-time trial of PC and ask people to approve it as a limited time trial, only to refuse to remove PC after the end of the trial because "BLP concerns are of paramount importance." It is even more unacceptable to ignore the clear consensus - a consensus that carefully considered the BLP issue in detail -- for those reasons. BLP concerns existed long before the limited-time trial, and nobody has ever made a case that PC is the only possible way that BLP concerns can be addressed. There is a clear consensus to not leave PC on any article for any reason, including the reason given above. Wikipedia:Consensus clearly lists the exceptions that supersede consensus. "BLP concerns" are not on the list. Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I read your comment. My question is, How does consensus apply here? Are BLP's important, or are they not? I've always been told that BLP overrides consensus. On that basis, it is not appropriate to even conduct a vote on the matter. It has to stay - unless BLP is suddenly no longer a priority. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Just because a handful of people decide that BLP applies does not mean it does. Yes, BLP can override consensus, but just because a single admin (or a handful of people) think that BLP applies, does not give them free rein to do as they please when nearly everyone else disagrees with their actions. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Wales is the visible face of Wikipedia, and hence is the most obviously accountable to the public. What is his opinion on this question? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh please, this is pathetic. If you want Jimbo's opinion why don't you go and ask him? But I'm sure his opinion will be the same as always: That this (PC) is something for the community to sort out among itself through consensus. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
In any case where I could detect any BLP concerns, BB, I increased the protection level on the page. The BLP argument is a red-herring. There are good arguments that PC can make addressing BLP issues simpler, but we had WP:BLP around long before we had any implementation of pending changes.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I have a number of bios on my watch list, and I might miss something. The PC is a red flag that lets you know someone has changed it. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose PC other than laziness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
If you read the RfC, you won't have to imagine why the consensus is what it is. BTW, the consensus was to remove PC from all articles with no prejudice against reinstating it if there is a consensus to do so. I personally am very much in favor of PC and will vote for it if it comes up in a RfC. It is the violation of consensus that I object to, and the concensus is to remove PC from all articles - no exceptions. Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Removing the red-flag will simply make it more difficult to protect BLP articles. BLP was once considered to be of paramount importance. Apparently "consensus" now says otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I would really like a citation for the "paramount importance" claim. Is that an official Wikipedia ppolicy?
An individual editor is not allowed to completely ignore consensus just because in his opinion and his opinion alone it goes against this alleged "paramount importance." Just asserting "paramount importance" without showing that any BLP would be harmed in any way does not give you a free ticket to to unilaterally violate any and all Wikipedia policies. Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Hard telling who you're talking to. I'm thinking back to when Wales created this category called "Living people", whose purpose presumably was to raise some heightened awareness of BLP's. I've also seen countless discussions, here and elsewhere, where the bottom line was that BLP violations are not tolerated, regardless of any "consensus". The Flagged Revisions stuff is probably not needed for things like Madonna's latest record album. But it's very useful for Madonna herself, as BLP's are constantly subject to random vandalisms, no small number of which could be considered libelous (and hence could potentially damage the wikipedia foundation) if taken seriously and if not removed quickly. By no longer flagging BLP's, you're making it less easy to observe changes to BLP's. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think that's a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I hope you can see the huge gap between "BLP violations are not tolerated" and "this particular temporary experimental tool that is convenient when dealing with BLP violations cannot be removed, even though a less-convenient tool that protects them better (full-protection) exists." You cannot use BLP as a club to enforce your own set of rules that do nothing to prevent actual BLP violations. Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I still don't know who you're talking to. It sure ain't me, because your comments don't follow up to what I'm saying. BLP is considered a very important and sensitive issue. By abolishing flagged revisions, you make it more likely that a BLP violation will be in an article longer than if it were flagged and jumping out at you in bright colors. If I see a BLP violation, I can immediately fix it. If it persists, I can post it at WP:RFPP, and an admin might protect it within a few hours or whenever they feel like getting to it. But if I don't see the violation, due to the red flag no longer being there, then bad stuff could stay there longer. I don't see why you're arguing against a higher level of monitoring for BLP articles. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am talking to you. You are the one who keeps posting invalid arguments. For example:
"BLP is considered a very important and sensitive issue.": The PC RfC closing admin has made it clear that the above argument is not valid. He wrote "'BLP; is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making."
"By abolishing flagged revisions, you make it more likely that a BLP violation will be in an article longer": Incorrect. As has been explained to you several times Full Protection does a better job of stopping BLP violations. Even if this was not so, "BLP" is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making.
"But if I don't see the violation, due to the red flag no longer being there, then bad stuff could stay there longer." Again, incorrect. The bad stuff doesn't get in in the first place under full protection.
"I don't see why you're arguing against a higher level of monitoring for BLP articles": If you don't understand this, then you clearly are not listening. I have explained to you several times that there is a clear-cut consensus to remove PC from all articles with no exception for BLPs (again, replacing PC with full protection prevents any BLP violation). It isn't my fault that you refuse to read the RfC where all of this was debated at great length. I have also explained to you several times that "BLP" is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making, yet you keep invoking it as if it does. Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're intending to proactively and pre-emptively assign full protection to all BLP articles, that will certainly be a very high level of protection. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Either there is a real danger of BLP violations or there isn't. If there is, then full protection will solve the problem - no PC needed. If there isn't, then semi-protection or no protection will do - no PC needed. What is NOT true is the assertion that PC is the only possible way to address potential BLP violations. What is NOT true is the idea that merely saying "BLP" automatically supersedes Wikipedia policy on consensus. You have to actually have some shred of evidence that there is a BLP violation that cannot be solved any other way. Guy Macon (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Your comments continue to make no sense. It's not about "no other way", it's about an additional aid to those who think BLP articles are worth defending. Which I am beginning to think they are not, given the obstinance I'm seeing here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
So you are saying that you personally disagree with the consensus to remove PC from all articles but also agree that consensus is binding even when you disagree? If that's your position, that seems pretty normal. It sounded as if you thought that something supersedes consensus in this case. Probably because of statements like I don't see why you're arguing against a higher level of monitoring for BLP articles" and "I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think that[the consensus to remove PC from all articles]'s a good thing." Sorry if I misunderstood and that you actually agree that consensus overrides your desire to retain PC. BTW, you are coming close to the edge of violating Wikipedia's civility guidelines, so I will give you the last word and not tempt you further by explaining things after you say you don't understand them.. Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
What I don't understand why it's a good idea to make defending BLP articles more difficult. Go ahead and try to explain that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
We now have a new record for comments most squished to the right. Herostratus (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Non-admin comment

