Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive852

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

Noticeboard archives



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

User:Modernist seems to be on his/her own personal campaign against the WP:LAYIM, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:GALLERY over several articles. A while ago I cleaned up too many images in the article 19th century per WP:LAYIM, WP:GALLERY - over-image "stacks" that shoved images into the next section and an indiscriminate shoehorn gallery[1]. User Modenrnist reverted it back with the comment "seems ok"[2]. I reverted it back with explanation per guidelines[3] and left further rational in talk[4]. 8 months later Modernist is back reverting the same cleanup edit without comment[5]. Since there seemed to be no rational given I reverted it back and then User:Coldcreation showed up and reverted it back to Modernists' edit[6]. Modernist and Coldcreation seem to act very closely in votes[7], double team in discussions[8] and reverts[9][10][11]. Modernist and Coldcreation were addressed jointly about some of their edits by Curly Turkey[12]. This pushiness to make Wikipedia more of an image host has shown up in Talk:Claude Monet and Impressionism[13]. At Talk:Impressionism Modernist seemed to refuse to get the point via adding a further image gallery during the discussion[14], would give no other rational other than "The images are needed" or WP:MOREX arguments, and got quite un-civil re:"Lets be crystal clear - I don't and no one else here owes you an explanation of anything. Who are you?", "Yeah, that's your opinion; you clearly have no experience working on articles in the visual arts - you are owed nothing - nothing". It also came off as a campaign to drive away a productive contributor (HappyWaldo). If these editors want Wikipedia to be an image host I wish they would take it up at the relative guideline and policy talk pages instead of warring it over many articles. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The portrait images of very famous and important 19th century personages are fine to use in that article - The gallery contains a few other very important, famous 19th century portraits. The galleries used in visual arts articles like Impressionism and Claude Monet are crucial to our understanding of the subject of those articles. Paintings need to be seen. This thread reads like a personal attack against me...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think all three of the articles mentioned look great...Modernist (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think this looks like a content dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree this is a content dispute. User:Curly Turkey and I had an argument - that was a long time ago - we've collaborated together long after that argument was history, and I supported his work on 2 featured articles...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I have no desire to re-open old wounds, especially because Modernist and and I have managed to work with each other amicably for some time now, but I have to disagree it's only a content dispute. Modernist, if you're going to continue making the kind of comments pointed out above, you can only expect people to feel they need to fight back. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you feel that the comments deserve admin intervention? Please...get a thicker skin. No one "deserves" any explanation (just discussion and that does not mean editors have to explain every action) and unless these comments crossed a line, fighting against them is just drama...drama...drama! Don't "fight" back. If you think he/she was being a dick than just ignore them. Fighting back against every perceived insult or incivil comment just drags out the drama. We are here to write an encyclopedia not right great wrongs and...we are talking about image galleries....not BLP violations! While I believe Modernist could be nicer...until they cross the line into personal attacks...there really is nothing to do here...and frankly...I would more than understand if your good relations with Modernist were now ruined. But that is up to them. But you sure jumped on this fast enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Look, we all work very hard here as volunteers without much appreciation - CT, me, and many many others who create this encyclopedia and its contents. I do my best; and I'm proud of the contributions made here by so many editors...Modernist (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No we don't always get much appreciation. In fact, many times we get the very opposite. Do I agree with Modernist on everything? Heck no, but I also see that editors are trying to ask for intervention for not being very nice.... but that is a far cry from incivility that requires intervention. I really suggest this be referred to the DRN board. I can't take the case because I have had interactions with Modernist on Neoclassicism as Amadscientist, but this seems very much like a simple content dispute.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Images can be properly used, improperly used, or omitted. Modernist happens to have a good sense concerning the use of images in articles. Bus stop (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • ANI is not a place to discuss the appropriateness or not of images—that belongs on the talk page. What's being reported is the personal interactions. I get the feeling things have calmed down enough that the discussion can continue on the talk page now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The reason to bring this here is behavior. If an editor like Modernist shows contempt for other editors with comments like the ones above, or gives "flippant" edit summaries such as "seems ok" or "unrelated to your IDON'TLIKEIT - looks fine", or no edit summary at all then its going to come here. I have to really disagree with Mark Miller's above "No one "deserves" any explanation", being asked several time for a rational for an edit(s) and saying "I don't and no one else here owes you an explanation of anything" or "you are owed nothing - nothing" is disruptive editing, #4-a at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS to be exact, and, again, brings us back here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you don't agree with that, but really we have no rights here and no one really "deserves" anything. Editors are expected to collaborate and the burden of evidence is on those that add or restore content. But with images we generally have to accept the consensus of the involved editors. Demanding an "explanation" could be as disruptive to editors that have come to consensus as it is to you for getting that response, and to be clear, I don't think it was very nice but many editors make comments that are not very nice. The issue is whether they crossed a line into personal attacks or incivility requiring administrative intervention. While I don't believe there is anything requiring intervention here, others may disagree. But the subjects are image related and text alone cannot get the same information across that a visual aide can. You can discuss brush strokes in a very lengthy text...but an image of a brush stroke will only help get that understanding across better.
