Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive796

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

Noticeboard archives


Sockpuppet of blocked editor Mangoeater[edit]

Blocked by Delta Quad -- Dianna (talk) 04:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please block the latest sockpuppet of blocked/banned editor User:Mangoeater1000? He or she is back to try to edit Polytechnic Institute of New York University, an article that is currently semi-protected to try to prevent this precise situation. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Trouble with proposed rewrite of Zeitgeist: The Movie and User:Earl King Jr.[edit]

Withdrawn by OP. (non-admin closure) -- (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

To Whom It May Concern, I recently started a serious discussion on the talk page for Zeitgeist: The Movie consisting of notions the page requires long-term attention to reflect a balanced encyclopedic view, which at this point it does not. There have been several digressions, including a few regarding WP:RS, and so far little progress has been made. There is some consensus the article lacks neutrality, which I am hoping I (together with other users) can work on in the medium to long-term.

Unfortunately, I have come across some trouble with User:Earl King Jr., who I have accused of trolling for the following reasons:

  • Aforementioned user took down the POV template I had erected less than twelve hours prior,
  • Aforementioned user, in my opinion deliberately (that is, to be subversive), injected polemical criticisms about the film into the article introduction. My reverting such has resulted in an edit war.
  • Aforementioned user continues to act subversively and perniciously, and his edits are undermining any progress towards neutrality.
  • I warned aforementioned user to desist from the behaviours outlined above, but his actions only gained impetus.
  • Aforementioned user has been generally provocative and divisive in his (ungrammatical) contributions on the talk page. He has also made several immature comments.

I move to censure this user's contributions, and invite arbitration where necessary. Xabian40409 (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It might be best to ignore this one, especially if Xabian40409 is willing to withdraw it (without prejudice). (Speaking as an involved admin.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not willing to withdraw it. The atmosphere of disruption has hitherto made progress almost impossible. Although I may now be spider-man climbing the Reichstag, on principle alone I see a real need for the services of impartial adjudicator, if any progress is to be made. This includes making an example of Earl King Jr. Xabian40409 (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I took a look at Zeitgeist: The Movie and your contributions and discussion. I strongly suggest you reconsider Arthur Rubin's generous offer and read WP:BOOMERANG.--I am One of Many (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how I am shooting myself in the foot, unless an arbitrator were to focus more on my arguments with others, than on the content of the article that's being abused and compromised by the actions of others. Nevertheless I have an important assignment due on Friday, and I can't invest more energy at this point. I am willing to take a cold shower and have a cold glass of water, and hereby revoke my complaint. Sorry for the disturbance. Xabian40409 (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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


Jiraiya47 (talk · contribs) keeps posting Tagalog language jokes, which keep getting speedily deleted. He's just posted two pages of jokes into File-namespace File:TAGALOG JOKE TIME.png and File:Tagalog Jokes.jpeg, after his mainspace pages were previously speedily deleted. -- (talk) 05:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

There's more, File:Joke Time Na and File:Joke Time Tagalog.gif -- (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
What's more, I can't find any edits at Special:Contributions/Jiraiya47 which are not disruptive. —teb728 t c 06:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
And indeffed. Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


I feel it is my duty to inform the group of a situation that has arisen due to my work on the Category:County government in the United States category. I am sure that many of you realize that this is an area which had been neglected because people do not care enough about it, even though it deserves the attention. County government is just far enough out of people's attention that most people could not name a single one of their elected county officials, yet perhaps more deserving of attention than, for instance, the mayor of a municipality within a county (a person which most people usually could name).

I soon ran into a few small issues that came up, and I responded to the eventual consensus. The matter was the question "Is a county government local government, or is it an agency of state government?" I can tell you for absolute certain, that with a very few possible exceptions, that county governments are agencies of the state government that are locally accountable through elections. The Wikipedia consensus was that county government is local government, and I organized it as such. Even thought the campaigning and elections are local, the actual governing involves state powers.

In the course of these discussions User:Orlady was very immature, unhelpful an obstructionist. There were no policy violations, at that time, but the fact is that I lost respect for this person quickly, and for my part I have refused to respond to her immaturity, and informed her not to contact me further. At this point I think I have a case for Wikipedia:Harassment, and if it does not rise to that level yet, then I feel I need to put these events on the record, so as to establish that a pattern is occurring.

A) Orlady spammed about a dozen state article talk pages (including Rhode Island and Connecticut which have no county government?!?). At some point I interjected and pointed all the discussion to WikiProject United States, and WikiProject Politics. I was willing to enter into a discussion of the matter, but not 50 discussions. Orlady interpred this as **ME** starting new discussions while there were on-going discussions. Obviously this is very disingenuous.

B) At some point I mentioned my education and experience in the subject matter, and I have not heard the last of it! How arrogant I must be! There is a brain drain problem at Wikipedia, and knowledgeable editors are being driven away by the hoi polloi that very often prevails. For myself, when there are editors who are knowledgeable in subject matter in which I am not, I stay out of their way.

C) Orlady specifically mentioned the idea about discouraging me from editing, and the idea that perhaps in the future, I would not be editing.

D) I had asked for some time to do some work on the category, but that has been met with cries that I am WP:OWNing content. So I have been dealing with hypersensitive sniping, nitpicking and reverting of my work in the area. It's hard enough already without her. She appears to be wikistalking me.

E) Orlady has opposed every proposal for moving, renaming or deleting categories, as well as every proposal to merge articles which I have made, and which is her right. However, I feel it is my duty to express my view that she has not brought up a single useful point in the entire course of the discussion.

F) The most disturbing development is that it now appears that even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Orlady is standing by her false beliefs and imposing it in the content. This is agenda editing, and not appropriate. My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government, and this claim is supported by several sources, and is what I learned in graduate level studies in local and state government. Here are just a few sources which support my claim: (Alabama, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin) Furthermore, the NACO website itself states that "...early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state." Orlady has looked at this evidence, and rather than accept and learn from it, is clinging to denialism1, and trying to rationalize her own views with her own wild interpretations 2. Most recently she deleted a substantial amount of content from County government in the United States which is completely objective information, but which contradicts her agenda.

H) She has posted about me personally, which is not relevant to any discussion underway.

G) Orlady announced her intention to continue to hound me in the future.

I am perfectly willing to account for all of the nuances and variances in county government as the evidence arises. However, At some point I think a topic ban may be in order for Orlady. I need to be able to work in a mutually respectful environment. Could some reasonable and mature editors intervene please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregbard (talkcontribs)

I have only a few comments to your wall of text. First, for so many accusations, there are very few diffs. Second, just glancing at Orlady's talk page, your comments appear rather lopsided. Third, I took a look at some of the articles, and, in my view, they are a mess. Your just-created article, County government in the United States, has ONE source for a very large article. Then, there's Local government in the United States, which was created quite a while ago. Putting aside some problems (an imbedded Wikipedia reference in the lead?), it's not clear to me why you needed to create your article, particularly given yet another longstanding, pre-existing article, County (United States). As an aside, when you report someone here, you are required to notify them; I did so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Orlady did nothing which was sanctionable, certainly nothing meriting a topic ban. [OK, this diff deserves a wrist-slap, and one will be duly administered. But beyond that, I see no evidence of an agenda, conspiracy or serious misconduct. Your own conduct appears to be far more tenditious (eg. repeatedly dismissing other editors' comments as "Not Helpful"). Manning (talk) 01:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Wrist-slap was deserved and is duly acknowledged/accepted. For the record, I've investigated some of sources that Gregbard offers in support of his claim that counties are in fact state agencies, and I've recorded my analysis at User:Orlady/County by state (structured after his user page of the same name). --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The original poster called Orlady a liar in this post [1]; I request they strike the comment (preferred) or support it with diffs if unwilling to do so. NE Ent 02:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Other editors have expressed concern to me about Gregbard's ownership and tendentious behavior with respect to his theories on the nature and derivation of local governments in the US, and his use and structuring of categories to support his assertions. He appears to assert that he is entitled to edit-war over categories "Because I had asked for your cooperation and you refused to give it." [2] Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I find the comments: "... you have an entitled attitude..." and "It is very clear that you have supreme confidence in your own beliefs" in the link provided by NE Ent to be ironic, if not outright hypocritical. I'm sensing that there may be a WP:BOOMERANG nearby. — Ched :  ?  02:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

So the question is, what to do about it? Is Gregbard's participation in this particular domain a net positive even as he wars against what would appear to be wider consensus? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: Gregbard is currently saying the same sorts of things to (and about) Alansohn as he has said to and about me in this section of Gregbard's talk page. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for Gregbard[edit]