Whoa! I've worked with a couple of you before and frankly can I state that the behaviour of all admins involved in this discussion is regrettable. Its not a good reflection of the principles of wikipedia. When PC was set up it was made implicit that it was a TRIAL that would need to be removed following the end of the trial. Consensus was established that PC needs to be removed by the given deadline. Challenging those who are working to uphold the consensus sends out a bad message to non-admins and new editors. How can admins then block others for edit warring or failing to uphold consensus when they are seen to be unable to do it themselves. It makes no sense. If certain admins feel that Kww's actions are incorrect then a new discussion should be opened about the application of the removal of PC from bio articles. But the fact this has gone to ARBCOM is a bad reflection on all those involved. I hope you've all got your suits ironed and your boots polished. — Lil_niquℇ 1 [talk] 20:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am just flabbergasted that this debate is still going on. Again and again, people have said, this trial is over. There are no policies for patrolling PC - there's no policy to say who gets to be a reviewer, or what a reviewer is supposed to do or must not do. Other than the RFC, there's no policy about when articles would be added or removed from the system. And there's no plan for a further test or for full scale implementation. Which makes me wonder when I read Talk:Dustin Diamond and Talk:Barry Chamish, which both say:
Please do not remove pending changes from this article without discussion. It was not set as part of the trial, but because of distinct and particular BLP concerns with this article. I am happy to discuss whether this is the best approach for the article, a pragmatic approach to a BLP needs to take precedence over whatever general experiments and discussions are currently happening over FR.
This article has had major BLP issues, and has ongoing problems with edits. It is therefore useful not to have any edit immediately published before being scrutinised, and (if no one else does it) I am willing to scrutinise all edits. The scenario is liable to long term, so absolute prevention methods like protection or semi-protection are undesirable, but the traffic is low enough to scrutinise all edits. I use common sense and the available tools to do what I can for specific articles, and I'm happy to change from this pragmatic approach if someone tells me how using this tool is detrimental to the article in question, or to the goal of encouraging people to improve such articles.--Scott Mac 09:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Now bear in mind that both these articles are subject to Level 2 Pending Changes, where only "reviewers" have the right to accept an edit, not long-time Wikipedia editors. Also bear in mind, as discussed at User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt and previously at Talk:Pippa Middleton, Scott Mac has claimed the right to remove reviewer privileges from a person who accepted an edit containing reliably sourced material, because he felt that material was "trivial" and not appropriate content for a biography, despite news coverage in the Chicago Sun-Times and other non-tabloid newspapers. He in fact claimed the right to remove reviewer privileges from me, simply because I expressed a different opinion of how BLP articles should be handled on the talk page. I don't see that per se as something I could call a violation of policy on his part, because, as I said, there's no policy for how reviewer privileges are given or lost, and I was given them just as arbitrarily.
Nonetheless, the effect now is that we have two articles that Scott Mac seems to be saying that only he, and people whose opinions he is willing to accept, can make changes to - and those changes apparently would be based not on what is verifiable, but some subjective criterion of what is trivial or appropriate that I don't understand. This goes to a whole new level beyond WP:OWN. And I have to say, from what I've seen as Pending Changes winds down to its bitter end, I'm becoming altogether convinced that it was intended as a censorship scheme rather than any kind of legitimate curb on vandalism.
Finally, we still have articles subject to Level 2 PC which I have no idea how they ever got on list, like Palaeoarchaeology, Ahmadiyya, Al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf ibn Maṭar ... the mass removal per consensus is now lagging behind the most recent May 20 deadline, and needs to be completed now. Wnt (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Removal is complete (Cenarium finished it off). Per Special:StablePages only test pages are now using it. Rd232 talk 02:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • God only knows why I'm replying here, but... I've been a witness to Scott Mac's previous hissy fit on this issue, and now there's this one. Can someone please get arbcom to take his bit now? To me, this has absolutely nothing to do with biographies. For whatever reason Scott is just not stable when it comes to this issue, and we're letting him run roughshod over all of Wikipedia. You can't work with the guy, since he polarizes everything that he seems to be involved in to the point where everyone has to take sides. Maybe once he's out of the way we can actually do something about referencing BLP articles and improving our content some.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Injunction regarding pending changes and biographies of living persons[edit]

By a vote of 9-0, a majority of the Arbitration has voted to pass a preliminary injunction. Arbitration policy states that "injunctions are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes". In the event that there is insufficient agreement among the Committee to open the case, clarification should be requested from the Arbitration Committee on how to proceed.

The injunction was proposed and passed after User:Scott MacDonald brought a case to the Committee regarding the implementation of the shutdown of pending changes. At the time of the passage of this injunction, the case request is currently pending before the Committee. The injunction is the following:

Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

As noted by a few arbs, this does not prevent admins from subsequently, even the same admin immediately after, consider in their own appreciation which level of protection is needed, with all due regards to the specifics of the article and in accordance with WP:PP. The reason arbcom doesn't mention this yet acknowledges it unofficially is because they want to appear tough on BLP issues. Cenarium (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the arbs might consider protecting a page, only to unprotect it a few seconds later, to be gaming? If they pass a useless injunction, surely they can't abide a demonstration its uselessness. Since it's inadvisable to irritate a committee with desysopping powers, I suggest asking another admin to unprotect the articles, ensuring an additional review, or contacting the protecting administrator, and waiting up to 7 days for them to respond. While arbcom can't desysop everyone (the stewards will refuse), starting a power struggle over a small number of articles will generate more disruption than it's worth. The most important remedy is to bide our time, and vote the incumbents responsible for this mess out. According to Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent, about half of the arbitrators will be up for reelection this December. The community needs to send arbcom a message at the polls that wheel warring and involved blocking to further a wiki-political struggle must not be countenanced, and administrators' hands should not be tied with bureaucratic red tape. Authoritarian actions hinder the development of a community-approved policy for the application of pending changes protection to BLPs, by alienating many potential supporters. The result is bad for the people about whom Wikipedia editors write. Chester Markel (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Demonstrable case of wiki-hounding by 'clean start' account[edit]

I had been planning to cool off on ANI for a while and voluntarily not start new threads for quite some time, but since there is a proposal above to ban me from doing so altogether (#Summary of conclusions and proposed resolution) I feel I need to do this now. This one actually is serious, and I would appreciate it if people could treat it on its merits rather than seeing that it came from me and reacting as usual.

We start with part one—wiki-hounding. Please could somebody look over the following pattern which I've noticed emerging between myself and Sergeant Cribb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)—it seems very unfortunately conclusive.

I would point out that these articles come from wildly differing topic areas, ranging from comedy to political science to the British nobility to weights and measures. I am always reluctant to accuse another person of stalking my edits, and have myself been on the wrong end of accusations of this sort and know how unpleasant it is, but this really does seem to be a textbook case of wiki-hounding—"the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute [...] Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."
This is not to say that all of the Sergeant's edits are bad in themselves; while the ones regarding deletion are (in my view) extremely misguided, often to the point of inexplicability, he also does some good work adding sources. But it still makes me uncomfortable that somebody is so obviously tracking my editing patterns, and I don't think that there can really be any legitimate excuse: for instance, it's not as if my edits violate policy and need correcting.

Now I move onto part two—the former undisclosed account. The Sergeant's userpage states that he is making a clean start... using precisely the same wording as that of Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who made a dramatic exit from Wikipedia while in a dispute with me... just five days before the Sergeant started editing—so it now becomes clear that we have a breach of WP:CLEANSTART, since such accounts are not supposed to be used to pursue old disputes in an inappropriate way but evading the scrutiny of previous usernames. (There is also other, lesser, evidence linking the two accounts, such as being active at the reliable sources noticeboard and frequently tagging articles with 'BLP unreferenced' tags.)