My main problem here is your first sentence: "User:Modernist seems to be on his/her own personal campaign against the WP:LAYIM, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:GALLERY over several articles. " Funny...but on the Claude Monet talk page it appears that there was a recent RFC that resulted in no consensus other than to add more text and captions for context. Yet, here you are now accusing an editor of having their own personal campaign. I have to admit...I do see a personal campaign here...but not from Modernist. Is 6 months long enough to start another RFC? I don't know. Try it and see what happens.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Again, I have no intention of picking at old wounds, but Mark Miller you might want to look at the edit history of Claude Monet and see how radically the page was restructured as a result of the discussion there. The point FoBM brought up was that Modernist is often not open to discussion—too frequently belligerently so—and, to be honest, if you decline to state or discuss the reasons for your edits, you are forfeiting your right to maintain them when someone else does explain their own edits. Getting there first is not a free pass except in certain areas (choice of spelling, date formatting, and a few others). If an editor intends to maintain an article on The Ecyclopaedia Anyone Can Edit, then they'd better have a rationale to back it up—otherwise it's pure OWNership. Again, I'm not trying to slag Modernist—I'd like to see him discuss the issues respectfully. I vote that FoBM open a fresh discussion at the article's talk page and invite Modernist (and whoever else) to discuss. It's my hope that having brought the interaction issues up here will now have brought some perspective on how the discussion should proceed (nad without admin intervention). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
To add (but I don't see an enforcable ANI issue here, yet), I have had problems trying to convince Modernist about avoiding NFC issues in galleries on articles like these (particularly History of painting), and even considering only free images, how these pages are so bloated in considering WP:SIZE to the end user, and by simply offloading some the galleries to more detailed pages, they'd still serve the purpose they are looking for. But I got the same responses back that others have documents "but they look fine" "art needs to be seen", etc. I haven't pursued it past that point, but I can speak to the hand-waving type dismissals of NFC and image count/gallery issues. --MASEM (t) 05:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we should lightly dismiss the argument that "art needs to be seen". Modernist adds a lot of good quality content on visual art. I think Modernist tries to bring out those concerns that arise with greatest frequency in scholarly discussions of visual art. Reference to imagery is very common when discussing visual art and it is preferable that images be close at hand. Linking to images elsewhere may not be a good idea when writing about visual art. It may represent a reasonable tradeoff to make allowances for larger WP:SIZE pages when visual arts is the subject. Images themselves are better seen at larger scales. And the topic of art history is probably better read at a slower pace, allowing time for the page to download. These are largely visual questions that are being addressed. We are often talking about paintings, which have to be seen. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not focusing on the content issue, I'm focusing on the dismissal that Modernist has done in the past with my experiences to simply say "images have to be seen" when challenged about the technical issues with so many issues on one page. That's hand-waving without discussing policy and guidelines that have been set, as well as numerous methods that the same images can be used but distributed on a larger number of subpages. Modernist flat out refuses to accept others' viewpoints when they do that, which is disruptive if a continued practice. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I myself have never had any issues that I can think of with Modernist but it is always possible I just can't remember anything off the top of my head. I see no issue needing intervention at this time. As far as Claude Monet, as I said...there was an RFC from February and there is no consensus to remove the galleries there yet. And yeah...I did check the history, but if you want to debate the content issue further...there is always DRN. As long as trying to change the consensus will not be disruptive this soon after an RFC, I could support opening another discussion but I have to tell you I could also see if some might find it to be disruptive. I know nothing about any NFC concerns from Modernist. I just don't see anything here to block or ban over. Even Masem seems to agree with that much. But no...just because someone doesn't want a discussion does not mean we can force them. We still allow editing without discussion so just because we feel one editor is not as forthcoming as others does not mean you get to disregard their edit in this matter. Because we are talking about images...not text or claims without references etc.. On the Monet article I believe he did not have to explain himself as the RFC is pretty clear. If this is a pattern with Modernist I would support some sort of intervention but at the moment there is nothing but a content dispute and some less than cordial replies. Are there diffs to show a pattern?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
An editor that reverts changes made, where the changing editor has given reasons why something should be done within their view of policy and guidelines, and the reverting editor is just reverting without providing any comment or falling back to non-policy/guideline reasons, repeatedly, that is a problem. It's not necessarily an ANI problem but it is a civility problem in that editors are expected to explain their reasons for doing such actions. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