  • Sheesh... OK I read most of the cites given above and frankly Gregbard's perspective (My claim is that a county government is an agency of the state government) seems quite... unique. To be fair, I am coming to the topic in near total ignorance, but even so, nothing he provided seems to visibly support his position. The Alabama example is a legal dispute over shared costs... and well, "dependent entities" don't tend to take independent legal action. Even the NACO site seems to confirm the consensus position. (Gregbard's NACO quote above was talking about how things were back when state constitutions were drafted, it then goes on to contrast how things are different today). Of the several parties who have participated in discussion, I did not find one who agreed with his position.
  • Despite all that, we're not here to rule on content matters. So... what I DO see is someone seriously unwilling to abide by consensus, who ref-dumps and then claims victory (even though the refs are far from conclusive), who has apparently major WP:OWN issues, and who is quite uncivil to anyone who gets in his way. As a result, I'd be well inclined to recommend a topic ban on GregBard for any local government related articles.Manning (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • In looking through the contribs, especially on various talk pages - I can Support this. — Ched :  ?  17:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - A no-brainer. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as it seems related changes continue to be made against consensus per this recent editBoogerpatrol (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I came here in good faith to report a situation to the supposedly mature members of the community. The climate here is more similar to a prison yard than an academic senate. Boomerang, indeed. Let me go on the record to state that I put in a great deal of effort in a neglected area, which in any fair and reasonable universe would be appreciated, and I was promptly derided and hounded by people with no special knowledge or experience in the subject matter. I reported the situation to the wider community, and rather than have logic and critical thinking prevail, they got mired in the egos and personalities. I provided about a dozen references, any one of which taken at face value suppports my conclusion, and which together form a strong argument for my claim. Rather than accept the simplest, most reasonable interpretation, you chose to accept the wild convoluted rationalizations of a immature person with no claim to expertise in the area. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room.
  • Even my mature response to her immaturity is being interpreted as *MY* being immature. Orlady's comments were unhelpful, in that they did not address the actual issue, but rather were an attack on myself to which I maturely refused to respond. These discussions are open and readable by anyone at anytime into the future. Let the record show that I did not back down from the ignorant, and the ignorant plowed forward. This is a Wikipedia:Fail.Greg Bard (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
You asked for a referee on the matter. It has been provided. I did not previously know Orlady or any of the other participants, so I had no bias toward any individual. I did not examine the conclusions of any other participant. I did, however, examine all of your references, and was unable to see on what basis any of them supported your conclusion (as discussed above). The NACO reference you provided above specifically contradicted it. No-one has derided or abused you, but you have abused and derided everyone who disagrees with you. I stand by my claim that I am the mature adult in the room. You are welcome to make any claim you like, it will have no impact on our collective decision. Manning (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
"A mature person is one who does not think only in absolutes, who is able to be objective even when deeply stirred emotionally, who has learned that there is both good and bad in all people and all things, and who walks humbly and deals charitably." -- Eleanor Roosevelt, channeled by (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support this as preferable to the watered-down 3-month version below. Civility problems, WP:OWNership issues, and an apparent persecution complex make a rather nasty cocktail when mixed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure why Gregbard is informing readers of over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy about the proposed topic ban on local government. I'm also not sure why he felt it necessary to edit other people's comments in the process. Very odd. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a form of WP:CANVASSING. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Support topic ban and a side order of trout. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Both the diffs given and the editor's comments here certainly demonstrate that there is an issue, one which unfortunately requires something like this in order to hopefully resolve. I don't think limiting it to 3 months is sufficient, because I don't think a short pre-determined length of time is something that will fix anything, and I think an indefinite topic ban would be more appropriate (emphasizing that indefinite does not mean infinite). - SudoGhost 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I know this makes my position unique in a place bristling with admins. Orlady acknowledges that the topic has very little traffic and Gregbard is contributing to it. I suggest that the allegations of damage to the project be examined in detail, and an AN/I is not the place for that, as that would involve examination of content. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've been looking at this and I see an awful lot of heat having been generated, and I think that is not the best condition for deciding on topic bans. Gregbard has reacted emotionally to what has been happening, but "striking while the iron is hot" should not be the way we work here. With the consensus on article content being the way it is, I don't see any pressing need for a ban right now, so I think we'd be better to let things cool and let emotions subside - we can see how things develop once everyone has settled down again, and if any problem persists we can reconsider the issue with cooler heads all round -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sanction. This thread is too much to read, but Greg, it seems you believe you're right about something, can't gain consensus and it has upset you a lot. My suggestion is that you drop the subject for at least one month, then return to it with a series of article RfCs or requested-move discussions, or whatever is appropriate. But first you have to let the heat out of the situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Racing straight get the lynchin' rope again, obviously. Carrite (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose --doncram 00:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose. If Greg agrees to abide by consensus (which is clearly against him on this particular issue), and actually does so, there is nothing further to discuss. It should be noted that he has specifically agreed not to abide by consensus in another section of this thread, so an explicit agreement is required. I think this sanction (applying to talk pages) is too severe, even so, but I wouldn't object to an indefinite ban on posts in other than talk pages where there is a consensus which he has agreed not to abide by. (A preposition is something one should never end a sentence with.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
What statement of mine are you interpreting as "specifically agree[ing] 'not' to abide by consensus?" Greg Bard (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
"I will not accept a sanction of any kind." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
That means that if I am sanctioned in any way, I will appeal it. If the issue is not resolved to my satisfaction upon appeal, I will just refrain from contributing. So, it really is a matter of people needing to get their minds out of the gutter, frankly. Greg Bard (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I didn't know of this dispute until just now and have never encountered this editor. That said, a topic ban appears richly deserved, especially when the quote just above is factored in. "Won't accept" should be a red flag to any editor who believes that we are a community based on consensus. Opposers should be taking that into consideration. An agreement to abide at this late date, if it does come forth, is clearly made under duress. Jusdafax 03:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
All that means is that if I am sanctioned in any way, I will appeal it. If the issue is not resolved to my satisfaction upon appeal, I will just refrain from contributing. I don't deserve any sanction of any kind, and I don't have to pretend that I do. Wikipedians have not only the right, but also the duty to challenge any infringement on their user privileges. If your vote is based solely on this statement, that will only support my claim that the admin community has acted in a wildly rash manner. I told a user who had been causing issues for over a month that their statement was "Not helpful." So in your mind a three month ban is in order on that basis? Correct? Greg Bard (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
First off, I am not an admin, and over a period of years have expressed numerous concerns about admins and various abuses of power by those with extra buttons. Among other failings, you appear to be unable to understand the Five Pillars which we all edit under: "fundamental principles" which we violate at peril of restricted or eliminated editing rights. If the community sanctions you it will come as a consensus, and usually means you have "messed up" badly. Appealing a community-approved topic ban to ArbCom isn't likely, in my view, to be heard by them, though you are free to try. And if you continue to defy and disparage the core values of the encyclopedia as you have in this latest round of foot-shooting, I don't call for a topic ban but an indefinite block, until such time as you gain the wisdom of humility. Take heed. Jusdafax 05:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you articulate yourself, exactly how I have "messed up?" How have I abandoned any of the five pillars at all?!? Consensus on content issues are one matter, but disciplinary sanctions are subject to due process. So I have (again), not only the right, but the duty to challenge this matter. The proposed ban is wildly harsh for an extremely mild offence, which I maintain my innocence. Please do investigate the fact of this case thoroughly. I violated no policy, I came to the ANI/I in good faith to request input into a conflict, and people are throwing "boomerang" around as if that is some reasonable or mature thing to do. I have stopped editing since the insane proposal arose. So there really is no just cause for any action against me, and if a consensus arises, then that really will just call into question the process. The idea that coming to my own defense is somehow an offence in and of itself is highly immoral. It is bullying, and abuse. Some are calling it "suicide by admin" as if that somehow justifies anything. The analogy is not apt, as I have my hands in the air. If the community decised to shoot anyway, that isn't a case of "suicide by admin," it's abuse. If we are to stay consistent with the analogy, it is a situation where the gun and badge get taken away. Greg Bard (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support based on the above comments by Gregbard dated 8 May. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose This ban discussion appears to me based more on Gregbard's poor choice of phrasing in an ANI thread than any actual disruption ; saying they'll appeal a sanction, regardless of the chances of success of that appeal, isn't disruptive. NE Ent 09:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion to above[edit]

  • Sigh Ok, I WP:AGF about what Gregbard is trying to do. However, his method is frickin ridiculous. What I would prefer to see is this:
  • a 3 month topic ban from making changes to any article related to government, broadly construed. He may continue to discuss changes or potential additions on the talkpage of any government-related article. Gregbard is also subject to civility parole during those 3 months. Although "optional" in my view, I would recommend mentoring for him in order to better learn what CONSENSUS really means, and how this project works as a whole through its many processes, policies and community nature (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - The claim that a county government is an agency of a state government is patently absurd, and the fact that not only does he refuse to change his position but is attacking other editors to defend it is extremely concerning. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • From my WP:INVOLVED perspective, this seems like the right sort of direction to take, but with a couple of modifications:
  1. The topic ban should apply not only to articles, but also to pages in the Template and Category spaces. I suggest this because much of the recent contention has occurred in those spaces.
  2. For proposed categorization projects, once consensus on a proposal has been reached (as determined by someone who isn't Gregbard) on an appropriate talk page or project page, Gregbard may make edit government-related pages to add them to categories. To avoid misunderstandings, the consensus to authorize Gregbard to make such categorization edits should be recorded (by some other user) as part of the conclusion of the talk-page discussion. I suggest this because categorization has been Gregbard's main focus recently in relation to government and much of his categorization work has been productive and non-controversial. --Orlady (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I can agree with the first, but no ... do NOT allow him to edit those pages, other than talk. Pushing the envelope like that will just lead to problems later (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with Orlady's conditions. Gregbard is willful and disruptive but can be productive. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I have been give absolutely NO warning prior to this sudden non-judicious proposal to ban me from a topic area in which I have made a huge contribution. Even my original post to this group about Orlady was only to put the issue on the record. What have I done to deserve such a rash, severe response? The problem could just as easily been resolved by rashly banning her (which, I was too fair-minded to propose). I have violated no policies, so this amounts to a political issue. I have start over 60 articles in the area of local government. If I am banned, I will immediately appeal. Don't waste my time or others with this outrageous impatience. For my part, I have stopped editing, as I am shocked at the shark tank mentality here. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I have only my words, as reasonable and decent people don't have a lot of tools at our disposal. If you use administrative powers against me, you are a bully, and don't deserve them. Greg Bard (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Reporting something to ANI is never just "putting it on the record". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Greg - I've run into you before (I forget where...) - I'm not involved in this, I couldn't care less about the definition of county governments, I'm not an admin, and I'm not gonna vote. I just wanted to say two things: (1) Read WP:Boomerang. I've seen this happen before - anytime you bring anything to ANI, everything you do is scrutinized equally. No warning is required for any action that results (2) I can see your frustration, but in some of your edits you're not really taking a consensus-building approach. You may be right, but you may not win with that approach. Maybe take a break, go into another topic area for a while, walk away from wikipedia, do something else. It will still be here when you're back. Every time I've gotten fired up about something, I have eventually regretted it here, and every time I've tried to work in a more gentle fashion, things have worked better. Just a few thoughts. cheers --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll try a different angle. Gregbard - we ("the admins") only have one agenda - to protect and enhance the project. We do not support any individual - we don't even support each other - unless the project directly benefits. You may have believed that coming to AN/I would only provoke the admin body to examine Orlady's conduct. But it didn't - we ALWAYS examine the entire situation, and then we try to do what we believe is best for the entire project. We don't always get it right, and we definitely encounter a lot of criticism, but that is exclusively what motivates us and directs our action.

I know you believe quite strongly that the project is benefiting hugely from your contributions. However your agenda ("to present the truth") and our agenda ("to preserve the project") have now come into direct conflict. You state above that you have not violated any policy, but I can say with great confidence you've clearly violated two of our biggest ones - Civility and Consensus.