I have discussed this privately with a number of admins, all of whom agree with the conclusions I've drawn, and more than one of whom suggested a post to ANI. I would consider naming them if that would be of interest to anyone. ╟─TreasuryTagbelonger─╢ 07:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure: I was among the admins who had this material mailed privately yesterday, but didn't find the time to look into it and didn't respond by mail. – Seeing this documentation here, I find the evidence of "hounding" very compelling, and the evidence of account identity highly likely. If this is true, Sergeant Cribb definitely needs to be told to stay away from TT. Not quite sure about how far sanctions should go; I think it depends on how SC reacts now. Fut.Perf. 08:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
This does look rather incriminating, but let's give SC a chance to respond. On a related subject, though, you're pedantically removing a lot of rather uncontroversial/easily-citable information and SC is just adding it back with appropriate citations. Perhaps instead of removing this information, you can tag it with {{cn}} or cite it yourself? That is mostly separate from the issues you raise in the post, but take it as food for thought. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it looks like hounding, and I noticed the poor average quality of TT's edits as well. To get the full picture it would be necessary to know all previous accounts of Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus / Sergeant Cribb. I am not saying that this has happened, but before coming to a definite conclusion I would like to rule out the theoretical possibility Treasury Tag went through a list of articles edited by a former account of HP/SC and made a slightly pointy edit to each. Hans Adler 09:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I resent Hans' suggestion of potential deception and bad faith on my part, but since I did also check this out of interest, I believe that almost all of the pages on my list above were never before edited by the Sergeant or by his prior self. Or by me, for that matter. They were simply pages I came across while browsing/researching stuff. ╟─TreasuryTagCANUKUS─╢ 09:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:HOUNDING says If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. The problem here is that SC seems to be making proper edits and constructive suggestions. Decidedly the one on female leaders where he made a polite suggestion on TT's UT page is not in the category of "harassment" for sure, etc. At such time as SC makes edits or claims which impact on TT's reasonable ability to edit, I think this issue is a non-starter. SC is, moreover, advised to find additional areas to edit in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I consulted LHvU on that very point, and this is what he advised me (he gave permission to post the text of his emails): The fact that most, if not all, of the edits fall within a reasonable good faith interpretation of WP's policies and guidelines is irrelevant - they are intended to negate your contributions to the project, and they are a continuation by a previous editor of a "personal" dispute. ╟─TreasuryTagdirectorate─╢ 10:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I disagree with that interpretation which is contrary to the English version of the page cited. Moreover, I ask you heed my opinion stated earlier today with regard to you above - and recognize that the more you come to this well with weak cases, the less likely you are to get water. I did not see harassment in this case, and did suggest that sC find additional areas to eduit in. That should be quite sufficient to address any conscerns you have. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be a pattern of following, which may be of some concern if it turns into harassment. But what about, for instance, this jaw-droppingly bad edit by TT, which I would likely revert as "rvv" or "don't be so fucking stupid"? There is absolutely no requirement for inline citation of well-known and uncontroversial facts, or you could just read the linked article. So the question arises, if not Sergeant Cribb, then who else is going to check all TT's edits to reverse this sort of damage to the encyclopedia? Franamax (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that the person adding content to Wikipedia is responsible for citing it appropriately, but I also think that that isn't (or shouldn't be) the point here. We have an individual who turned up for a 'clean start' less than a week after his old self left in a huff, and is now pursuing a long-standing dispute by stalking somebody's edits and immediately nominating a perfectly decent article of theirs for deletion. It may not be harassment (and please note that I never suggested it was) but it's a pretty bad show. ╟─TreasuryTagNot-content─╢ 12:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
TT while no one should be following all your edits, a number of commentators here have made some very fair points about some of those edits. How about, at the very least putting people's minds at ease that you will tag unsourced content that is not contentious or not in violation of policies like NPOV or BLP instead of removing it? You're not doing yourself any favors by wikilawyering when these criticisms come up. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN also says "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them." Personally, I think WP:BEFORE should apply to inline deletion in addition to AFD, but that's not for here. I'm not going to speak directly to the issue at hand, because I don't know TT, don't know SC, don't know the editor SC is accused of being a reincarnation of, and in general don't have a horse in this race. But I am going to take a look at TT's other recent article contributions and see if there's anything else that can be easily cited and restored. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I think by linking to Wikipedia:Harrassment (WP:HOUND is just a subsection of that page), you are actually suggesting that it is. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, fair point, I didn't think about it like that. But I'm not suggesting 'harassment' in the usual sense of the word (threats, emails, incivility, abuses of process other than the deletion issue). This is purely limited to stalking my edits, and to the WP:HOUND sub-section. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 12:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How do we solve the problem of your bad edits though? ANI looks at all behaviour. Seriously, you removed poitron-emission tomography from the Applications section of the Positron article? You thought you were improving the encyclopedia? Franamax (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
My "bad edit" (incidentally, not vandalism as you claimed above) was the removal of information lacking a source, as per "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." I have no objection, in principle, to it having a source added. That is helpful. However, allowing and, indeed, encouraging the stalking of someone's edits should not be a solution to anything. ╟─TreasuryTagsundries─╢ 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, in that case the removal was a bad choice. Don't just remove content because it has no in-line source - especially if it is on a technical topic and seems reasonable. Everything should be verifiable, but not everything is sourced in-line. So if something non-contentious concerns you then tag it. --Errant (chat!) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, point taken on board for the future. ╟─TreasuryTagActing Returning Officer─╢ 14:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, it's probably not necessary to delete broadcast metrics as uncited 3 minutes after they get a citation needed tag.[2] Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It may be that TreasuryTag would benefit from an Wikipedia:Editor review for feedback on his editing, but ANI is not the place to discuss this sort of thing. TreasuryTag - doing that wouldn't be fun, but it would probably be helpful, if only to give a chance for people to comment on all these sorts of issues in a constructive rather than judgemental potential-sanction way. Rd232 talk 16:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

So what admin action is being asked for here? the following around is very clear; and whilst a lot of the edits are positive (finding sources for removed content) there is some concerning stuff. And, tbh, if TT has the feeling of being uncomfortably hounded then that should be grounds enough for some sort of action. Interaction ban? --Errant (chat!) 14:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to an interaction ban (or even a block, given the clean-start issues) but I think they'd both be slightly overkill at this stage. I'd suggest that an admin issues a sternly-worded warning to the Sergeant that if he continues an interaction ban will follow, and I suspect that would solve the problem without resorting to mega-sanctions at this stage. ╟─TreasuryTagActing Returning Officer─╢ 14:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I was one of the admins TT approached about this, and it seems to me that Sergeant Cribb has violated the spirit of WP:CLEANSTART by following around someone he's previously had a dispute with. It doesn't entirely matter whether his "following" edits are bad or good (there are certainly question-marks about some of the deletion-related editing). Cribb certainly needs to clarify whether he was Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus; and given that Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus was itself a CLEANSTART account, arguably clarify who he was before that as well. And he needs to stop following TT around, and trust that other editors will take care of any issues he might have with T's editing. Failing a commitment to do that (or breach thereof), an interaction ban might be appropriate. Rd232 talk 14:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Reply I have just seen the notification of this thread (some of us work for a living). I note that 13 of the 17 edits that TT complains of consist of my adding references to articles where in 12 out of those 13 cases he had arbitrarily remomoved material as unreferenced that was trivially easy to find citations for. Let me point out that WP:HOUND states that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and that this is precisely what I was doing. Let me also point out the four occasions on which I politely suggested that TT's behaviour was problematic: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Why did TT not want to enter into a dialogue?
  • [I'll continue later.] Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    To answer your question, I didn't want to enter into a dialogue with somebody stalking my edits (which did and do not, in my opinion, violate Wikipedia policy). I also notice that you've not given a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question which Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) asked you on your talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTagCounsellor of State─╢ 17:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Continuation Indeed, I have not addressed that question yet, but will do so now. Yes User:Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus was my previous account. I scrambled it in disgust at the persistent incivility of TT ( [7] refers) and the failure of the admin corps to do anything about it [8]. It was perhaps a mistake to accept the invitation to return so quickly. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    I'm not going to keep badgering you, because I suspect that Rd232 et al will have this situation fully in hand, but may I just ask one final question? If you abandoned your previous second account "in disgust at the persistent incivility of TT" then would it not have been a good idea to avoid intentionally angering TT by stalking his edits? ╟─TreasuryTagwithout portfolio─╢ 17:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    As I explained above, I reject the accusation of "stalking". Your complex question must therefore remain unanswered. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    I don't withdraw the accusation, but allow me to rephrase the question in a way which will hopefully enable you to answer. If you abandoned your previous second account "in disgust at the persistent incivility of TT" then would it not have been a good idea to (a) avoid deliberately getting involved with him again, and (b) avoid intentionally angering TT by tracking his edits? ╟─TreasuryTagCaptain-Regent─╢ 17:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    On the other hand, TT, couldn't you have avoided editing badly? -- (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    Uh, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Bit weird reading that. --NeilN talk to me 17:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    In answer to TT, (a) perhaps yes and (b) still too complex (assumption of intention to anger anyone is petitio principii). If TT was angered by my civilly restoring sourced material to the encyclopaedia, that is regrettable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    How about making it dirt simple: Why the hell didn't you just avoid TT entirely? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    On reflection, that was probably not the best use of my time. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Rd232. In my email comment to TT I was not referring to WP:HOUND but WP:Clean start - that regardless of the the apparent propriety of the edits they were in fact a continuation of a dispute from the previous account. That of itself is violation of policy. Solely on that basis, TT had good reason to raise this concern (even though I counselled to bring it to ArbCom's attention, where it might have been handled without the drama that gets tacked on here.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


  1. User:Sergeant Cribb agrees to not follow TreasuryTag around. Regardless of intent or of quality of edits, given the prior history, he should not be doing this. Other editors will take care of any issues arising with TT's editing. Failure to agree (or to respect the agreement) would risk an interaction ban.
  2. User:TreasuryTag agrees to a Wikipedia:Editor Review. There are enough people who have something to say about TT's editing that this non-judgemental feedback forum may be helpful. In addition, accepting it will probably help User:Sergeant Cribb agree to point one.