No, not when the view of the policy and guidelines are this off. There is nothing that says we have to remove galleries or that they are unacceptable on Wikipedia. There isn't. And the entire issue of Modernist not giving a rational or explanation is exaggerated a great deal.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, there appears to be some issue I see with the way that the OP has attempted what looks like a good deal of exaggeration to support their position.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Mark Miller, you wrote "If this is a pattern with Modernist ...", and Masem responded that, yes, it is. I can confirm that: Monet was not the first time I've been involved in a similar dispute with Modernist (one reason I refused to back down). Discussing things with editors he disagrees with is not one of Modernist's strengths. Preferably this can be dealt with outside of ANI, but that's not going to happen if you insist on keeping this "discussion" alive, slagging those of us who disagree with you. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
"No, not when the view of the policy and guidelines are this off." If the person making the change is using a skewed view of policy/guideline to insist the change has to be made, the revert should be explaining that, not doing it without comment or "it looks fine to me". I'm not saying that the changer isn't scott free if they're misinterpreting policy, but reverting these should not be done without that, and discussion should take place by the reverter to explain what the problem with the changer's stance on policy is. Modernist, from my interactions, tends to simply fall back to arguments along the lines "I like it so it should stay", which is not helpful in the long run. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Masem - you and I have been having these conversations for years; you basically know my position and I basically know your position so when we discuss those issues together I see no great need to continously and redundantly repeat endless policy and guidelines interpretations. I've been having these discussions since 2006...Modernist (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Masem I asked for diffs. I am being told, point blank that you believe this is a pattern with Modernist when I asked. Now, please provide the diffs. I have gone through all of this. I see you are involved so you should have no trouble providing clear evidence that Modernist has a pattern of refusing to discuss his edits. On occasion we have butted heads, but I find you to be extremely reasonable.....much more so than you are being now.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion when History of painting was tagged with having too many non-free images lead to a discussion that went mostly nowhere because Modernist's common line "art has to be seen" (also accusing that the idea of separating the article into smaller parts was censoring them). The aformentioned RFC (Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive?) was also a case that I ran into "art must be seen" arguments. Many of the arguments in both cases are the same ones he has brougth here. Mind you, I can't claim much more than that on the specific issue of image galleries, unlike what FoBM is able to claim (which might include article edit warring - that never happened w/ Modernist in my experience). I'm just saying from what I've seen with Modernist from these points is that they refuse to discuss the issue of too many images (whether an NFC issue or a free gallery issue). --MASEM (t) 03:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Here we go again Masem; I stand by all of those arguments made at length over the years; regarding the visual arts and imagery, especially in those threads. I'm right from my side - and maybe you are right to some extant from your side - but we are creating an encyclopedia and the founders and the foundation have set out some interesting principles from the onset - and one of those basic principles - is to use common sense. The articles are well formulated; and they convey important and relatively accurate encyclopedic information regarding the subjects described...Modernist (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I am simply providing the information Mark asked for, the instances I found your behavior dismissive of suggestion to change. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough; I think we both go back to 2006, and it's been a long road and in my opinion we've made great progress since those days...Modernist (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am confused and a little annoyed right now. You state that Modernist refuses to discuss the issue of too many images (whether an NFC issue or a free gallery issue). That has already been demonstrated below to be false. In the actual diffs already provided I see huge amounts of explanation from Modernist and in the link you provide I see another huge discussion with Modernist taking the lead...again and stating: "Removed tags per long discussions; images are replaced with PD whenever possible - see [14] also...Modernist (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)", and "We have been discussing this for years and please read the link [15], the imagery is crucial to the subject and the galleries are practical, efficient, and economical...Modernist (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC) ", and "There is not one word about galleries in the link rather this paragraph that clearly is the basis for the use non-free imagery when there is no recourse (emphasis mine):
Some Wikimedia projects use media that is not free at all, under a
doctrine of "fair use" or "fair dealing". There are some works,
primarily historically important photographs and significant modern
artworks, that we can not realistically expect to be released under a
free content license, but that are hard to discuss in an educational
context without including the media itself. Because the inability to
include these works limits scholarship and criticism, in many
jurisdictions people may use such works under limited conditions
without having license or permission. Some works that are under
licenses we do not accept (such as non-derivative) may meet these
conditions. Because of our commitment to free content, this non-free
media should not be used when it is reasonably possible to replace
with free media that would serve the same educational purpose.