SO, your approach to presenting the truth is strongly going against "how we do things" - through the Five Pillars. You are welcome to criticize our process (everyone else does). But for all of its faults, our process works, and we have Wikipedia as proof. So please examine The Bushranger's and Obi-Wan Kenobi's advice given above - it is well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── If Gregbard is dropping his participation in this domain voluntarily then we're done here, at least for now (his misunderstandings of the consequence of consensus, of the role of administrators and of the purpose of ANI may work against him elsewhere, but that's for another day). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that Gregbard is dropping out of this area voluntarily, if his most recent statement on this talk page (later than anything he's said on this page) is any indication. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Based on the above, it seems clear that discussion and negotiation are not really achieving any success. Can an uninvolved admin review this discussion and make a determination? Manning (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I've experienced much of what Orlady has endured in dealing with Gregbard. The inability for GB to recognize that consensus may conflict with his interpretation of ultimate truth has led to an inability to work together as part of a community. There is room for cleanup and reorganization of county and local government articles, but the idiosyncratic interpretations of source materials and the failure to work towards consensus have made these areas more of a mess than they ever were before. A period of reflection and observation would be helpful. Alansohn (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • comment Does it make any difference that Gredbard just so happens to be right? County government is an extension of the state government. Or does that matter? Just to use a bit of extreme hyperbole, I probably could find, if I tried hard enough, consensus that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. Yet we all know the sun doesn't rise or set. The earth spins. It is simply our perception that leads us to believe the sun rises and sets. Same goes for county government. We perceive it one way, but in actuality it is an extension of state government in every state I know of.Redddbaron (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, when it goes this far it does not matter who is right and who is wrong. If someone can point to an easily available reference where it can easily be seen that a particular side in a dispute is correct, then of course the community would prefer that right triumph. However, it is clear that this matter cannot be so readily resolved, and the collaborative approach would be to say, "Thanks for all the feedback. I know that in due course it will be seen that I'm right, but I see that consensus is against me, so I'll drop the whole matter." Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Hmmm Easily available reference? You mean a simple easy reputable source that says plainly, "When our national government was formed, the framers of the Constitution did not provide for local governments. Rather, they left the matter to the states. Subsequently, early state constitutions generally conceptualized county government as an arm of the state."-National Association of Counties; Something like that? Takes about 30 seconds to find references like that. I seriously don't understand this big blow-up. Maybe the issue has nothing to do with the wiki pages at all. Maybe the big whole thing is about personalities instead? I mean it is pretty obvious that Shakespeare was correct when he wrote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." You think GregBard forgot that wisdom and over reacted himself, so that the two of them together kept tensions increasing as each one over-reacted to the other? It's pretty clear to me that Greg wasn't actually rude, just dismissive ie... scornful of the ignorance on such a simple and obvious mistake that any first year student of civics should know. A reaction most anyone might have. Using my previous example of rising sun and setting sun. If an editor actually did try to make a consensus that the sun rotates around the earth rising in the east and setting in the west, it would be a very likely reaction by any educated person in science to be dismissive and just change it back. Editors do that all the time on many wiki pages. They have to. But some people would take offence to that when no offense or rudeness was intended. Just fixing a silly mistake. Why exactly has wiki allowed this to escalate this far in the first place? Just find a wiki admin to change it to what Greg said. He is right. And then take the time to explain it in a way that is not scornful, so the "consensus coalition" don't go crazy getting "revenge" for perceived insults. (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Sorry, I forgot to log in so the signature is an IP Redddbaron (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
        • It's not quite so easy as you portray - the very next paragraph of that reference you cited discusses how local governments have since changed to being heavily autonomous. I don't think any of this is about personalities at all. For me, I simply can't see how GregBard's argument is supported by any of the references he provides (and I've examined every single one of them). I'm more than willing to be persuaded on the basis of factual accuracy, but so far everything I have been shown supports the consensus position. Manning (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I can support the idea of restricting Gregbard to talk pages on the topic of government for a short period, to try to encourage an approach more closely aligned with our consensus ethos. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, no, I think any sanction would only make things worse at this point, and I see no likelihood of damage to the project - we need voluntary disengagement for a little while. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I oppose any action without evidence that he has and that he would continue to do damage to the project. It is regardless of his behaviour here, such as calling those who are critical of him "shameless" ashamed of themselves, he may do well to strike that out, as it is only making his case worse. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I hope he steps away from this for a few weeks, but by persuasion not force. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This is not an area I'm very familiar with. However, my understanding is that there is a difference between being a state agency and being under the authority of the state. Per Dillon's Rule, local government is under the authority of the state and doesn't have the same federalism protection which states have from the federal government, but that doesn't mean local government is a state agency (and some jurisdictions may not follow Dillon's Rule, but rather Cooley's Rule). Whether or not a county is a "local government" is a semantic question which probably hasn't been worth answering in most cases, but generally my impression is that country government is thought of as local government. In any case, generalizing about the law of United States is quite difficult and should be done very carefully. Orlady has shown in User:Orlady/County_by_state that the sources Gregbard is bringing really aren't up for it. In the case of Colorado, it does appear that If Gregbard used law review articles or perhaps textbooks, maybe you could start to describe the situation: a start might be looking at sources which cite Regionalizing Emergency Management: Counties as State and Local Government or perhaps getting access to Conducting Research on Counties in the 21st Century: A New Agenda and Database Considerations or County Governments: “Forgotten” Subjects in Local Government Courses?. As a further comment, think about the word 'agency' and consider the law of agency. State agencies are literally agents of the state, whose principal is the state's governor (and ultimately, the state's population) and a legislature which represents the state as a whole. On the other hand, counties typically have their own elections on a regional basis. II | (t - c) 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Still too severe a result for an early report of problematic behavior. For the record, @Gregbard: Counties are not agencies of state government, they are independent administrative divisions of state territories. Each county has its own charter and bylaws. County administrative structure varies from place to place. Counties are subject to state law. This is all axiomatic; do not attempt a novel reinterpretation of reality, if this is what you are doing. Carrite (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The relationship between county and states is not a "Paris is in france" kind of thing and best determined by reliable sources, not assumption, and may, in fact, vary from state to state. NE Ent 23:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --doncram 00:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Conditional oppose. If Greg agrees to abide by consensus (which is clearly against him on this particular issue), and actually does so, there is nothing further to discuss. It should be noted that he has specifically agreed not to abide by consensus in another section of this thread, so an explicit agreement is required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes Ent is correct that it is a bit complicated, since everyone seems to agree that state governments are unitary states and not federated; on the other hand, the consensus to categorize counties as local seems to have consensus and seems to address other salient characteristics of counties. So, follow consensus.Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Admin abuse[edit]

Closing older subsections. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We have a new issue here. I have tried to defend myself against accusations, and my attempts to defend myself are being met with offence that I should even try! I have stated that I think I am being bullied at this point, and I am being told "not to take this approach." Bullying is an important issue in our society today. We have a system here with no due process, and my options, in terms of my free speech are limited here (i.e my ability to defend myself without running up against some other restrictive policy). You know if someone told me that I was "bullying" someone, I would be taken aback, and stop to investigate the nature of my offence, because I am a morally reflective person. When I tell this group that I am being bullied, and told not to speak out about it, well that's how bullies act. They don't hear plaintiff pleas to stop, and they plow forward. I am being accused of thinks that I didn't do, and this situation has just gotten way out of control on your part. I'm getting very condescending messages on my talk page filled with presumptions, and I don't have a system of due process available to me to defend myself. What are the limits of consensus? If there is no policy violation, do you just make up a conflict and then claim that the consensus itself is the policy violation?!? What are my options here? Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? Can I post a message to this board every day for the next three months, or will that be intrerpreted as a policy violation? The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that?! People are plowing forward with their presumptions as if they are real, and here I am telling people to stop, and not being heard. Who do I go to if my claim is that this process is being abused? I take this situation very seriously, and I wonder if those who have the power to abuse me take what they are doing as seriously as I do. I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard. Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?! I have stated that I will cooperate. You basically have a gun to my head, and I have my hands up. If you pull the trigger, that really supports my claim that this situation is abuse. Greg Bard (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"I have stopped editting and am devoting my full time to the political and judicial issues which have arisen as a result of my good faith report to this noticeboard." See also, WP:NOTHERE Bobby Tables (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about, but I guess it relates to the ANI thread above about Orlady? I'll look at it, but in the meantime: "Does anyone have a problem with the idea of issuing sanctions on someone for good faith actvities?!" Not necessarily, no. People do things in good faith that are wrong all the time. If they can't learn from their mistakes, then we have to stop them through sanctions. An example: take a person who doesn't understand copyright policy. They keep uploading text from copyrighted sources without attribution. Now, they might think, "Oh, well the text is published, so it's out in the public and not private, therefore it's in the public domain and okay for me to copy." That's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion, and they're doing it in good faith, believing that it's okay and in Wikipedia's benefit. But it's still wrong, and if they don't listen to explanations and learn from their mistakes, then eventually we may be forced to block them, to prevent more copyright violations from seeping into the project. Everything they did, they did in good faith, but it still ended up in blocks and sanctions. It's unfortunate, of course, but it's necessary. Again, I don't know what your situation actually is, so this isn't a comment on or an analogy to your actions specifically; just a response to the general principle of sanctioning someone for good-faith actions. Writ Keeper  20:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Saw the thread title and came here to abuse an admin. This is false advertising. :) Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You were cautioned previously what could happen if you would not come in line to the Wikipedia community consensus regarding behavior and how to build consensus. Now you've opened another ANI thread and it looks like you're complaining about the cries of "Admin abuse" for being properly warned and some community members suggesting that it would be in the best interest of the community to not edit for a while. Having looked at your talk page (and it's history) I'm inclined to agree. Wikipedia is not the government, and you don't have rights here. Wikipedia grants you privileges that can be suspended or revoked depending on the community's perception of your actions.
'TL:DR You were warned about WP:BOOMERANG and now here it is.
PS: Where's the abuse of admin I came to enjoy? Hasteur (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Suicide by admin (board (post)). LOL. (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Greg, at this point it's as if you're asking to be blocked, as you are clearly not listening to a word that's been said - or, perhaps more precisely, you're putting your own, prejudiced by virtue of your obvious "I'm right, because I am right, and I CANNOT be wrong" POV, spin on what is being said. Consensus is that your original contention that raised this whole mess is erronious. That's not "made-up conflict" - the only person causing, and escalating, conflict here is you. I repeat what I said earlier: you could easily avoid any and all topic-bannings by simply realising that you are not in the right here, admitting as such, and stating that you won't WP:BATTLEGROUND against consensus in a WP:IDHT manner in the future. If instead, however, you post another rant as you did above, you'll simply establish, through your own actions, that you don't understand the very basis of how Wikipedia works, and that you're here to spread WP:THETRUTH, not to build an encyclopedia. (You might also want to have a look, based on your comments above, at WP:FREESPEECH.) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to the admin abuse claim[edit]

Greg - I will continue to try and negotiate with you. I'll note I have made several previous comments and you have not responded to any of them.