Rd232 talk 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Both very good suggestions. The attitude expressed above concerns me: that because policy language says that a general kind of editing is permissible in the abstract, that you are necessarily justified doing it in a particular instance, particularly if you are selectively relying on only part of the relevant policy language. Just because you can remove uncited content doesn't mean you should always remove uncited content; it's far from the only solution and it's not usually the best (as a first step, at least), and WP:BURDEN expressly says that. And WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM is also policy. So it would be a good thing to have a review of how his editing judgment has played out in practice and guidance given where a more constructive step should have been taken than the one that was chosen. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What do you think about a clean-start account immediately launching back into their prior dispute, though without disclosing their previous username, including nominating an article of mine for deletion? ╟─TreasuryTagcollectorate─╢ 18:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm wavering about whether or not to agree to Rd's proposal. I must confess to being unclear as to why I should be forced to make concessions in order to not have my edits stalked. I'd be interested to hear whether or not the Sergeant would, hypothetically, agree to the compromise. ╟─TreasuryTagcollectorate─╢ 18:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I would be happy to agree to Rd232's compromise. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, I don't feel comfortable entering into a compromise over an issue where there should be a clear-cut position. Sergeant Cribb must not stalk/track/target/insert-politically-correct-word-here my edits and that is all there is to it. It is a violation of WP:HOUND and it is a violation of WP:CLEANSTART. I would like him to agree to permanently stop ____ing my edits; I see that he has already agreed above that it is bad use of his own time.
I may subsequently decide to voluntarily go in for editor review, of my own accord or reacting to somebody's request, but it is unreasonable that I should be shanghaied into doing it simply in order to secure a situation which should be the case anyway – namely, being free from the stalking of a third-account CLEANSTART editor with a grudge. ╟─TreasuryTagActing Returning Officer─╢ 19:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a shame. I remain open to the compromise if TT changes his mind. In any event, I do not currently intend to seek out further problems with TT's editing. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm slightly confused. Are you basically agreeing to stop following my edits? Because if so, I will happily mark this thread 'resolved' (or at least declare it 'resolved' as far as I'm concerned) and move on. And I might go in for an editor-review in a coupla weeks anyway; see how things go. ╟─TreasuryTagYou may go away now.─╢ 19:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I am saying that I accept that I have better things to do with my time than follow TT around. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I think it would be as well to be clear about this. Do you agree not to specifically track {lovely split infinitive}my edits any more? Yes or no? ╟─TreasuryTagpresiding officer─╢ 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree to quit badgering people in discussions? Yes or no? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree to quit badgering people in discussions? Yes or no? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you agree to quit badgering people in discussions? Yes or no? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry if there was any ambiguity, so to be clear: the two parts of the Proposal are independent. In particular, even if 2. doesn't happen then some form of 1. will happen - including, if necessary, an interaction ban or other sanction of Cribb. I'll take Cribb's statements as agreement to not follow TT around, so in effect, this problem is solved (in combination with Cribb confirming his prior identity). If he breaks that agreement, he'll be subject to sanction, without regard to whether the "following around" edits are good, bad, or indifferent. Now I'd like TT to accept 2. as well, but if he doesn't, that's his bed he's making. Basically, we're done here. Rd232 talk 19:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Rd. I'll bookmark the link for reference as a guarentee that Sergeant Cribb (talk · contribs) is not to stalk/follow/trace my edits any longer. Now that this is resolved, I will voluntarily commit to undergo an editor-review within two weeks. ╟─TreasuryTagconsulate─╢ 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In the interests of perfect clarity --
  • I agree not to deliberately track TT's edits: while we may intersect in future, I will not seek to do so. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Since there has been unambigious violation of WP:Clean Start I would prefer that Sergeant Cribb edit only from the Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus account, or at very least make it abundantly clear of the connection between the two. Disregarding this abuse, in the raising of concerns regarding Treasury Tag and their edits, is improper. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Done [9] [10]. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Further to a discussion on my talkpage it is confirmed that Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus was also a WP:Clean Start account. As Sergeant Cribb has been forthcoming as to the fact, indeed supplying the evidencing diff, I am content merely to note the fact and to express a hope that the contributor will be more circumspect in future in relation to their past accounts editing histories. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • comment. OK - 1) I agree that TT had every right to be upset and concerned about this. 2) I compliment RD on his work to resolve this with minimal fuss and drama (good work). However, I do recall not more than a week or two ago that TT mentioned that he was going to follow SoV around and check his edits and actions. (I'd rather not have to go searching for the diff, but I do recall the gist of the post) - I have a request in that venue. Please remember how it feels to be hounded, harassed, and stalked TT, and I ask that you not do the same to others. Thank you, that is all. — Ched :  ?  22:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that TT really needs to undergo an editor review, as some of your removals are baffling. Yes, you can justify it in policy, but the positron edit in particular was a bit ridiculous. Please take our concerns under consideration, TT. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Is there any particular reason you felt a need to post the above, in light of my very clear comment, "Now that this is resolved, I will voluntarily commit to undergo an editor-review within two weeks," slightly higher up in the thread...? ╟─TreasuryTagWoolsack─╢ 07:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    Heh, evidently I missed that when reading the many replies after my earlier comment. My bad. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Subject line insults by User:Pmanderson and removal of AFD tag[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No admin action is going to be taken here, move along. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Could I have an admin remove these insults from the subject lines of these edits please?:

[11] (Undo vandalism by Rememberway.)

[12] (Undo vandalism)

I don't like bad faith accusations hanging around when I'm clearly not doing anything that can be construed that way. (I did a perfectly normal user merge and then when it was undone I called an AFD.)

I just find it highly offensive. Very many thanks.

One of the edits actually removed an AFD tag as well...