We use the galleries because common sense tells us it is the best, most economic way to present the information here. These are paintings - visual works that must be seen - the format used is practical and works. The proviso use of non-free imagery here is always being reduced as works from the public domain become available...Modernist (talk]) 02:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)"
Our policy on the use of non free images in galleries is "Fair use images may almost never be included as part of a general image gallery, as their status as being "fair use" depends on their proper use in the context of an article (as part of analysis or criticism). See Wikipedia:Fair use for more details." Almost never is not "never" and I think that discussion deteriorated more because you seemed to be in a disagreement with more than just Modernist but Slim Virgin as well, who started an RFC due to your posts and disagreements. Clearly modernist said waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more than just "art has to be seen" in that discussion and does not support your claim that Modernist does not discuss the issue of too many images. Now the last thing (I sure as heck hope this is the last thing) I should say is this, Wikipedia image use gives us an example of how to use galleries with: 1750–75 in Western fashion and History of painting looks strikingly similar but with far more prose and images. If there are non free images in the galleries, it is on you to demonstrate how they are against our policy. Now, you are really good at that, but you are also not always correct and many times that is simply because NFC is just a guideline. It still takes a discussion to remove them for even being non free images being used incorrectly.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
If there are non free images in the galleries, it is on you to demonstrate how they are against our policy.: we're talking about the law here, not mere Wikipedia policy. Images use must conform to the law, which means the onus for image use falls on whoever tries to add the image. We're lucky that the US even allows fair-use—Japan (where I live) doesn't, and their Wkipedia pages are often entirely bare of images at all as a result. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's why we use Fair Use Rationales when needed, although PD images are always recommended; and I agree with you - as much as I love Japan; we are far better off here, being able to use as much imagery as we do...Modernist (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes and no. There is no actual fair use "law" but case law where a number of decisions have been handed down. I am familiar with that actually. There is no exact definition of what even constitutes fair use. Copyright law is the particular area but even then it is rather ambiguous, but for Wikipedia, we have a much sterner approach to what we allow as fair use but the Foundation has been clear that we are to allow the use of non free content that is within our Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP). Masem and I have discussed this at length I believe some time ago. You're in Japan Curly Turkey? Then I should say gomenasai, for not realizing you were pinged above. Gosh, I had no idea Japan was so strict with their copyright issues. Haven't been there since I was three. Born there actually. Their earthquakes are supposed to make California feel like a Disneyland ride. I would have to agree that we in the US are lucky with most of our copyright/fair use laws but many people still get a bit confused with Freedom of panorama. But anywhoo...Wikipedia has a much sterner policy in place than just fair use case law to protect both the uploader and the works.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
My points are related to changes at about Oct 2013 (when the pge was tagged with non-free overuse) and beyond - the stuff pre-2013 is not a question. My point is still that Modernist and others fall back on "common sense" when others have pointed out NFC requires minimization of non-free image and almost never allows for non-free in galleries, and WP:SIZE which is an accessibility issue when 300+ images in an article is going to slow down the page loading and in some cases non-accessible on some browsers. Modernist simply falls back on "I like this", "art must be seen" and "common sense" claims but without trying to demonstrate how this meets policy (yes, IAR can apply, but we're talking NFC were there is no IAR wiggle room). The claim that splitting the galleries into separate articles is akin to censorship is extremely disconcerting, and the typical sign of ownership. People have offered solutions that provide the equivalent amount of content but in multiple pages, and this is flat-out rejected, and there's no attempt at a consensus solution. That's the issue here. (Please also consider how Modernist is reacting in this thread. This is the behavior that's the problem). --MASEM (t) 04:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me add - I am not trying to open the question if there are image problems on these articles or what the proper resolution is. That's a discussion that should be done elsewhere. I am simply reporting my experience in the process of trying to achieve a solution to the images on these article to fit better with consensus on image use through the rest of (both free and NFC), of the resistance to work towards a solution that Modernist gives, in line with the issues that Fountain brings up. I'm providing that evidence and my take on the evidence, and comparing it to what I've seen before. I still don't think Modernist's behavior here requires ANI interaction, but it is important to document that Fountain's issues aren't isolated. --MASEM (t) 04:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but you still need a consensus to do so. I think what is possible (and maybe you don't even realize it?) is that at the end of the day consensus requires discussion. In that discussion many different editors will use different arguments. Some will be detailed and make no sense at all, while some will be very simple and just be to the heart of the reasoning that, as images, there is no reference to show, no book to produce that contains all the answers. It still comes down to almost a simple !vote of keep or discard. At the NFC review board we are presented with stuff that is clearly a violation of the NFC criteria, some stuff that is less obvious...and sometimes things that are just not clear at all. In those case we certainly do have to go by the best and most rational argument in considering to keep or delete However, on an articles we have a slightly different standard with images alone, unless it is a formal RFC requiring a closer to make a decision based on the best rationales. I can think of a number of number of articles right now that I had to have admin reduce sizing or I, myself had to go into the rationale and add the correct information. The amount of non free content on Wikipedia that should not be here can be overwhelming and Masem is the go to guy for much of these issues, but...I know Masem and even I, as well as others who are very experienced in these issues, just don't have all the answers. And again, that's mainly because it just a guideline and one man/woman's opinion of a copyright violation is another man/woman's fair use for educational purposes. By the way...our standard is much higher than the laws, but by case law, educational purposes are covered. We just attempt to limit how many non free images we allow due to our own minimal use standard. But minimal use is about the minimal use of the work, ([T]he amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. 