  • I have tried to defend myself against accusations - Could you show us where have you done this? There are many comments and suggestions above from a variety of admins (not just myself), and I don't see your response anywhere.
I still have yet to see a valid accusation! What exactly is it that I am accused of?! The idea seems to be that I have gone against consensus, and I have yet to see a discussion that has been closed! As far as I know, I was still trying to inform the consensus. We do, however have the example of Orlady redirecting the County government in the United States article after a merge had been proposed, one person registered their opinion, all within 24 hours. Is that the way we are supposed to achieve consensus?!? This is outrageous. I am not playting games here. I am telling you this situation is out of control, and AI am getting nothing but patronizing, condescending, ill-informed statement directed toward myself. My proposal is to delay any sanctions for one week. I think this has been very rashly put forward. I have recieve NO warning. I have been given NO opportunity to correct myself, nor has anything been put forward that I need to correct. The idea seems to be that I should roll over and die, and anything less is some great offence that is making my situation worse. That isn't judicious. That isn't fair-mminded. That isn't a mature, rational use of administrative authority at all. I have been present in discussion from the very beginning of these issues, so the idea that punitive sanctions are needed is gratuitous abuse of power.Greg Bard (talk)
As to what you are accused of, I would list ignoring/bypassing Wikipedia consensus procedures and severe incivility, particularly but not exclusively directed at me.
The above comment includes a false accusation against me. I did not unilaterally redirect County government in the United States. It was redirected by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah following merger discussion at Talk:Local government in the United States, where that other user judged that the consensus was to redirect. My subsequent edit there was a null edit done to supply an edit summary to identify the talk page that the other user's edit summary had identified as the location for continued discussion. I personally thought that Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's action was premature (if I encountered it in my role as an administrator, I would not have closed the discussion or taken action), but I think the judgement of consensus probably was valid in view of the direction that the discussion was taking. Your comment here indicates that you didn't look at the edit history or the talk pages when you restored the full article and blamed its redirection on "one person". I did revert that edit of yours 23 hours later, after additional discussion had occurred on the new talk page the other user had started and after this WP:ANI discussion was well under way. At that point, I did comment that the redirection had been "proper" and based on consensus; mostly I wanted the edit history to document why the redirection had occurred. --Orlady (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Is there a wikiadvocate who can investigate this whole situation for me? - Yes, that is us. And despite your protests and accusations of "bullying", many of us are actually trying to help you. No actual action has been taken by anyone, we are still trying to sort the matter out. However if a ban is applied, you can take the matter to the arbitration committee's ban appeals process.
You don't seem to be listening to me at all, and instead seem to be presuming guilt from the beginning.
  • The most recent false accusation being levied against me is that I have stated that I will not cooperate with the consensus. So where exactly have I said that? - In numerous places, but this is a good example.
Excuse me! That doesn't state anywhere that I intend to go against the consensus AT ALL, but is rather still an attempt to inform it. So I will ask the same question again, and please show me one of the "numerous places" that are not a matter of a wild interpretation! Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have stated that I will cooperate. Good. Please start by explaining on the talk page of the relevant articles how you achieve your conclusion from the references you have provided. Sweeping statements like "Any intelligent person can see I am right" are NOT helpful. I am an intelligent person, as are all of the admins here, but I cannot not see how you got to your conclusion from the references you cited. If anything, they contradict your claim (particularly the NACO example). If an argument is not strong enough to persuade the editors, how can we expect it to sound reasonable to our readers?
The NACO claim directly supports my claim in no unambiguous terms. It clearly states that the original intention was that "counties were created as an arm of the state", and sure does not name some event where any of that changed.
I provided about a dozen links. If the sun came up yesterday, and it came up the day before, and it came up the day before... it is reasonable to believe that it will come up tomorrow. That's how the principle of induction that underlies all of scientific knowledge works, and that is how theories work. So each one of the dozen or so individually support my claim, and together they form a strong argument for my claim. At this point my explaining this seems like I'm being condescending, which I do not wish to be. However it appears to be necessary. At least one of those sources includes the clear statement: "It is a well settled matter that counties are an arm of the state."Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Greg, you provided those links on a page in your user space (where I am not permitted to engage in discussion) and on a couple of other users' talk spaces. You have not presented your evidence in venues designed for content discussion at Wikipedia. If you want other Wikipedians to accept your opinions as valid, you need to tell us what your opinions are, you need to provide a sourced basis for your views (saying "I was taught this in college in no uncertain terms" doesn't qualify as sourcing), you need to let other people participate in discussion, you need to be willing to interact with those other people, and you need to let the discussion take some time. Finally, you need to accept that Wikipedia consensus might go against you; you cannot "win" by announcing that your position is correct because you know you are correct and because you know that everyone else here lacks your superior qualifications.
As for the links you cite as evidence, I have to confess that I laughed out loud when I followed some of them. (Thanks for adding a little levity to my day. See User:Orlady/County by state for my comments on some of your evidence.) For the most part, your links are to primary sources, which are not generally relied upon at Wikipedia because they are susceptible to misinterpretation and misrepresentation. Your "it is a well settled matter" quote is from this document, which is not only a primary source, but a non-authoritative primary source, being an attorney's legal brief, specifically a "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint". One lawyer's argument is hardly authoritative, and my reading of the brief indicates that your quotation has far less significance in context than you place upon it. Some of your quotations are even more severely misinterpreted; for example, at one point you cited this court document to say "several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state," but the complete sentence says the opposite: "Although several Washington decisions refer to the county as an arm or agency of the state, a county is not generally considered an agency of the state in spite of the general language found in these cases." Your assertions of moral, intellectual, and academic superiority might be more compelling if your evidence were not so weak. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility. Please also do not tell people to "defer" to your opinion - that is the very opposite of consensus building.
People really seem to be offended that I responded to Orlady's comments at WP:USA with "Not helpful" REALLY?! That was an attempt to avoid arguing about irrelevant issues. That was a very mature move on my part. Those statements of hers were not helpful, and my identifying them as such were not some great insult. Furthermore, I thought we were mature enough to handle requests to defer. That was my presumption in the context of AGF. I think this is a gross hypersensitivity on the part of people who are just looking to make trouble for me. That isn't AGF. I say it again: people should be ashamed of themselves. It isn't rhetoric either. I am a fair-minded person, and I have demonstrated that conspicuously. Being "ignorant" is not a morally blameful thing. It isn't offensive to a mature adult to have one's ignorance pointed out to them. There are plenty of areas in which I am ignorant. Knowing right from wring isn't one of them. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You said "not helpful" to multiple other participants in that discussion. That was just one example of a refusal to engage in discussion aimed at reaching consensus. I've been trying to figure out why you consider that responding to another person with a curt dismissal of "not helpful" is a sign of maturity, and all I can come up with is that it's similar to a parent telling a child "because I said so". As a veteran parent myself, I don't see that parental behavior as particularly mature; regardless, unsubstantiated assertions of superior authority aren't how we resolve differences of opinion at Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The admins are charged with a responsibility - to prevent disruption to the project. Right now it is very difficult to interpret what you are doing as anything other than disruption. So work with us, talk to us as reasonable people, please stop insulting everyone involved, and and maybe we can work this out. Manning (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That is a harsh, unnecessary, interpretation and goes completely against AGF. You should apply the same disposition toward Orlady with regard to the fact that I requested she not contact me again, and yet she has repeatedly badgered me, as well as the merge without consensus which she performed, the evidence of which is indisputable. I go back to my original claim: Orlady is a troublemaker, and she has you all played. For my part, I have stopped editing in the articlespace, and if I am sanctioned I feel I will have no choice but to address the systemic issues that have lead to this attack on myself. We could analyse this situation in depth for months if you feel that the priority is to teach me some lesson. Please do articulate what that lesson is first. Show me a closed discussion, whose consensus I have gone against. Show me an example of incivility, which could not also be interpreted as standing firm in ones position. The lesson so far seems to me to be a political one, that just defending oneself is itself on offence. I don't think that is what admins want to impart. So please do use your words, not your powers, of which I have none. Pretend for a moment that the respect of a person who has no powers over you matters.
We don't rd" tiue process here. We rely on the fair-mindedness of administrators. Yet we have people mockingly throwing "boomerang" as if stating that makes it fair or reasonable. I have receive NO warning, and the moment the proposal to sanction me arose, I stopped in my tracks. This has put a chill on my contributions (which are substantial and numerous in the very area which it is proposed I be banned). Where did this proposal of three months come from? Was this well thought out? Do we have a sanction seriousness index, or is this one size fits all? We already have a several day stop in my activities to address this administrative action on me. Does this time count? I am requesting that sanctions be immediately taken off the table. I have about a dozen biographies of mayors, and representatives which I am working on for which there is NO good reason to stop me from creating. Where are the priorities here? Is Orlady so well trusted that you are willing to stop this productive work? Is that not a real "disruption of the project" or do you not see it that way? Is the process more important than the goal here? If so, I think you have lost your way.
When I was in college, I was appointed chairman of the student Bill of Rights committee for the entire California State University system (the largest system of higher education in the world with 450,000 students). I served in that capacity, because caring about protecting people's rights are important to me. I went on to serve as commissioner of judicial affairs, and later served as the "lawyer" in the case that established judicial review at my university (you don't need a license to practice law before a student judiciary). I am fairly certain that I take respecting people's rights more seriously than is being taken here. When I say, that people should be ashamed at abusing their position, I have done what I need to do in my life for my words to mean something here. I have made over 70, 000 edits to wikipedia. I feel personally responsible for the integrity and reputation of Wikimedia, and I have defended it publicly. I have reached out to other organizations on Wikimedia's behalf with the idea that they are worth it. Do not disgrace yourselves by eating one of your own most loyal, decent and valuable members.
The Wikimedia Board of Directors does not seem to involve itself in the consensus decision making process here. Do not prove them wrong by abusing your given administrative powers for no good reason. I used to be on the board of a community radio station, as well as a public access tv station. Those organizations were in their adolescent stages when I served on their boards. There were all kinds of issues and conflicts, and by the time my term on their boards were done, I had helped make them more professional organizations. Please drop the condescending to me, and consider for a moment that I am all that I have claimed to be -- a mature adult waiting for those around me to join me. Greg Bard (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yea, that's what way too many admins think. protect and enhance. WP:Administrator doesn't actually say that. You know it's called a mop -- not a sword and shield. What the better admins (of which there are many) get is the real purpose of admins is to help editors. This editor came here looking for help. So help him. That doesn't mean talking at him. The AGF interpretation of Gregbard's actions is that they're a frustrated editor who doesn't get the consensus model of Wikipedia, and the total lack of due process per WP:NOJUSTICE. By the way, Orlady made unnecessary posts to GB's page [3] after being requested not to [4]. That "defer" diff [5]? Doesn't say "defer to my opinion." Says defer to Wikipedia:Capitalization -- hardly a radical statement. NE Ent 02:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
NE Ent - It is the responsibility of ALL editors to protect and enhance the project. Admins are no different in that regard, they just have a few extra tools to accomplish some specific tasks, and by community consensus are entrusted with making certain judgment calls. As to this case, no sanction has been applied. Numerous admins have reached out to Greg Bard to try and resolve the situation. Yes, I did interpret that diff as meaning "defer to my opinion" - but if I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. Either way we need GregBard to participate in the discussion in a constructive manner. Manning (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It's okay to be an admin and it's okay to be an editor -- but it's generally not effective to try to be both at once (i.e. in the same context); let the "editors" (regardless of whether they happen to have a sysop bit) doing the content work -- the protecting and enhancing, if you will -- while admins function to help with certain janitorial chores. We do not need GregBard to participate further -- in fact less participation is exactly what he should be doing now. What we need is to find a positive, non-judgemental way to connect so that going forward he and Orlady and the rest of the folks can get back to writing the Encyclopedia without dragging each other down. And ANI is really not good at that at all ; it's suitable for the "quick resolution" situations, nothing complex. NE Ent 01:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Of potential additional relevance[edit]

I don't want to get into substantive discussion but for information purposes another discussion relating to Greg and county categories is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Opposed nominations, hinging on whether or not a number of categories on county government should be speedily renamed in line with others recently created by him or whether that does not constitute a convention that qualifies them for speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

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

My recommendation and final comments[edit]

OK, I've gone as far as I can productively go here, so this will be my last comment. Based on the above, GregBard seems wholly committed to his stance which boils down to "I'm right, and everyone else is wrong". Our collective attempts to engage him in productive discussion have largely failed (see above, and also here). As NE Ent observes above, GregBard does not appear to "get" the consensual model, at least as far as this topic is concerned. In this example he declares he will "abide by consensus", but then goes on to misrepresent the consensus that emerged in the preceding discussion as aligning with his viewpoint (by placing all categories under "state government").