Rememberway (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing an afd template is vandalism. (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That's what Pmanderson did, not Rememberway. Get your facts straight, Mr IP. Revdelling an edit summary made up of nothing but swearing doesn't stick, so I don't think mischaracterisations of an edit as vandalism is going to be removed. But Pmanderson should be aware that if he continues to make such baseless accusations and remove AfD templates he will end up getting blocked. Fences&Windows 23:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware of that, sorry if I wasn't clear. :) (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion both Pmanderson and Rememberway are bordering on disruptive. I am not trying to excuse PMA's removal of the banner, but he did not act in a vacuum. If you look at the AfD discussion, there was some indication that the nomination should be speedy closed. Also, see the recent debates at both WT:MOS and WP:Article title for some additional background. Blueboar (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The removal of the banner was an accident; I must have looked at the wrong diff, and thought that this was another effort by Rememberway to get rid of the example which inconveniences his pet theory. I am glad to see it restored, and I apologize for the error. But Rememberway blanked a substantive article, and has now asked to have it deleted, because he doesn't like its title, because it isn't a noun. I regret to say I'm not making this up.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That's absolutely not true, I merged it, perfectly properly, and then Pmanderson just went berzerk. Pmanderson has carried on with his bad faith attacks even within the AFD itself and here; and seems to be engaged in WP:POINTy behaviour there as well. IMO it's all very improper behavior.Rememberway (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Just in case anyone isn't following this extremely closely (which is likely), Blueboar isn't a disinterested party, he's been buddy-reverting in WP:Article titles back to Pmanderson's edits; where Pmanderson's edits are making the bizarre claim that song names aren't nouns. Yup, they both think that names aren't nouns. You couldn't make this up.Rememberway (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Edit warring at WP:Article titles[edit]


We could use some non-involved admin oversight at this policy page... an inability to reach a consensus is leading everyone to "take sides" and edit war. Blueboar (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What we have is one editor who very much wants to write his pet idea into policy. We've discussed this at some length at WT:AT#WP:NOUN and nutshell, and he has gotten a notable absence of agreement; he's spent two weeks writing it into policy every few days, and I have been the first to object. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, so what's been going on is that Pmanderson has been systematically altering WP:NOUN from the version that there was about a week ago (which has been consensus for over three years) which said that all article titles should be nouns. It has become very clear that Pmanderson doesn't understand what a noun is, which is probably why he keeps modifying it. In particular he doesn't believe that names are always nouns and so he has repeatedly (i.e. edit warred) to soften the policy, and has repeatedly added 'exceptions' which pretty clearly aren't, things like 'Try to Remember' which is the name of a song (a proper noun); he's added this as an exception to the policy! I keep reading his edits and facepalming. It's not just me reverting his edits, at least two other people have as well, and previous people were questioning some of their earlier edits, it seemed to be easy and natural to add 'titles should be nouns' to the nutshell, but blueboar and Pmanderson took it out, which was weird, and at least two other people Dicklyon and Rrr1 went to the talk pages to try to find out what was going on. It's just depressing and bizarre behaviour from both of them, and at no point do any of their changes seem to have reached consensus over and above the long standing version, and it doesn't seem to be just me.Rememberway (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the page has been fully protected, so there is no more need for admin action here. Please discuss your concerns with the page over on that talk page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:FuFoFuEd creating essays to support his position[edit]

This is a first for me and I have no idea how to respond. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChucK:

  1. FuFoFuEd argued to keep based on the existence of similar articles.
  2. I responded that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
  3. FuFoFuEd replied with a link to WP:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES.

Here's the problem: FuFoFuEd is citing an essay he had just created, just so he could cite it. (Take a look at the history.)

My concern is two-fold. First, I think that's a somewhat less than completely honest way to try to win an argument in an AfD. Second, the essay appears inconsistent with the rest of guidelines regarding reliable secondary sources. I would like to propose it for deletion but I have no idea how to do that (or what the deletion criteria are) for an essay. Advice would be appreciated. Msnicki (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:SPS would be a place to start... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure the reviewing admin is capable of not taking user written essays as policy. Why does it matter if he is linking to his own essay? It's basically a link to his argument, much like your own comment was just a link to your argument with no other content. The closing admin is hardly going to read it and say: "Oh! Thats an essay! This comment carries triple weight!" because that isn't how it works. (One hopes anyway.) Don't see much point doing anything here. Regards, -- (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Also what does self published sources have to do with anything here? He is making an argument in a discussion, not attempting to cite anything as the original poster here incorrectly asserts. Normally as a dynamic IP I just lurk, but sometimes I really am tempted into replying to some of the nonsense that goes on on Wikipedia, and this is one of those times. -- (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
As a note, I've moved the user essay into FuFoFuEd's namespace. - SudoGhost 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Two problems: first, you did it wrong. Secondly, you probably shouldn't do that unilaterally; that's what MfD is for. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Two things: first, stating I did it wrong without saying why doesn't help. Second, the MfD page's "Alternatives to deletion" suggested that I do the very thing I did. - SudoGhost 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps "you did it wrong" was too harsh. Let me rephrase. The essay Msnicki was concerned about, Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES, has not been moved. Apparently FuFoFuEd had also created a copy with a misspelled title, Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES; you moved that one to his userspace. I'll db-tag the userspace duplicate and the misspelled redirect. Regarding "Alternatives to deletion", it suggests moving articles out of Wikipedia space, not essays. Userfying a Wikipedia-space essay isn't really a case where a page is in an obviously wrong namespace, so it's usually better to discuss first, either with the editor directly, or via an MfD, before doing that. 28bytes (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES was the one linked above, so I assumed that it was the only one, I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES (with the correct spelling).
You're right: it is linked above; I stand corrected. I was looking at the one linked to in the AfD. Regardless, we only need (at most) one copy of this, so I've requested speedy deletion for the copy. 28bytes (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems there's also a Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESWITHAPPLES in addition to Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES and the previous Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES. I'm not sure which of the two is the preferred version, so I'm hesitant to request a speedy deletion of one over the other. - SudoGhost 17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
He sure likes copying and pasting that essay! I've redirected the first to the second; easy enough to undo if needed. 28bytes (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As says, it's perfectly OK to write an essay and link to it rather than spelling out one's argument on the AfD page. You can MfD the essay if you want, but it's well within the guidelines for essays and would probably be kept. What you've done (noted in the ChucK AfD that the essay was written by the editor citing it) is probably sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(Correcting again for the edit overlap.) Thanks very much for the feedback. You've answered my questions. Msnicki (talk)
Just to note, I agree that best practices would be for a person citing an essay that they just wrote to mention the fact that they just wrote it. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There you go. It was the seeming deceptiveness that bothered me. If someone links to a WP: page, we WP:AGF and we also expect that if it was worth the link, it's probably to some material that's been around for a while, that's been debated and can provide useful outside guidance on the prevailing consensus on that particular matter. We don't expect someone to quote themselves. This was a first for me and I had no idea how to react. Again, thanks to all for your kind advice. Msnicki (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Quite an amusing usage of WP:AGF there, as what you did was jump to the conclusion they were trying to mislead you... -- (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
"I quote myself all the time." - SudoGhost | SudoGhost 17:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
He did mislead me last night when I first read it because I did WP:AGF. It wasn't 'till this morning I realized I might have been tricked. Bear in mind (as you can see by my contributions on that page) a lot of what attracts me to AfD discussions is the part about checking sources (they're not always what they appear to be!) and I realized this was one I hadn't really checked. But I'm disappointed I should have to in this case. Does that help? Msnicki (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I welcomed the user to Wikipedia btw, since no one else thought of doing so. Probably a better welcome to the project than an ANI notice accusing him of bad faith editing when he probably isn't well versed with the mountain of red tape/rules (take your pick) that this project has. -- (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    But apparently well versed enough to participate in an AFD and write an essay. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
He also wrote the bio of Ge Wang, the creator of ChucK, who had previously created the ChucK article as User:Gewang. He also knew enough to search my edit history and canvass for editors he thought might not like me. It did make me wonder. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Of course someone should disclose that he's citing himself. Duh. And the claim to being a new user does look pretty fishy to me. Or maybe ducky. Is there a checkuser in the house?  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have requested a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gewang. Msnicki (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I was going to say, FuFoFuEd is certainly not a new editor. Nobody creates an essay to support their own AfD argument 6 hours after they first start editing Wikipedia. The IP's claims of WP:BITE are ludicrous. -- Atama 16:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't list it when requesting an investigation, but I suppose it's possible that is just yet another sockpuppet. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

reporting user user:Active Banana[edit]