17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use) not how many codification in copyright law. Minimal use over more than one work is a Wikipedia standard.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Policy language such as WP:NFCC#8, concerning non-free images, but not confined to WP:NFCC#8 or even to non-free images, tends to require sourced text in the article as a justification for the inclusion of an image. But this is not always possible. It may not even always be advisable. I think Modernist has good sensibilities in this area and we should cut him some slack. I don't detect any ulterior motives. Modernist is just creating an article that allows the reader to virtually inhabit an area of the visual arts that in all cases has been thoroughly explored by reliable sources. I don't think art education is the same as other forms of education. I think we all instinctively know this. It perhaps could better be called, in my opinion, art familiarity. Modernist has a good sense for writing about art and for providing examples of what he is writing about. I think that numerous examples are always preferable to a limited few examples. Art education in part relies on immersion in relevant images. Bus stop (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Bus Stop, nobody here has accused Modernist of ulterior motives—he's being accused of dodging discussion and denigrating those who disagree with him. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have been clearer. User:Modernist is not trying to promote a personal vision. He articulates mainstream ideas and provides the images of the work that presumably embody those ideas. I happen to approve of this approach. Bus stop (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Bus Stop, you're really not paying attention, and it's frustrating. Whether his approach to the articles is appropriate or not is not what's being discussed. It's about Modernist's behaviour and personal interactions with those who disagree with his approach. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Just a note/comment. NFC#8 says nothing about sourced text. What it is does say is the non free image is used if it will significantly improve the readers understanding of the subject and removing it would be detrimental to that understanding. Image use policy states that images must have context to the subject: "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text", but then WP:MOSIM only says: "Each image should be inside the major section to which it relates." The most common non free image used away from any relevant section or text is a film poster. Perhaps the most widely used non free content on Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If an editor writing about visual art has no agenda we should cut them some slack. The use of imagery in art education involves familiarizing the reader with something real but intangible. Monet was a painter like any other painter. The real "education" is in seeing the painting. I don't think putting relevant images in Commons is a realistic method of immersing the reader in the relevant imagery. This immersion should take place simultaneous to reading the text. If the immersion is not automatic there is the problem that the reader may never click on the link to Commons. Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
To Mark: 99% of the time, it is the easiest to show NFCC#8 is met by demonstrated sourced commentary about the image in question as that clearly meets contextual significance, as it takes out any question from a image reviewer of why that image is needed. Yes, you don't always need sourced commentary and we do give leeway to one or two images that have clear relevance, but if you start loading an article with multiple non-free without explaining their significance to the topic, either some have to be removed or better context is going to be necessary. Modernist has listened to this in the past (so this is a point in their favor) and has tried to justify most of the inline non-free elements with text explaining why the painting is important, so this point is not lost, but this tends to be an issue in the galleries which might include non-free as well. Galleries tend to lack the ability to give any type of contextual significance, and hence why we don't allow non-free in galleries except in very rare cases. (And the specific situation for cover art is that it is generally being used for implicit branding and identification of the notable work that it is for and as such being in the infobox is the most relevant section for the image inclusion). --MASEM (t) 13:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
As for the amount of non free content in a gallery...that is a case by case situation and has no real over encompassing policy or guideline to follow, pretty much on purpose. At the 19th century article we have an RFC that has asked for more context on all images and that seems fair. I am not one of those that think editors have an inherent right to use as many NF images as they wish on articles or even in galleries, but what is too much is a matter of discussion and consensus. I will not get back into that old argument we had about the use of NF images in places other than the infobox to identify subjects. That was resolved I believe and the use of such images in other places besides the info box seems to be clear for now. Some galleries have excellent contextual significance and some less. So I don't want you to think I am arguing against that.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the current diffs[edit]

  • The first diff, #84 was not needed and is just the OP showing us their work. The second diff, #85 is the revert by Modernist and contains an edit summary. I personally do not see anything "flippant" about it, but regardless of that, it was not uncivil.