In my opinion (speaking only as an editor, not as an admin), none of his references lend support to his position, despite his repeated insistence to the contrary. The NACO example seems to completely contradict his claim - the page directly contrasts the original formulation of county government (as GregBard states, as an "arm of the state") with the current arrangement, and states... "After World War I, population growth, and suburban development, the government reform movement strengthened the role of local governments.... Changes in structure, greater autonomy from the states, rising revenues, and stronger political accountability ushered in a new era for county government." Throughout the various occasions when someone has questioned his reasoning, the response is either "it's obvious" or "I am the educated person, so you should abide by what I say". Needless to say, neither of these response types reflect "how we do things".

On that basis, it is thus my assessment (as an admin) that GregBard is engaged in disruptive conduct - although in fairness there is no deliberate intent to be disruptive as such. On the plus side, he has not editing any county related article since this AN/I discussion began to focus on his activity. If this remains the status quo, then this thread can be closed without further action. If however, the disruptive editing resumes, then I believe a topic ban of some duration will become necessary, as per the above discussion. I will let another admin to make that determination.

To another matter - Gregbard has repeatedly requested punitive action be taken against Orlady. I and several other admins have reviewed the actions of Orlady, and I reprimanded her for improper conduct in one case (a reprimand she accepted without dispute). Others are free to examine her actions, of course, but I do not feel there is anything else actionable here. I do encourage both of them to refrain from interacting as much as possible, as it is clear that (at least for the time being) GregBard holds considerable animosity against her. I also suggest Orlady refrain from reverting any more of GregBard's edits. Instead bring them to the attention of an admin (such as myself, or any other admin willing to take an active role).

That's about all I can say at this point. If the discussion dies hereafter (as I hope it does) another admin can close this discussion at their discretion. If it continues, I will refrain from commenting. Good luck. Manning (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    • Oppose Not only does this proposal fail to take any actual action against Gregbard (which clearly has consensus above), it also bizarrely includes a revert ban against Orlady, which isn't warranted at all. This comes dangerously close to blaming (and worse, persecuting) the victim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not certain how the word "suggestion" constitutes a 'revert ban'. For your reference, Orlady was in fact the subject of the original complaint, thus the the final paragraph (which clearly indicates there is nothing actionable). Manning (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I have to say that I have a bad feeling about the suggestion that Gregbard's "considerable animosity" towards me means that I should refrain from interacting with Gregbard or reverting any more of his edits, and should instead bring them to the attention of another admin. In its effect, suggesting that I ought to defer to his wishes is saying that a user can declare ownership of articles and edits simply by declaring "I have considerable animosity toward you, so you'd better stay away from me" to every user who disagrees with them, issues warnings, or takes administrative action. Gregbard's "do not contact me further" declarations (first on his talk page and then on my talk page) were in fact his response to my having warned him to desist from getting categories deleted by emptying them outside of the WP:CFD process. Are we going to start telling disruptive users that every time they receive a warning they should post a "do not contact me further" message to exempt themselves from future interactions from the user who warned them? --Orlady (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Orlady, it was meant as an optional short-term tactic for a highly experienced editor such as yourself to employ in this specific circumstance - nothing more. Please don't read any more into it - for some strange reason the cabal still refuses to allow me to dictate policy based on my whim. Manning (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I will not accept any sanction of any kind. You don't stand up in the middle of a discussion, declare a consensus, and the last person who reverts something get banned for three months. I have maintained my innocence from the very beginning, and have not wavered from that. However, the shark tank here takes offence at the very idea that they could be wrong, and refuse to back down. That's administrative abuse. The comment from admins directed toward me concerning my understanding are completely oblivious! I have been an editor since 2006. I have made over 70,000 contributions. There are whole swaths of content and organization that I created. I have acted in legislative, executive, judicial, and diplomatic capacities es on behalf of Wikimedia. It is unfathomable that anyone would point to me and say that I just don't understand the consensus process. This issue barely began a few days ago. It is beyond impatient to just stand up and declare a consensus exists. Certainly no discussion has been closed yet even at this point! I am a very fair minded person, and if I had done anything to warrant a sanction of some kind, I would be able to admit it. In fact I have in the past. I won't accept a sanction in this case. At this point I believe I am owed an apology, and whether the political reality is that I will get it or not, I will demanding that for the entire duration of any sanction. I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. I have used terms like "decency" "reasonable" "mature" and "shame" It seems like I am the only person using those kind of terms. Now I am using another term: "conscience." So if no one's conscience tells them that they are doing the wrong thing here, that will be a shame on them forever. This is all the power I have here: my words. It seems that attitude is to take offence that I should ever attempt to defend myself. That's not a fair, or decent process. Show some respect for yourselves, and exercise restraint. Forgo the ego gratification that comes from using your powers. PLEASE DO relent and defer, and consider for one moment that this is not some great insult to yourselves. Greg Bard (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, if the community decides to impose a sanction on you, whether or not you "accept" it is irrelevant. You would either edit in accordance with the sanction or not, and if you did not, further and more drastic sanctions, up to and including a site ban, would most likely be forthcoming. Considering this, it might be a good idea to step down off your soapbox and consider just what, exactly, is being said above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone look at this diff of a Greg Bard edit and try to figure out what is going on? At the bottom there is some potential canvassing, however there seems to be some bizarre vandalism going on as well. Manning (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That looks a lot like the damage to my user talk page that I asked about at the Village pump: Why are new edits introducing seemingly random errors into previous page content?. Gregbard apologized for it, blaming it on a problem with his computer. However, but it hasn't stopped. (I also saw it on another page he edited in the last couple of days.) The last post in that conversation was a suggestion that Greg might have some malware on his computer. --Orlady (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Ah, fair enough. Thanks for that. Manning (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) @ Greg. What BMK said ... quite frankly? If I had the time to monitor the situation? I'd have likely blocked you already. You're not some new guy. You should know the rules by now. Either get with the program, or deal with the consequences. — Ched :  ?  19:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Greg, I've tried to assume good faith as much as I can throughout this whole brouhaha, but after this last comment of yours above, enough is enough, and I have only this to say: Knock it off. Whether or not you "accept" sanctions is, as BMK mentioned, utterly irrelevant - if they are imposed, you will accept them or you will be indef'd. Your comments promise that you will disrupt the encyclopedia if you don't get your way - this is the Wikipedia equivilant of pitching a tantrum and saying "you'll play by my rules or I'll pick up my blocks and go home". While we hate to lose any editors, Wikipedia does not need you - if I hadn't already !voted in the above discussion, you'd be indef'd already for POINTy threats, epic levels of I Didn't Hear That, soapboxing, and general disruptiveness, as every comment you make here makes it more and more clear that you are here to push The Truth, not to build an encyclopedia, at least in this matter, and you must abide by the community conduct and codes you agreed to when you signed up, and every time you push the 'submit' button, in all matters. Allow me to be perfectly clear: one more rant like the one above, and you will be blocked until you realise this sort of conduct is utterly inappropritate for Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Greg. I don't have a mop, and I'm still not gonna vote on any action, but I just wanted to make a few observations. At this point, right or wrong doesn't matter anymore, diffs don't matter anymore. The admins here are clearly losing their patience, and at some point soon, the hammer will come down, hard or soft. As I read it, their POV is, in short, they're done with you - enough is enough. Several would, given the chance, insta-ban you right now. This not a court of law, this whole thing is more or less run by volunteers on a consensus basis, and at some point, people are just done.
OTOH, from your POV, you are clearly backed into a corner, and are so certain of your innocence that, as you state, you will more or less bring this matter to the supreme court and the media and Jimbo and everything else. The question is, what for? What's your ideal end state? What happens if that whole process goes as planned? Do you think some big trial and media show will end with Jimbo presenting you with a golden award for righteousness and all those who have maligned you will apologize and send you wiki-love? Not likely. Non-involved people who've dropped by this thread have taken a look, read a few diffs, and decided: "nyet". However, these admins aren't lawyers, this is not a trial, and I submit that it's possible that the judgement of all of those admins to block you may, in the fullness of time and provided an army of lawyers and diff-readers, be proven dead wrong. But IT DOESNT MATTER - what matters is the here and now.
Allow me to thank you for the numerous contributions (70k edits? that's a lot) to the wiki - that is awesome! And I hope we can find a way to keep you - I still AGF. I think you just seem to have fallen into a bit of bad business with some editors who are equally as stubborn as you. Maybe people were uncivil to you, and maybe they misread what you typed, and maybe they just don't understand the sources. But at some point, that ceases to matter. For whatever reason, the boomerang swang around your way.
An insight I had about myself a while back was, there are situations where you can be right, or you can win. What do you want? I have often felt as you have, so indignant that I was *right*, and they were *wrong*, and then I press on, and then, often, I lose (e.g. I don't get what I want) - but at least I remained right, right?? It's a shallow sort of victory. After tempers cool down, and careful reflection, I've often found that I, too, had made mistakes; I too had gone too far. And ultimately, it doesn't matter. So now I try to think to myself, how can I win - instead of - how can I demonstrate that I was right.
So sometimes, it's better to just swallow one's pride, take a breath of fresh air, start some edits somewhere else or take a break. If you do that, just leaving a brief message here saying "Ok, I get it guys, I'm gonna do some other work and try to be a good citizen", and then start doing that, then the hammer may not fall, there's still a chance, and the community will welcome you back. Rather than avoiding Orlady, frankly I would, after a cooling down period, try to find something to work on together with her - I've found her to be a good and experienced editor. People here are resilient, and can edit war with you one day and the chummily co-edit an article the next. You'll find humility and contriteness are virtues much appreciated.
So, that's all I have to say. I wish I could be an even more civil editor, and I continue to try, and I continue to screw up. But I continue to learn. As the Dalai Lama says, "Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I will dramatize this issue in any and every venue that I can possible identify, including certainly the arbitration board, the board of directors, and even the media if I have to. I have been around far too long for this disrespect. Drop the idea of sanctions. Period. That statement isn't an example of maturity (I mean they have 70000 edits and have been around for 7 years.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
You take an authoritarian theory of maturity that no reasonable and decent person should ever take, and certainly not an administrator. I have every right to bring attention to this issue. The proposal is to ban me for three months because I told someone their comments "weren't helpful" and "won't respect a consensus" that is barely three days old. This all came without warning, and since the insane proposal to ban me, I haven't edited anything due to this hostile and abusive environment. I obviously take the issue more seriously than the people who were trusted with the power to determine the outcome of the issue. Rolling over and dying rather than defending ones self is not the measure of maturity. Greg Bard (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT and WP:DIVA. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Greg Bard the proposal for ban is because it is perceived by the community that your edits to the topics under the scope of the ban aren't constructive. It isn't for your comments. Threats of taking action in "real life" against perceived wrongs done on Wikipedia does look less than mature to me. I've seen that said by new editors, I am surprised that it comes from someone 70k edits old. I think you ought to strike out the "names'" you've called editors here and promise to let other editors to judge your contributions to the said topic. You've to trust the Wikipedia process of consensus building, if your idea is good then its day would come. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

GregBard's incivility[edit]

This part of the discussion seems to have run its course. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DISCLAIMER: GregBard linked to this discussion at WIkiproject: Philosophy. I personally think GregBard has been one of the most helpful contributors to the Philosophy side of this Wikipedia, and I've defended him before, but I don't think I've ever actually conversed with him.