Resolved: Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User user:Active Banana Has removed everything from the page Uncle Ruckus I tried to restore this,(he has not given any reason on the talk page) and he undid my edit and game me a warning with out giving any reason, now the user has gone on too going to my edit history and is undoing every edit i have tried to do and saying i am being a vadel I know i am a IP but i am trying to be a good editor here this is not fair nor right. He is also posting all this stuff on my talk page to give me a bad wrap i want this issue resolver with someone in charge. (I removed this false infor from my talk page if i am found wrong i will resort it) (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The only addition of yours I see him removing is a long, unsourced section of what seems to be your own analysis of a subject. Have you read WP:V and WP:SYNTHESIS yet? I can't find any edits that were removed that would have been appropriate to that article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(ec) You were trying to insert a completely unsourced passage into a biography page. User was correct to remove it. Do not edit-war. You now have more eyes on this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The edit being made was to a cartoon character how does it apply to a living person? (talk) 23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
fair enough. still unsourced. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thats what i mean i get a warning you put me on a list as a bad editor and this is not a "living person" it seems you all are out to get newbie...But whatever ill leave thats what this site wants no new people to be here, thanks for making me feel unwelcome (all the warnings sure seem that way so no biggie, schools are right this site is a joke and should not be taken serious for any information. Ill leave not to come back :) (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If that sounds easier to believe than that a new user might not know all of the rules, then you probably will be happier leaving. There are a lot of rules at Wikipedia, and in general, when someone tells you about one you didn't know, it's smarter to listen than to assume you are being persecuted. It's totally your choice, though, whether you decide to believe that other users are trying to teach you thinks you don't know, or whether you decide to believe that everyone else is just a big meanie. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • A couple of notes: (1) I don't think this was the IP editor's analysis; it's been in the article for a while, the IP editor just put it back after AB removed it. (2) As he notes immediately above, this is not a BLP. (3) Both editors were edit warring and should stop it. (4) On the merits, Active Banana is right, that unsourced essay does not belong in the article; there are much better ways to impart that information to new users, however, than templates. (5) The talk page appears unused. (6) As FQ notes, if you're a new user to the site, don't you feel some sort of obligation to learn how things work when something unexpected happens?

    It does bring up an interesting question, though. (7) Has it ever been productive when one editor involved in an edit war gives the other editor in the edit war a 3RR template? The warned party never takes it seriously because the other editor is doing it to, and it always seems to inflame the situation more. Really, I think those templates should only be used by editors uninvolved in the actual edit war. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

    • Re: #7 - I agree, and it should be written into policy for use of the 3RR template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Other edits by the IP are questionable, eg [13] where he deleted a key part of cited text text (the article was about "Do testosterone injections increase libido for elderly hypogonadal patients" and the text said "d is also effective in improving libido for elderly males." - the IP removed the word elderly. I'll revert that, but there are other questionable edits. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Exeter International Airport[edit]

User:O_Fenian is involved in an edit war on this page. The user had made 3 changes to this page without any discussion. I have requested that he join the discussion page and make a case for his change but he has ignored this plea. Another User:Mo_ainm has also made the same edit without discussion. Both Users seem to appear on the same topics. Could be meat puppetry. All I ask is that they join the discussion but this is yet to happen and I am unable to revert their change as I have made 3 reverts. Can you revert the page to its original state and request they join the discussion first.Homebirdni (talk) 10:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Factocop. O Fenian (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
And much as I shouldn't waste my time with this sockmaster's disruption, the "original state" is prior to this partially incorrect edit made by an IP editor, yet Homebirdni/Factocop insists I "Please discuss before making an edit", and similar summaries without even saying what the problem with the edit is. The sooner the sockpuppet case is dealt with, the quicker we can all go home. O Fenian (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear Sir, please when making a contentious edit, discuss first. That all I asked. Given that the BAA uses the Union Jack, why have you only changed the flag representing Northern Ireland?
I took a sabatical as I was fed up with users such as yourself.Homebirdni (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
O Fenian is right that the Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland - it has not been officially used as a symbol of government since 1972 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I took a sabatical as I was fed up with users such as yourself; is that an admission to being Factocop? --Errant (chat!) 10:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
2+2=5? Homebirdni (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Only for very large values of 2. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That is worrying - I thought 2 was an integer. eek! On the topic of Belfast City Airport - I've not actually seen any flag fly there so why O___Fenian is so keen to use the Union Jack is beyond me. He must be a Unionist with a really ironic name. ha ha ha. get it! very witty! I get it now. ha ha ha! He's a laugh.Homebirdni (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
2.9+2.9=5.8 - Confused!(head scratch)Homebirdni (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's not possible to agree on which cute-little-national-flag-picture best represents an airport, removing them altogether may be a better solution. WP:MOSICON is worth a read, although it might be updated soon. bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the only compromise. As BAA uses the Union Jack I think that all the British Airports should use the Union Jack, not just Belfast City. Although I've not seen any flags at Belfast City Airport other than a wind sock. O_Fenian must of seen a Union Jack there.Homebirdni (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thing is, the other UK destinations have the flag of their home country - England, Scotland etc. The current WP:MOSICON style is that in this context NO flag is appropriate for institutions in Northern Ireland and I suspect per bobrayner above this may be the best solution. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Re Belfast, WP:MOS-IE applies. Mjroots (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Time for a new filter...?[edit]

It never fails. All it takes is one malcontent with a dynamic IP, a thirst for attention and no real ability to contribute meaningfully to in turn cost far too much volunteer time. I refer to one of the latest long-term abusers, User:Meepsheep. I've never crossed paths with him, but he's showing up a lot more on the blocked user list. I believe it's time for a filter to block this guy on sight. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a set pattern to the edits from which a filter can be derived? I've never come across him/her myself, although I've seen the username a half-handful of times either here or on AIV. (My curiosity's up a bit...) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There are variations of the original username in the names of the socks which include not only "Meepsheep" but both "Meep" and "Sheep" as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
That, and if they edit, the first edit is always some inane post to create their userpage. I found one with the picture HJ Mitchell has of himself on his userpage with some disparaging remark, for one, and using blocked sock templates seems to be a favorite. I've been watching the user creation log, and although it hasn't reached MascotGuy levels it's getting annoying. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think such a thing was even possible. :P Still, he's annoying as all get-out and if we can start with a filter without resorting to rangeblocks, I'm all for it. PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
See, here's the problem if we were able to "blacklist" all forms of his name (which I don't think would be possible without collateral damage BTW): that's only going to make his disruptive accounts that much harder to detect. –MuZemike 20:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And of course, me and my big mouth. The little darling just insulted me with one of his usernames over at the blocked username page and he used some alternate characters to do it. Anybody for a rangeblock? At least I got under his skin. Very satisfying. :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And you're not helping any by creating an SPI case on the account (which was globally suppressed, BTW) and then recreating it after it was deleted. CU is not going to help here at all for the exact reasons you stated above. –MuZemike 21:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Let me elaborate in that we already have many people who are watching this and that the only possible thing CU can do here is scan the underlying IPs and XFFs for open proxies (which, after doing a couple, there are one or two of them). In other words, rangeblocking is out of the question. –MuZemike 21:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Then to hell with it. I saw the litttle monster's socks, reported it here, thought I was facing a technical glitch and now I'm the one getting reamed. I hadn't been involved with the issue before and believe me, I won't be again. I swear, this site eats its own. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) Pointing out that there is no effective technical solution isn't "reaming" you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

No, but telling me that I'm "not helping any" is. As I pointed out, I was new to the situation and I had no idea what was already going on. I've spoken off-wiki with a user with global rights. He's told me that the guy is using proxies and they've filtered him as best they can. Here's hoping that his fifteen minutes are up because the little creep has already been on fourteen minutes too long. I in the meantime am leaving this situation in more experienced hands. PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

User:RockSound at Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher[edit]