  • Diff #86 is the OP's revert back with this edit summary:"WP:LAYIM avoid over-image "stacks" and shoehorn galleries WP:Gallery (they are not "ok")". How is it not "OK"? The link that was left was to the manual of style and is not policy. It is just a guideline but more doesn't say that. WP:Gallery a paragraph below this: "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject." While I dislike the term shoehorn, that means trying to "shove" images in where they does not fit by use of a gallery. That is not what is going on here. When editors discuss the "shoehorn" part, I noticed they don't seem to mention this part (bolded for emphasis): "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the above paragraph or moved to Wikimedia Commons" So just reverting or removing galleries with that link is just wrong and is not supported by Image use policy, and does not say galleries are not OK.
  • Diff 87 is where the OP states they left a rational on the talk page. That's is nice...but they failed to mention it was actually a reply to Modernist who had already begun a discussion over deletions in 2011 with no replies....none. Then the OP states "8 months later..." Uhm...seriously...the first 4 diffs show nothing of any real concern except that the OP seems to not understand the full image use policy in regards to galleries. But had there been some would be stale by now.
  • Diff #88. Eight months later and the OP reverts to the same version and Modernist reverts back, as the OP says, without comment. OK...but...neither did the IP editor.
  • Diff #89 is where Coldcreation reverted back after the OP had reverted where they state above: "Since there seemed to be no rational given I reverted it". The IP didn't provide one either but that seems to matter little.
  • Diff #90 is a very bad attempt to claim there is tag teaming going on and only shows a random vote where the two both voted the same way. Uhm....what exactly is that supposed to prove?
  • Diff # 91 is where the OP now attempts to show tag teaming in discussion. Wait.....didn't the OP say there are no rationals provided. No explanations etc.? Funny thing...diff 91 actual proves that Modernist will certainly provide a pretty detailed rational. But...this is supposed to be demonstrating tag teaming by Modernist and Coldcreation. Again...funny thing...Cold creation only has 4 posts in that entire exchange. I also noticed this comment from the OP: "There is no need to establish or follow local consensus on edits when there are clear guidelines (and Wikipedia recommends against it)." I gotta tell you...that's a new one on me. The actual policy is that a local consensus cannot override the broader community consensus. In other words WikiProjects cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. The OP is attempting to tell editors that there is no need to come to a consensus because the policy is the broader community consensus. OK...but the Broader community consensus says that we can still have galleries so...I think that was clearly Wikilawyering.
  • Diffs # 92, 93, and 94 are all from the same article and from that discussion where the OP appeared to be telling editors a consensus on that article didn't matter. I see no evidence that this is tag teaming.
  • Diff #95 is actually a clear violation of WP:NPA. Discuss the contributions not the contributor. Curly Turkey created a thread on the Claude Monet talk page entitled: "Edits by Modernist and Coldcreation" where they accuse the two editors of "trying to scare contributors off by spamming your own messages to those talk pages".
  • Diff #96 is the exact same diff as #91.
  • Diff #97 is supposed to be an issue? We are still allowed to make use of BRD, are we not? If the discussion becomes intractable, that is indeed the very time to make a bold edit.