I just want to see the evidence that GregBard has been uncivil. There has been numerous claims that GregBard has been so (I count six above here right now), but I haven't seen any strong evidence. So please, make any argument that I may read.

As far as I can tell, only once has GregBard's supposed incivility been described explicitly; this was when Manning above said, "Also please stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they are ignorant and/or not helpful. That is textbook incivility." But how was it established that GregBard tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are ignorant or not helpful? I saw two cases where GregBard calls other editors not helpful, but in both those cases I saw no reason for thinking that GregBard called them not helpful because he tells anyone who disagrees with him that they are not helpful, rather than because he sincerely thought what they said was not helpful. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 23:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to spend too much time on this, I'll start with your example. The responses "Not Helpful" are clearly uncivil. They are dismissive and belittling, which violates 1.d. of Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying_incivility. It is easy enough to communicate the same idea in a civil manner - "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" is a perfectly civil way of indicating the exact same content. A single instance would be too ambiguous to make this call, but two in a row is clearly contemptuous, particularly as there were valid questions being raised which GregBard ignored. As another example, this post is quite flagrant in belittling another editor. In general any comment which asserts "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, and therefore uncivil. The vast majority of editors are willing to learn new things, so explaining one's reasoning is far more effective than just telling other editors they are ignorant. Manning (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Please take anything written here as merely a draft, if anything appears to be uncivil, please edit it to make it appear civil:
I don't know if those indicate the exact same content. It seems to me when one says "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" one is making a different claim then when one says "Not helpful." If two statements indicate the exact same content, then I would guess that the statements would have to be equivalent. But were one really not to know if that solves a problem, then "Hey UserX - I don't know if that solves the problem" would be true, but that could still in actuality be helpful, in which case "Not helpful" would be false. But the two statements can't be equivalent if one can be true and the other false, so they are not equivalent. I think this make sense: One statement is about what one person knows, the other statement is about what another person said.
And I don't know why saying "not helpful" is belittling, if one sincerely believes that what was said was not helpful. I know there are multiple interpretations of such a word, but I think "belittling" is only relevant to incivility when it implies insincerely making something or someone appear insignificant in some way. I don't think that sincerely saying something is insignificant in some way is belittling in the uncivil sense, it is just honest judgement. I've understood civility to be like the proper atmosphere of a healthy, collegial workplace. I think that's why WP:CIVIL does well in mentioning that "Article talk pages should be, on the whole, considered to be professional work-spaces" and the like. I can try to speak from my own experience: If a colleague wrote beside a paragraph in a paper I wrote, "Not helpful", I might consider why she thinks that, and I may even ask her why she thinks that, but I wouldn't think that she was belittling me. My first guess really would be to think that she sincerely thinks what I wrote in the paragraph is not helpful. I would think it would be less civil of her not to write it. I imagine if everyone did that: I could go on to present the paper at conferences, submit it to journals, thinking to myself that everyone finds my paper so very helpful, meanwhile everyone really finds my paper quite useless, but they refuse to tell me so.
I also don't know if the remaining example is quite flagrant in belittling an editor. If GregBard sincerely thinks those things, then they don't seem to be belittling as such.
I agree that saying "I am the only educated person here so you must defer to my opinion" is belittling, because no one says such a thing sincerely, at least not on these discussion pages. But I don't think GregBard said such a thing.
I know you don't want to spend so much time, and I don't require any response: I am just writing this with the final goal of stating my opinion, not of undermining anyone else. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 06:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
It's good to know that Gregbard has been a valued contributor to the Philosophy WikiProject. Atethnekos, for some additional perspective on the communication behaviors have been labeled as problematic, please consider these items:
  • This talk page exchange. Note Greg's comment on 18 April 2013 where, in response to my presentation and discussion of several sources, he did not comment on my sources nor present any of his own, but said (in part): "...I am sure that you feel quite confident in your view owing to your education and experience. However, I actually studied this issue formally. In Wikipedia, everyone thinks they are an expert, even with very little education or experience. ... At some point, if necessary, I may find all the sources I need to support my view if necessary, if it comes to that. However, I hope you consider the idea that you have just learned something new about county government from someone who knows. I'm not really able to reconsider my view because I was taught formally in no uncertain terms that a county is an agency of the state government." That comment was perfectly civil (albeit condescending) in tone, but the attitude expressed was that his expertise is so superior and the truth of his position so absolute that it is unnecessary even to present sources to support it.
  • The first "not helpful" reply that I recall was in response to my reply to his accusation that, by posting on several talk pages to alert potentially interested parties to the extensive content discussion he had started on my talk page, I was starting 50 separate discussions. His post on that page had two paragraphs; the first paragraph accused me of misbehavior and the second paragraph was a request to begin a content discussion. My post was primarily in reply to the first paragraph accusation against me, and it included a link to the ongoing discussion that had already occurred (and that he had not seen fit to mention in his comment). Apparently he now explains his "not helpful" retort as an indication that my comment had not included any substantive responses to his second paragraph, but I submit that most readers (including me) would read that "not helpful" as an announcement of utter contempt for (1) my defense of my actions and (2) my request that people continue the pre-existing discussion rather than starting a new one. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I guess an easier approach is simply "incivility is what the community interprets as being uncivil". I read GregBard's remarks as being very uncivil. However I am but a single editor, and am as equally prone to misinterpretation as anyone else. Other editors are free to review the matter and make their own call. If consensus emerges that I have misread this, I will happily retract. Manning (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right about that: People are going to have their own emotional reactions, and what the community as a whole treats as incivil is somehow going to reflect the complex of these individual reactions. Maybe there could be another way, but since that is the case now, contributors will just have to go back on their principles when these lead them into conflict. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 18:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I had asked the community for a response to a substantial question about county government, and Orlady responded with discussion about discussion, not anything having to do with any person't actual position on the question at hard. That's not helpful. To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF, and a cruelly harsh interpretation of my response. It is the interpretation of a person who is actively looking for trouble. That is what I was trying to avoid by not giving a lengthy response which is a very mature way to handle such a situation. If that is what you are hanging you hat on to ban me for three months, then you have lost your way. Greg Bard (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

How about taking a voluntary break for a few days to catch your breath? Maybe go outside and smell the flowers, spend some quality time with your pet rock or something. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
@Gregbard, what Viriditas -- an editor I don't often agree with -- is telling you is that you are getting much too involved in Wiki-life and that you need to find some balance by some restorative reference to real life. Please remember that, although we think it's an important one, this is just a website, not reality. Take a breather, a break. Have a picnic with friends or loved ones, or go to a ball game or something. Come back with a fresh point of view, because the one you're carrying around now seems like it's likely to get you blocked or topic banned. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
My (outside) view of that statement "Not Helpful" was unnecessarily dismissive and aggressive. As can be seen, it cause the discussion to just degenerate into mud slinging. It also set the tone of the "discussion" which [User:Acdixon] also noted. Your accusation of a failure of those reading your statement to AGF is ironic in that with two words you threw good faith out the window and set the kettle boiling. Blackmane (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I can't resist. GB made the statement: "To call this uncivil is wildly against AGF". AGF isn't a suicide pact. The guideline wants you to start with an assumption of good faith. Given what you've written in this discussion alone, I don't think clinging to that presumption is really required anymore. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Harassment (2nd warning)[edit]

At least one uninvolved admin has given Gregbard the appropriate ultimatum regarding clue on his talk. Closing this before the hole gets any deeper. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have already raised the issue of bullying here once before. I haven't done anything for the past three days other than defend myself. So calls for me to "knock it off" cannot reasonably be associated with any issues of which I was originally accused (and which I continue to maintain my innocence). I have had several admins post to my talk page with the presumption of trying to teach me a lesson. If admins want to ask me sincere questions about why I think this attack on my user privileges is unwarranted, then I invite your correspondence. However, this is a second warning to stop harassing me and intimidating me from defending myself. I will interpret any further such attempts as harassment, and I am conspicuously and publicly informing the community that I will interpret it as harassment. I realize that the Wikimedia Board of Directors does not have direct control over whether or not admins harass me. However they do have control over creating and sustaining a hostile environment that allows and encourages such harassment. I have not violated any policy, and I do not intend to. Drop and withdraw the proposal to sanction me in any way and leave me in peace immediately. Greg Bard (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's some advice: stop defending yourself and let others defend you. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Your demand above essentially boils down to "I will edit in whatever manner I choose, and the community MUST leave me alone". Sorry, that will NEVER happen. Extensive text above indicates several admins (including myself) feel quite strongly that you HAVE violated a great number of policies. (See earlier discussion, I'm not going to re-list them all). Let me be clear: I will NOT drop the proposal I have made. It was made in my best judgment and it was created for other admins to review and consider. If anything, your conduct since I made the proposal has strengthened my (initially hesitant) resolve. No harassment has occurred. We have made numerous attempts to engage with you in a constructive fashion, all of which have been met with your histrionics eg. [6]. You have repeatedly characterised this as "bullying", which is baseless.
Your numerous threats to engage in wholesale disruption in order to get your own way are forcing us collectively into a course I genuinely did not wish to be on. I have already stated I will not take any punitive action against you, lest you take the opinion that this is a personal conflict between you and I. But unless there is a substantial change in your tactics, sooner or later the admin body will be forced to respond. Manning (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Not constructive at all. It should be obvious by now that engaging Gregbard in an authoritarian manner is not going to "work" if the goal is to actually keep him as an active editor, and miscasting his statement isn't helpful either. NE Ent 02:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Except, I don't see that at all in Manning's response. He's simply presenting his prediction of future events, and laying them out for Greg to see and understand. I actually find your comments, NE Ent, unhelpful and quite frankly, interfering with the discussion. Greg has to be told what's going to happen if he continues down this path. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Ne Ent - In general I would fully agree with your dissent on authoritarianism. However all other methods on interaction have been tried and failed, as far as I can tell. If you have a better approach for getting GregBard to accept the apparent consensus and conform to community practices, I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear it. Manning (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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


This one too. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a formal written complaint against User:Viriditas for a willful act of harassment, not more than few hours after a second warning to cease and desist from such behavior. Greg Bard (talk) 03:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It is of course written, but it's hardly formal (or persuasive) without a diff. Precisely what are you complaining about? -- Hoary (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
@Hoary - The complaint is about this pair of posts.
The key phrase in the Harassment policy is "repeated". A scan of your talk page history indicates User:Viriditas has never contacted you previously. Viriditas has made a total of two posts, the second only to clarify the intent of the first. Hence no harassment has occurred. I also note you have failed to leave a notification on User_talk:Viriditas, as the AN/I policy clearly states (and which would have been visible when you composed your post).
Unfortunately your "warning" has no meaning or substance within the Wikipedia framework - you have effectively demanded that the entire community leave you alone to edit in any manner you see fit. As stated above, this will never happen. Manning (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Greg, please drop it. This complaint isn't productive. Jehochman Talk 04:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Jentri2390 blatant copyvio and promotion[edit]

Jentri2390 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - Repeatedly created article with straight copyvio. Three copies in article space so far, plus their userpage. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 03:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hand-written message added on user's talk page. Lets see how it goes from that.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Anastasia International[edit]

This is the article for a controversial dating agency. It has been the subject of serious COI and POV edits recently, with large-scale whitewashing by COI editors User:Iri2101 and User:Mcbrooks, both of whom are involved in the management of the company (I won't mention their real names here, though they have been brought up in the various SPIs that have run).