Not an acceptable heat-to-light ratio. Protection does not appear necessary right now. lifebaka++ 23:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This follows on from a now-archived thread started less than 72 hours ago: [14]. RockSound (talk · contribs), although now contributing at the article talk page as instructed, is demonstrating increased incivility and rather excessive boldness in his edits both to the article and its talk page. Such edits have included moving whole sections of the article and lengthening section titles in an unencyclopaedic manner, all without prior discussion, and then edit-warring to restore the alterations when reverted. His talk page edits indicate little to no intention to listen to others' advice, and his contributions to a discussion on the article's "Further reading" section are becoming highly opinionated to the point of POV-pushing. I am reluctant to make further reverts, but I feel that the user is simply not listening and that a certain level of administrator attention is warranted here. Could someone please kindly advise RockSound, retreading some of the recommendations that have already been made at his talk page? Thank you in advance. SuperMarioMan 02:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or have there been severe problems with this article, and significant contributors to it, for quite some time? By which I mean years. Why continue to tolerate it? Either fullprot the damn thing and make 'em hash out a consensus before edits, or just topicban the lot. → ROUX  03:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

ResponseThere are very serious problems on this article, which Mr. Wales has acknowledged and has tried to address, but SuperMarioMan and his cohorts won't listen. 300 people have filed a petition saying that there are severe problems with this article and the horrid way that editors are treated if they don't share the POV of a certain clique that has taken control of the article. Anyone who tries to join in who does not share SuperMarioMan's POV (which he shares with that small clique) gets harassed, blocked, banned, and reverted, reverted, reverted, reverted, reverted.

About a dozen or so editors who did not share the clique's pro-guilt POV were booted off en masse. But prior to that the clique harassed, file complaints and make their lives miserable to wear them down. I think that Mr. Wales's findings that there are serious problems with this article need to be addressed. I have started a discussion about this on the article discussion page. Unless and until these issues are addressed, the problems, bad feelings, and animosities will continue, and the article will remain in a very bad state. SuperMarioMan can blame me all he wants, but there are 300 people and Mr. Wales who were saying that there are serious problems on the article before I got involved. RockSound (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Non admin comment: All due respect to Jimbo, but his opinion doesn't really matter, nor does an online petition, so citing either of those as a basis for your argument is not really going to accomplish anything. Just saying... (talk) 03:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC) Whoops, that was me not logged in. Quinn BEAUTIFUL DAY 03:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Saying you have an online petition to complain about it holds about as much weight here as saying the Tooth Fairy asked you to do it. HalfShadow 03:52, 25 May 2011


Well the problems are very serious and need to be addressed. There has been media coverage of these problems with the Kercher article. That isn't going to go away until the problems with the article are addressed and the clique in control of the article address their own behavior. But it seems that no one but Mr. Wales has taken an interest so far.

For those who might find it in their hearts to try to help with the very serious problems with this article, please read this plea for help signed by over 300 people:

Removed text of petition, as possibly a copyright violation, and TLDR anyway: provide a link instead please Fram (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

300 people have signed online

RockSound (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Rapid cleanup by a subject-matter expert: Wait a minute, here, it seems that User:RockSound is an energetic subject-matter expert (having read several books on the subject) trying to remove poor-quality or defamatory links and text from the article, and in that case, I would allow the changes, for now, and debate what to undo later. The current crisis in that article ("Murder of Meredith Kercher") is that 2 of the murder suspects, which the article quickly calls "convicted" in the intro, are actually in an ongoing appeals trial (lasting until autumn 2011), as a re-trial (trial de novo) based on the evidence, with a jury of 8. From a U.S. viewpoint, this situation would be considered "conviction overturned". However, the whole article seems slanted to ignore the controversies which have granted the new trial, while filling the article with questionable sources and lists of self-published books, which many other editors did not fully understand earlier. More needs to be added to the article to explain the infamous controversies, published internationally, and stop the bias, beginning in the intro to proclaim those 2 suspects as "convicted" when they are "currently in a re-trial based on the evidence, with a jury of 8 judges". Let User:RockSound make whatever changes necessary, and then let's discuss adjusting those changes to keep the article in sync with the reality of the appeals trial which began in November 2010. The reason the problems have persisted since November, for months (count 'em: 7 months ago), is because the talk-page became a "paralysis of analysis" of suggested changes which few bothered to discuss for consensus. Instead, User:RockSound has gone WP:BRD, and that is what is being hyped here as a problem, when it should be viewed as, finally, breaking the paralysis to get the article improved (which is why "Be Bold" is recommended). I do not think "boldly adding text" is grounds for WP:ANI intervention. Give this a week to settle on the MoMK talk-page. Many admins are well aware the MoMK article has been used, often, as a excuse to come to ANI to conduct protracted pissing contests, rather than improve the article. Please stop this one now, and allow text to be added to the article. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that it is more a case of WP:BRBRD, given that the user edit-warred to restore the changes despite the concerns of others. And, at any rate, there was not so much "boldly adding text" or "trying to remove poor-quality or defamatory links" as radically re-ordering the content and flow of the article, while at the same time lengthening the section titles to little visible encyclopaedic benefit. Considering that this article is a contentious one, would it not seem inherently sensible to discuss proposed changes of this scale first, on the talk page, at a reasonable pace, before making them? SuperMarioMan 04:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

SMM is being false and misleading. He edit-wars against my work constantly. I don't do that to his work. He deletes my work constantly because he is trying to harass me off of the article just as he and his clique have driven countless people away from the Kercher article.

I merely added dates to sections of a long article that is very confusing, in part because the chronology is not set out sufficiently. I tried to add dates to some section headings so that the reader could get a grasp on when things happened. SSM went nutty again reverting my work and trying to turn a simple thing into a big drama. I only moved one paragraph that was out of chronological order and put it where it obviously should have been. These simple changes involved no change to language of the article. Yet he acts like he owns the article and how dare I add in dates without his permission.

I had earlier added a few sentences about an announcement by the Innocence Project yesterday that they had concluded that Amanda Knox is innocent, after completing their independent investigation. Well SMM apparently was bothered by this being in the article and he reverted some of my edits on this as well, possibly before the second wave of attack over my adding in dates. He or someone else moved my text to another spot without telling me or discussing it anywhere. For SMM and his group, they can make any changes they want, without getting approval first on the talk page. But those who are not part of the clique-- who dare to make any edits without arguing with them for hours on the discussion page-- are then reverted and chastized for acting without permission.

This is how they keep a lockhold on the article. It is not at all in accordance with the rules and policies of Wikipedia. As a result of all of these shenanigans the article is highly biased. Mr. Wales determined that the article was unfair to Amanda Knox and that good sources containing positive information about her were being intentionally excluded from the article. Mr. Wales very harshly criticized this situation, but it flew right past the clique. This is why Mr. Wales is desperately need back on the article. I had already raised this on the Talk page just before I got a notice on this ANI--I guess as a further distraction from the any real discussion about what is really going on with that article.RockSound (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is this case not being brought towards Arbitration? Why is nobody being banned over this? How are the stupid dash/hyphen or the stupid Pending Changes more important than this, given that we got users ready to slit each others' throats over this? –MuZemike 06:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

RockSound is fairly new to the topic. His edits have merit, but often go a little too far and so end up being reverted. Added to that he is strongly of the view that Knox is innocent, and seems to be trying to edit the article to reflect that particular view. RockSound makes some good arguments, but lets his opinions drive his editing. Wikid77 seems to have just switched to attacking editors:

And spends his time speculating about seemingly unrelated/tangential matters on the talk page.