Yesterday, after yet another whitewashing of the article, I stubbed it back to the basic facts and anything that was reliably sourced (i.e. not primary sources). User:Iri2101 has today edited thye article again, and in their edit summary stated that I am the CEO of a rival company - it was named. (Ironically, previously an editor who has been adding negative information accused me of working for Anastasia!!). I have revdeleted this edit-summary, and final-warned the editor. I was considering an immediate block, but was concerned about WP:INVOLVED. I would appreciate more eyes, and if anyone wants to block for disruptive editing, then that would also not be inappropriate IMO. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I left a warning. You should feel free to block for further bad behavior. Shii (tock) 11:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Disruption on Irish War of Independence and other articles[edit]

User talk:MrFalala received a short block on 1st May for edit warring and disruption and is now back as User talk: The edit history here and on the talk page illustrate the issue. This is an editor on a mission, including claims that his great-grandfather killed Michael Collins. This has gone on for an extended period including Scottish issues ----Snowded TALK 13:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The Free State was not independent because the British still retained the Treaty ports which would be used to refuel the ships of the Royal Navy in any European war, making Ireland a target for enemy planes and submarines. My great-grandfather Denis "Sonny" O'Neill shot the British collaborator Michael Collins in 1922 because the Treaty did not equal independence from the UK. Like thousands of other republicans he wanted to keep the war going until real independence was achieved. ( (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC))
This board is not the place to decide content matters, re-enact the Irish Civil War or push The Truth. It is for handling user conduct and yours so far suggests further blocks may be in order. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a place where we accepted original research, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to the edit warring going on, from the one user, I've given the article a semi-protection for two weeks. Seemed safer than handing out blocks that wouldn't stop an IP change. Canterbury Tail talk 15:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Other article/page where this user engaged in edit warring: Talk:The Blitz, The Blitz, Bengal famine of 1943, Partition of Ireland, Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014 and Michael Collins (Irish leader). A very clear example of his POV-pushing can be found in an completely unrelated article: Fawlty Towers: The Germans. The Banner talk 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the semi protect. That said I think there is a clear case for a block on MrFalala over multiple articles. ----Snowded TALK 22:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. I have accordingly blocked the named account indefinitely and the IP for a week. If this seems harsh, the last thing we need right now is an edit-warring Irish nationalist. There are Arbcom restrictions that could be invoked too, if necessary. --John (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the IP address for the user is changing daily, and checking some histories they've been at this a while. Canterbury Tail talk 15:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In the News abuse by Tariqabjotu[edit]

No wrongdoing by Tariqbjotu. m.o.p 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This administrator posted an ItN blurb, despite a complete lack of consensus. He wrote, "It's far from unanimous, but I don't find the reasons for opposing to be stronger than those supporting", blatantly disregarding consensus.

I understand that the policy on consensus states that "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". However, he explained his decision by saying "I understand there are some people who believe this should not have been a big deal, but, for better or worse, it was/is a big story" is like saying "I understand there are some people who believe my religion/ideology/... is wrong, but, for better or worse, it's right" and then placing it on the main page. The ItN criteria does not say that events discussed heavily in the news are automatically to be posted, so his claim that "it was/is a big story" does not demonstrate weakness on the part of the Oppose arguments.

Another major problem with his post was his ignoring of highly POV !votes. For example:

  • Support Milestone in breaking down homophobia and definition of "masculinity" in male team sports
  • Support as a major milestone of societal change
  • Strong support; my support has everything to do with me being an LGBT ally
  • Oppose. I am a vocal supporter of human rights [with the implication that LGBT issues constitutes human rights]

to quote some of most egregious examples. Since the overwhelming majority of such POV statements came from the Support camp, if he had properly ignored such !votes, there would have been clear consensus not to post.

Ordinarily, a single instance of ignoring NPOV and Consensus would not cause to complain. However, when an administrator violates two of the most important policies when updating the main page, which is seen by millions daily, there clearly is a need for discussion about this. My attempt to ask him directly was utterly rebuffed by a curt reply

If you would like to air your grievances about my "greatly disturbing" action in some official channel, feel free to do so

Rregretfully, I must oblige. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
So, how does "an administrator judged a borderline case differently than I would have" constitute abuse again? --Jayron32 14:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps the word "abuse" was too strong, but this isn't a borderline case, as I have explained above. Declaring consensus to be with the minority without good reasons is not an acceptable judgement. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong there at all. It shouldn't be a headcount, it should be a weighing of consensus, and part of the process is weighting poor arguments lesser than stronger ones. I see a lot of rather ignorant opposes sprinkles throughout, e.g. "this isn't American Wikipedia", "what about Athlete X", etc...Just dim all-around. Tariqabjotu's close/finding whatever you call it at ItN was sound. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with that decision and on a personal note its good to see someone prepared to make the tough calls on issues like this. Sound closing and if anything I commend him for it. There is nothing to see here, a frivolous complaint and this drama fest should be shut down quickly. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Would you care to explain why my complaints are invalid? So far you've just said that he's right and I'm being frivolous. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
His close was entirely reasonable and you're giving us fripparies. (Maybe it will work with slightly different words.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Your complaint is completely invalid. The close makes it clear it was about the weight of argument not weight of numbers, so your allegation it was against WP:CONSENSUS or with the minority doesn't hold water. There was no abuse and admins prepared to make the close calls are to be commended not condemned. Your disagreement with his decision is a content dispute and not about user conduct. Time to drop the stick. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I already wrote:

I understand that the policy on consensus states that "consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)". However, he explained his decision by saying "I understand there are some people who believe this should not have been a big deal, but, for better or worse, it was/is a big story" is like saying "I understand there are some people who believe my religion/ideology/... is wrong, but, for better or worse, it's right" and then placing it on the main page. The ItN criteria does not say that events discussed heavily in the news are automatically to be posted, so his claim that "it was/is a big story" does not demonstrate weakness on the part of the Oppose arguments.

He thus determined the quality of the arguments by comparing them against his own views. Quality is determined by logical reasons and basis in policies and guidelines, among other things. Therefore, ignoring the big NPOV problem with the Support arguments while citing the nonexistent problem with the Oppose arguments is a clear violation of WP:CONSENSUS.
I agree that "admins prepared to make the close calls are to be commended not condemned" but this doesn't permit admins to decide things based on personal preferences. And it is very much a user conduct issue when two vital policies are disregarded. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
There's no incident here. Suggest that this be closed without prejudice.--WaltCip (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I just explained exactly why there is an incident. If you disagree, please explain why. -- Ypnypn (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
What wrong needs to be righted here? What admin action are you seeking?--WaltCip (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The wrong is the violation of core policies by an admin in a very visible way. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Nobody else seems to see it that way. Certainly I do not, but I did support that nomination. If Tariq had gone the other way and chose not to post it, I would not have called that "admin abuse", however. Resolute 16:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a valid call by Tariqabjotu. In any event, the item was posted a week ago and is no longer on the main page, what redress are you seeking? WJBscribe (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not an incident that can be handled by this board. If you are concerned about a pattern of behavior, please (1) speak with the editor, (2) find a neutral party to review the matter and speak with the editor, and then (3) if no resolution, you and the neutral party can file an RFC. If you can't find an obliging neutral party, that's a good indication that your concern isn't especially valid. Jehochman Talk 16:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

  • This is stale, lots of editors have advised you to drop the stick, and I don't see any issue with the close either. Sure, it's a tight decision, but I'm glad we have admins who have the guts to do those, and they shouldn't be abused by people whom lost out as a result. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I do appreciate the hard work of judging consensus, but that doesn't give admins permission to do what ever they want regardless of policy. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Tariq and I have disagreed about various content items several times, but I don't doubt his judgement at all in posting things to the main page. I don't see a major problem here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you examined this case, or are you talking about other instances? I'm not saying he's usually wrong, but here he is. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
This case could have gone either way. Discussions are not votes - there's absolutely nothing in this "situation" that is against any policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussions are not votes, but that doesn't mean the admin can do whatever he wants. And wp:NPOV is a policy. -- Ypnypn (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Darkness Shines[edit]