I don't think this is at arbitration level yet - we could have an RFC/U or several as the next step. --Errant (chat!) 07:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Here's exactly what this sort of situation needs, more hyperbole (this is in relation to the "given that we got users ready to slit each others' throats over this?" comment). Nice work there. Way to settle things down. *rolls eyes*
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 07:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any better ideas then? Because every other day I look here, this article is at the forefront of pretty much everything. When is this going to end? –MuZemike 12:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I suspect it will only end when the pro-innocence editors successfully slant the article to their POV or ArbCom gets involved. And I'm not entirely sure on the latter. Resolute 15:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds about right. They've chased me from ever getting near that cesspool. Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe I mentioned it in the previous thread. The fact that 300 people signed an online petition means diddly squat. I'm sure if you did some digging there's probably another petition which has 300 signatures that say the opposite and that too would mean diddly squat here. Rocksound, bringing up the petition over and over again is not going to make your case any stronger. Your continual claims of a "clique" operating on the article is an assumption of bad faith especially if you go into a controversial article, by which I mean the sbuject is controversial rather than the article itself, with a confrontational manner. All that will do is raise everyone's hackles. If you read through the reports regarding the editors who you claim to have been harassed off the article, of which there were quite a few, their removal was necessary as all they were doing was refuse to discuss towards a consensu and fought everyone tooth and nail. There's no deadline for the article so take about a day or two off the article, refresh yourselves, look up some sources and discuss them on the talk page before adding more material. Rocksound, there's nothing wrong with being bold, but on prickly articles like this one, being too bold can become disruptive. -- Blackmane (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Blackmane has said it best. In response to RockSound, I would suggest that the issue only became a "big drama" only when the questionable changes (which altered the article structure) were restored without any discussion or much justification, prompting a second user to revert. Whether sections of an already-contentious article are moved for "chronological" or other reasons, such changes are bound to attract the attention of others, and it is unrealistic to believe that such changes can be made both instantly and permanently without a certain amount of prior discussion. SuperMarioMan 11:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This clearly needs to go to ArbCom, or at the very least to RfC. - Burpelson AFB 13:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I am tempted to hat this and send them off to a RfC. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
SuperMarioMan and his clique repeatedly abuse Wikipedia's policies to retain control of the MoMK article and take new editors who differ with them straight to AN/I in an attempt to get them topic banned. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • An RfC or ArbCom may soon be necessary, but let's not get distracted into thinking it is all because of one new-to-the-scene user, RockSound. The short time I have spent there trying to puncture some of the more ridiculous arguments has found a very tight and very resistant collection of editors who are, to put it bluntly, acting like the PR arm of the various external Amanda Knox-is-innocent advocacy groups. Personally, I don't care about the case itself one way or the other; if she's found innocent on retrial and she goes free, cool; if not and she spends a few decades in Italian prisons, oh well. But there's a serious problem here with external pressure on the Wikipedia to focus more on detailed forensic evidence, floor diagrams of the flat, casting aspersions on prosecution witnesses, and so on and so on. The damage being done here isn't contained in one article, either; note the attempts to insert criticism of the case into the Perugia city article, as well as the Italy article. ErrantX has done a commendable job with pushing both sides towards reconciliations but I don't know if one hand is going to be enough in the long run. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Tarc is one of the main culprits who repeatedly violates Wikipedia policies including WP:OWN and WP:CIVILITY. He is also a liar, as neither of the edits he cites mentions the Kercher case. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The above response is a large part of the problem; anyone who weighs in on the article and disagrees with these people is instantly branded a "culprit". I first heard of the case via Jimbo's talk page when that blog posted the now-infamous "open letter" soliciting intervention, went to see what was going on, and found quite a tempest. It isn't so different from the Obama-related articles or even the Israel-Palestine topic area; people come here with their notion of "The Truth(tm)", demanding that said truth be reflected in the Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm branding you not a 'culprit' but a liar, which objectively speaking, based on the evidence, you are. But this thread isn't about me, it's about another of the clique's victims. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • (ec) Looking at those diffs, I would say Tarc is bang on. Do you really think people here are so stupid that they can't tell what an SPA is alluding to with those edits? Looking at your comments here, on your talk page, and on the article talk page, it seems rather clear to me that you will routinely attack anyone who does not share your personal POV on the subject. In fact, on the current version of the article talk page, you have several comments posted, but not a single one constructive. Personally, I am rather surprised that your consistent attacks and insults have been tolerated as much as they have. Resolute 15:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Just for reference, CodyJoeBibby's conduct was raised at ANI (here and here) about a month ago, although the discussion produced no concrete result. Under normal circumstances, I would be inclined to launch into a thorough rebuttal of claims that I am the ringleader of a "clique", or a "culprit" therein. However, since this is hardly the first time that such accusations have been levelled against both myself and others, and refuting such concerns again and again quickly becomes tiresome, I shan't bother. SuperMarioMan 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my conduct was raised at AN/I. By you. And absolutely nothing came of it. Now you are raising somebody else's conduct at AN/I. A person who, unsurprisingly, you disagree with. You should be topic banned yourself for repeatedly wasting Wikipedia's time with frivolous and vexatious actions against people you are trying to silence. CodyJoeBibby (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I take it that you missed the request that I made on the talk page for RockSound to propose edits and discuss them with other editors. How does that equate to "trying to silence" him? Your other conclusions, although naturally rejected, are nevertheless duly noted. SuperMarioMan 17:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Anyone else think the best solution here would be to full-protect the bloody article until after the trial, and in the meantime have the involved editors hash it out on a compromise version in userspace somewhere? This is one of the most contentious articles we've had recently, and there's a distinct drive by SPAs to skew it. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps that would be the best solution. In general, the atmosphere at the talk page and around this topic overall has been much more constructive of late (compared to how it used to be). Some of the discussions have been fairly productive. However, the situation has a tendency to worsen dramatically when one or more editors arrive on the scene with a strong POV about the subject matter and then demonstrate a refusal to listen when either their bold proposals are rejected by consensus or their similarly bold edits are reverted. It is certainly the most complex and disputed article that I have worked on in my time at Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 16:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree, fully protect the article for now. It's generating far too much drama. -- Atama 17:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Posting this issue here creates more drama than the actual issue, which seems to be resolved now.LedRush (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this issue needed to be raised here. Rocksound made an en masse group of edits. Many of these edits were positive, some were not. I, and some others, reverted. The situation has calmed down as Rocksound has been told of the contentious nature of the article and the need to discuss things more than might be expected on other articles. The opinions above talking about the need to block people, impose topic bans, and fully protect the article seem like severe over-reactions. And leveling the blame on SPAs looking to the skew the article seems severely misplaced.

In my opinion, the actual quality of the article and the tone of the talk page have improved dramatically in the past few months. Edit warring has stopped, and the hostile environment on the talk page is really just a few established editors (and one admin) who take the opportunity to make sarcastic jibes at almost anyone who presents a view contrary to theirs. I understand their frustration. There is a new article, documentary or movie about Amanda Knox almost every week, which in turn brings a new editor's attention to this article. Often, this editor does not know the history of discussions and makes edits/suggestions which have been explicitly shot down in the past. It can be tiring to deal with that good faith editing. But it is nothing more than the articles on Obama or Palin deal with on a much larger scale.

Efforts to improve the tone of the talk page should not revolve around banning or topic-banning new editors, but on being vigilant in letting the established editors know that they should not contribute to a hostile environment through repeated sarcasm, biting newbies and assigning views to them which they haven't stated (merely because other new editors had held the view). When a new editor oversteps his bounds, we can firmly and clearly tell them what is expected of them, and this won't seem like a hypocritical attack against those with divergent view points.LedRush (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I strongly dispute this. Yes, lately I've been a bit sarcastic, but frankly that has a lot more to do with my general frustration with the attitude and behaviour of one editor. His obstructionist, rude and ill-thought-out approach in a number of areas of my own interest is sapping my ability to cut as much slack as I used to. Many of the editors on that talk page, to call a spade a spade, are uninterested in Wikipedia as a goal/entity, have little experience of writing neutral content and are there with an agenda. Not always a bad thing, but rehashing all of the same arguments, constantly is getting tiresome. But I have not sniped at new editors (RockSound I was very polite to to try and get him to participate) - and would point out that Truth Mom, who has an admitted POV, I've got on really well and constructively with... --Errant (chat!) 19:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I did not intend to name you. You have been a godsend for the board as you are generally respected b