User:Darkness Shines has repeatedly inserted the same material into the article British Pakistanis, after I deleted it as a gross misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, the article claimed that there were riots in Bradford in 2001 "between the city's majority white population and its visible ethnic minorities". None of the sources cited state this: [7][8][9]. The 'majority' of the population, (regardless of ethnicity) took no part in riots. The initial flashpoint for the riots was a march by fascist BNP and NF outsiders, and a counter-demonstration by (mostly white) anti-fascists. Though later there were ethnically-driven disturbances (started by white youths attacking Asian-owned businesses), it is entirely misleading to present these events as a simple ethnic conflict - and highly questionable to include such material at all in an article about a particular ethnic minority. Given this clear and fundamental breach of Wikipedia policies (i.e. regarding neutrality and accurately representing sources), can I ask that appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Boring Do the sources say this? Why yes, yes they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
More sloppy sourcing - though I'm glad to see you have conceded that your earlier reverts were invalid. Now how about explaining why an article on British Pakistanis needs to cover this at all? Can you point to articles on other ethnicities that single out such local incidents? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The sources are just fine, and I am conceding nothing, I added references for content you removed. As to why an article on british Pakistanis should cover this, I suppose because the majority of the Asian lads rioting were, you know, British Pakistanis. But as that is a content dispute it has no place here, in fact this entire thread is just your usual drama mongering Andy. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Please use WP:DRN for content disputes. Basalisk inspect damageberate 09:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of sources isn't a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Already the editors are under 3RR, please be careful and discuss it. Agreed with Andy's point. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Darkness Shines is now citing off-topic Google-mined material from sources entitled 'Culture Wars in British Literature', 'Negotiating risk: British Pakistani experiences of genetics' and the like [10] to justify inclusion of the disputed material - a clear violation of WP:NPOV, in that he has selected sources not for their general content, and not in order to present the opinions of the authors, (Personal attack removed) He is refusing to accept the developing consensus on the talk page, and insists that he will include the material, regardless of the comments of others. I note that Darkness Shines was previously blocked for "Anti-Pakistani POV pushing despite streams of requests to stop", [11] and suggest that at this point in time a topic ban might be more appropriate, since he singularly fails to get the message that his POV-pushing isn't welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Note ATG has already begun to use his usual fallback position of implying I am a racist, above and here in violation of WP:NPA. BTW, that block notice was given by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED and is bullshit. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • BTW, it would be nice if ATG looked at the sources for a change. Cultural Wars in British Literature: Multiculturalism and National Identity written by Tracy J. Prince and she writes directly about British Pakistanis and the riots. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you can cherry-pick material to suit your aims doesn't alter the fact that such cherry-picking of off-topic material is a violation of WP:NPOV. Incidentally, I didn't call you a racist (and I don't actually think that you are one). I did however use the same language that was used in your block log, where you were described as engaging in "Anti-Pakistani POV pushing". Which you self-evidently were, and still are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"Anti-Pakistani POV pushing" is not an accusation of racism. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I never said it was, although it is a personal attack. However this most certainly implys I am a racist & from above "pursue his self-evident anti-Pakistani agenda", an obvious attack on me. And as this is not the first time Andy has resorted to such low tactics I feel a lack of good faith in him, strange that. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
What about this comment by DS about Andy: "in fact this entire thread is just your usual drama mongering Andy.", Isn't it a Personal Attack?
  • Comment: Majority white doesn't mean majority of white. Also Can you point to articles on other ethnicities that single out such local incidents? sounds OSEish. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Darkness Shines has repeatedly had problems with POV pushing, sometimes with misrepresenting sources but oftener by picking weak sources with extreme statements: The history of Rape in Pakistan is troubling. DS mis-represented a statistic on domestic violence as a statistic on rape, which was pulled from the DYK queue. In my experience, DS writes as if pushing an anti-Pakistani POV; I don't recall any instances where DS made a mistake in a pro-Pakistani or even soft-pedalled direction. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
And you have of course checked all my edits? [12] [13] Supporting Mar4d, a Pakistani editor. Saves the article Pakistani English from deletion[14] Majority of keeps came after I went and found sources. Votes keep on Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad [15] Went looking for the sources needed. Ya, I am so Anti Pakistani I even created Pro-Pakistan sentiment. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The solution is simple: indefinite topic ban from all articles related to Pakistan or Pakistanis, broadly construed.--В и к и T 22:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  • This is clearly a content dispute, once again brought to the ANI to get rid of a content opponent. My very best wishes (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I am not really convinced that Darkness Shines is guilty of POV-pushing. However, the filer of this complaint is indeed engaged in POV-pushing and edit wars. For example, he repeatedly removed a large portion of well-sourced text with an edit summary requesting discussion [16], however his own comments on this article talk page [17] do not qualify as a meaningful discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Did you engage in 'meaningful discussion' yourself before restoring the material? Nope. Anyway, if you wish to start a thread on my deletion of what was self evidently coatrack material from the Victim blaming article, feel free to do so - but don't be surprised if you get told to stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Here is the problem. One can reasonably argue that well-sourced and notable examples of victim blaming belong to article about victim blaming. By removing this good faith work by another contributor [18] that belongs to the article, you create a conflict. By "explaining" your edit simply as removing a coatrack (sorry, but this is not convincing at all), you increase the conflict. Perhaps your conflict with Darkness Shine followed the same scenario? By bringing someone to ANI without a sufficient and clear evidence, you involve a lot more people in the conflict. Doing so is disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Attempting to derail this discussion is disruptive. You failed to engage in talk page discussion before restoring the material to the Victim Blaming article: do so. I have no intention of discussing this irrelevance further here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not talking about victim blaming (although this frequently happens on the ANI), but about a behavior problem as I see it. How many ANI threads initiated by you failed and how many of them succeeded? Here are results of search. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"their views do not matter"[edit]

Having failed to obtain support for inclusion of disputed material in the British Pakistanis, article (so far seven people have commented: five have opposed inclusion, and only two support it), DarknessShines has apointed himself judge and jury of the talk page discussion, dismissing the opinions of those opposing with "their views do not matter". [19] I'd like to see comments from uninvolved contributors regarding this unilateral declaration of 'authority'. Is this indeed the way Wikipedia works? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I have written. "No, their views do not matter, they gave no reasons in policy to exclude the content." And that is policy, you cannot keep content out of an article without giving a reason within policy as to why it should be excluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There are several policies involved here: possibly the most significant one being WP:NPOV. You have singularly failed to explain why an article on a significant ethnic minority must include material relating to events in a northern English town over a few days in 2001. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I have explained it to you a great deal on the article talk page. How about the source which says "Those involved in the riots were predominantly from a Pakistani background" and your response to that? I am misrepresenting it and taking it out of context. It is not possible to take that out of context at all. Again, this is a content dispute you wish to win by drama over discussion. This needs to be closed out for what it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I have already pointed out that the source in question makes it clear that when referring to people 'involved in the riots', it is referring not just to active participants, but the local community in general (and not all those involved were local, as you well know). You are cherry-picking a phrase to suit your purposes. Anyway, this issue regarding the precise proportion of Bradford rioters who were a British Pakistanis is rather beside the point - the real issue is whether the Bradford riots merit inclusion in the article at all. And concerning that, your assertion that you alone can decide what is or isn't eligible for inclusion in an article isn't a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
This is totally unacceptable. That content does not belong there as it is irrelevant REGARDLESS of how well it's been sourced because it violates the neutral point of view of the article. You saying "their views do not matter" is to my mind a personal attack. I see that it's already been reverted, but if I see it there I will remove it myself.--Launchballer 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
How is it irrelevant to have a few lines on British Pakistanis rioting in Bradford in an article section about British Pakistanis living in Bradford? Feel free to use the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to explain why you are asserting the right to determine who's views are relevant, here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I already have, no argument within policy, no point in listening. Same as at an AFD. BTW in response to your other shit exists question British African-Caribbean people mentions every riot which involved them. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
"no argument within policy, no point in listening". Once again, Darkness Shines asserts his right to decide who's views matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
So now you think that following policy is wrong? And that not wasting my time responding to people who use emotive arguments over policy is a bad thing? I follow policy, if an editor choose to say ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT I will ignore them. You are the only editor on that talk page who has tried to cite policy, if the others choose not to then no, I will not bother with their arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The more you two yap amongst yourselves, the harder this thread is to follow. What are we seeking here, again? Doc talk 16:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe Andy is after a topic ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
What am I after? At minimum, that Darkness Shines is told in no uncertain words that he isn't the sole arbiter of what constitutes NPOV (he's just slapped a POV tag on the British Pakistani article because it currently doesn't discuss events occurring in a northern English town over a few days in 2001). Beyond that, I think we need to ask ourselves whether DS is suited to editing articles relating to Pakistan in general - he seems to have a predilection for adding negative material to such articles, and failing to consider the opinions of others when the inclusion is questioned. He also seems to have a habit of claiming that sources say things that they in fact don't. So yes, I think a topic ban might well be appropriate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
At least a week's block for disruption, wasting editors' time and for violating the NPOVs of articles, because that's about how much of his and our time he's wasted and a six month topic ban.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
How the hell have I wasted a week of your time? You only just got involved in this content dispute. How am I violating NPOV? Adding well referenced content to an article is not a violation of NPOV, removing it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  1. Our time = the time of every editor involved, if you cumulate all the comments in this thread. See? Misinterpreting sources.
  2. What you have added to the article is too badly biased to be included in the article. If you have to put it on the site, bung it on the article of the event. It doesn't matter how well referenced it is - it isn't encyclopedic. Now drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse.--Launchballer 17:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
If we move it to an ivote stage, and end the "jibber jabber", it may get somewhere faster. Doc talk 16:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Andy made three points above. (1) "he seems to have a predilection for adding negative material". Adding well-sourced "negative" materials to any articles is not a problem, unless this is an obvious violation of NPOV or BLP. I do not see it. (2) "failing to consider the opinions of others". There is clearly a disagreement on the both sides. (3) Misinterpreting the sources, which means placing content that is clearly not in the source while referring to the source. This is a serious accusation. This should be easy to prove with a few diffs. Unfortunately, diffs above do not look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Specifics? Take a look at this diff[20] I'd asked for a source that stated that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. DS cited The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy, p275. It simply doesn't say that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. [21] There are further examples on the article talk page, where DS quotes part of a sentence in such a way as to mislead. Unfortunately, since I'm only looking at the same Google-mined snippets that DS is, I can't quote the whole sentence either, but DS qoutes Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain (p.75) as "A crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" (note the capital A, implying this is the start of the sentence). [22] From what Google shows us (incomplete, obviously), DS has omitted what came before: "...demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police..." It is simply impossible to use an incomplete sentence as an assertion of fact in the way DS does. Elsewhere, DS uses a statement regarding the proportion of local people who were arrested and charged to support a claim that the majority of rioters were British Pakistanis - a statement that the source doesn't make. [23]. Not everyone involved was local, as DS is well aware (there was a fascist march and counterdemonstration, which brought in many from outside), and we can't simply assume that the proportion of rioters equals the proportion arrested and charged. The real problem here is that DS engages in Google-mining to find 'sources' to back up his predetermined opinion, rather than looking for sources and then representing the views of the authors. An appallingly-bad practice if one is attempting to provide a neutral perspective... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Andy, again you misrepresent what I have said. You know full well that the majority of the protestors not local had left, I cited and quoted the source on the talk page. And BTW "demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" obviously supports the edit in question. I did not say that any of "local people who were arrested and charged to support a claim that the majority of rioters'" should be used as a source for the content in dispute, it is an example (which you asked for) that the majority of those arrested were BP. Of course had you left me to finish editing rather than starting this dramafest all this would be quite clear. I am not posting here again as it is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I know (or at least presume) that the majority of non-locals left at some point, I have no reason to assume that none of them were involved in rioting before they left. A quote from a sentence from which you haven't even read in full cannot possibly support anything. And where exactly did I ask for information regarding the proportion of people arrested? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
"What became an ethnically diverse crowd of men and women at the anti Nazi league demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain p73 I had read it in full, and quoted it to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
That still doesn't support any general claim whatsoever regarding the proportion of rioters overall from any particular community. It says nothing regarding later incidents such as when white youths attacked Asian-owned businesses. A narrative relating to one point in time cannot be used to generalise regarding a whole series of events over several days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I see just one point in the whole thread. Have a content dispute with someone -- take them to ANI and try to solve the dispute by getting the opponent banned. (Well, good use of ANI. No?) OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for DarknessShines[edit]

Proposal failed. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • I think this is the last straw. One-year ban from editing anything related to race, broadly construed. The drama just isn't worth it. --John (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - to include Pakistan and Pakistani people. I've seen a general tone of anti-Pakistan bias in DarknessShines' various ethnic disputes before (and he's had a block for it). This case looks like cherry-picking in order to include undue anti-Pakistani material (badly misrepresenting sources in the first instances). Adding the POV tag was just belligerence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, on second thought, I'm going to keep out of this - don't have time for the drama. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Darkness Shines can be a big pain in various unmentionable regions of the human body but this is really a content dispute that is spilling over onto ANI. If a tag is unwarranted, that should be discussed on the article talk page. If the tag is restored against consensus, the editor should be blocked. We have admins with the tools to block editors and protect articles so that we can properly harness the fact that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If this trend of issuing bans every time something becomes a bit of a bother continues, we