This took a great deal of time to go through (which I will never get back) and frankly I see a few problems with the overall exaggerations of the OP in both policy and guidelines as well as the overall issues with Modernist. Again, I see a campaign...but not from Modernist. We absolutely do not need to remove all galleries, just because they are galleries.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Mark Miller, you've now made it crystal clear that you're gunning for a fight—as if it weren't already obvious with this edit and (amongst other inflammatory comments) its bad-faith "But you sure jumped on this fast enough" (I was very obviously respoding to both Fountains of Bryn Mawr and Modernist pinging me for comment). I bit my tongue then, but you obviously won't be satisfied with a full-on conflict.
I said it and I mean it: I have no intention of opening old wounds with Modernist, and what follows is not intended to do any such thing---we've put this behind us, and I intend to keep it there. It is nothing more than a direct response to Mark Miller's contentious, bad-faith, pot-stirring personal attack above:
This was in direct response to these clear-cut bad-faith edits intended to discourage editors from joining the RfC: [15][16][17][18][19][20]. The response to it was bad-faith accusations of CANVASSing, despite the fact the RfC notice was following to the letter the instructions at WP:RFC: entirely neutral (Quote: "Please join in the discussion at Talk:Claude Monet#RfC: Are the galleries in the Monet article excessive? about the number and choice of images in the galleries.") and posted only to the talk pages of WikiProjects the Monet page had already been tagged with. Your job: demonstrate how advertising an RfC strictly according to the WP:RfC instructions was in any way inappropriate, or strike your revisionist slander (yes, slander is precisely to the letter what it is—you're not getting around that one, Mark Miller).
So, Mark Miller, it's pretty obvious I've put every effort into getting this dispute out of ANI and onto the article talk page where it belongs. Tell everyone now what your motivation is for keeping this asinine discussion alive and slandering everyone in range. I'll take a "no one here owes you an explanation of anything" as conclusive evidence that your only goal was to stir the pot. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 10:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I did miss that you were pinged and apologize for thinking you jumped in (my computer displays links that have not been clicked in a dark blue and that, along with the size of the fonts makes it difficult to see there is a link). However, your overly aggressive manner here and your overuse of my name, mentioning me over and over is one of your problems. You don't understand that WP:NPA is a serious policy and that you breached it by creating a specific thread on an article talk page about two editors. Then you were accused of canvasing but the replies to those project requests does not seem to be bad faith or actionable either.
You said: "you've now made it crystal clear that you're gunning for a fight" Really? Is that really true from the diff you show, where I tell you not to "Fight back" because it just creates drama? Look, the reason I comment is because I disagree with a great deal of this and when I took a close look the actions of others looked worse than those of Modernist. The thread has not been closed so, I replied to the continuing discussion. I am not the one that continued to discuss this after you said things had calmed down enough to continue on the talk page but I don't feel your actions do you credit. I think your above post was horrid and inappropriate.
  • Per WP:NLT, you just committed a borderline "perceived" legal threat.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "Legal threat"?! Oh, go harass someone else, Mark Miller. You're trolling. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Please lets not create more drama and stay calm; especially because there are far more important things to be done - CT you have important articles to write; and MM thank you so much for your good insights. Please lets close this thread...Modernist (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Unless any action is required, I agree this should probably be closed now.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Just to make some things clear, Wikilawyering could also be characterized as ignoring why I brought this here. The reason is behavior/ignoring guidelines (with no rational given) at 19th century. Problem #1 (not addressed) is when you read about "Athletics" you are looking at Ellen Terry and P. T. Barnum (hey, maybe they were kick ass athletes and I just learned something ;)). Problem #2 is shoehorning more images into a gallery. We are ignoring the main aim of the guideline ---> images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and not be just an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject. What we have is an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject. Can it be "improved?" Yeah, by adding 97 more people to the list or by simply replacing it with a themed gallery: all the 19th century "Emperors of Russia" or something of the sort. Since one is highly unlikely and the other would not be needed there was no common sense rational for the gallery. As for Monet, it was brought here as an example of past behavior (and was nothing I ever participated in or plan to participate in in the future). Impressionism was something I participated in (and for my troubles I was told I was an idiot and was not owed any explanation). That was ANI time but Modernist seemed to see some reason in the end (it was like pulling teeth) and I (like MASEM) haven't pursued it past that point. Modernist starting it up again at 19th Century brought us here. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • While as stated above this is not the proper venue to discuss content - I'll say this: galleries and images are invaluable, educational tools we have to elucidate, describe and identify information for our readers. The 19th century article is a broad overview covering 100 years - it is also a century that has produced an enormous number of people who influenced and affected most of our lives in the 20th and 21st centuries. More so than earlier time periods the 19th century has directly impacted science; religion; industry; commerce; art; medicine; literature; philosophy and much more. The plethora of images elucidate in other ways then do the brief and discreet subject paragraphs. If you want to know more about 19th century theatre for instance - you'll need to read more specific articles about that subject; to be found elsewhere in wikipedia through links and images. To fully appreciate the text and the imagery at 19th century the reader doesn't necessarily have to 'walk and chew gum' but the reader needs to read the text and peruse the portraits separately in some cases, it's really not a big deal. The idea that images and galleries convey valuable and educational information in our articles is well established. I think this thread needs to be closed...Modernist (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Better left at the 19th century talk page but Modernist, you seem to overlook the fact that Wikipedia is not an image host (the Commons is). So a Wikipedia article will not depict everyone (everything) listed in the article (you go to a Commons category for that). The common sense cutoff across the consensus guidelines is "images should be relevant to the sections they are located in" and galleries should not be an un-encyclopedic "Gallery of X". No good reason has been put forward not to follow that common sense. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You brought this here and now you say better left at the 19th century talk page. Simply you misread both guidelines regarding images and galleries. The article is an article that obviously you don't like; others apparently do like it. As you say perhaps this entire thread that you brought should have been opened at the 19th century talk page - perhaps consensus will determine the outcome there...Modernist (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • See WP:IMAGES and - MOS:IMAGES and WP:IUP Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in - all the imagery in 19th century are relevant to the 19th century article they appear in! Your misinterpretation - "images should be relevant to the sections they are located in" - where did that come from by the way? - what policy or guideline? and try this on please - Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. All the images used in the gallery are of highly relevant 19th century personages...Modernist (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Modernist, you don't appreciate how an overabundance of images with insufficient context can overload readers—and this is especially the case with broad subject overview-type articles. Too many tiny thumbnail images without the context to make sense of them is just noise to most readers. Balance and context are everything, and balance and context issues will not be solved by quoting policy back and forth at each other—they require editorial judgement. Until you accept that, you'll continually be butting heads with other editors who do see it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks CT - In the article we're discussing - 19th century the relevant section heading is: Significant people - a large topic - to the left are text in subsections and to the right are portraits of many significant people of the 19th century. Not too difficult to see or to understand. The images are all basically placed in the relevant section - Significant people - just not in the corresponding subsections for want of space. The gallery contains portraits of significant people like Leo Tolstoy, Søren Kierkegaard, Henry David Thoreau, and others that didn't fit above...Modernist (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Content removal by WP:SPAs at Misty Copeland[edit]

Resolved: SPI accounts blocked indefinitely for disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Today, two WP:SPAs have been removing the phrase "and adopted by African-American parents" from Misty Copeland as it pertains to her mother. Ccccccc67$$$$ twice removed the content today at this and this edit and Anonymous100000000222299 removed the same content at this edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

From the usernames, they appear to be throw away accounts, probably created by the same user. Anyway, given they are edit warring to removing sourced content, and not engaging in any discussion, I've blocked them indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat?[edit]

As follow-up of the recent case Enough is enough the guy is back again. And again with another IP (= block evasion) But what me bothers is a potential legal threat here: in the summary. He states there: DELETED under the 1988 Data Protection Act: FRANCIS, DO NOT RE-INSTATE OR ELSE!. I did not revert it, as it looks to be some merit in it as a privacy violation. The Banner talk 13:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

He was issued a 3-day block 2 minutes after you posted this, and his attempt at a legal threat is a bluff. His general location (as per the Geolocate item on his contrib page) is public information. If he wants to not be identified by location, he should create a registered ID. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I have to fear that this will go on and on and on. But blocking the IP-range is most likely a draconian measure with too much collateral damage. The Banner talk 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If it's a relatively short list of articles he's attacking, maybe they could be semi-protected for a spell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


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

Personal attack on my talk page in edit at 02:17 on 25 August 2014 which includes profanity. User made previous personal attack to same page at 08:09 on 10 August 2014 and was warned accordingly. User has also left inappropriate edit summaries which have also included profanity: [21] & [22]. AldezD (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCENSORED, use of "profanity" does not automatically turn a legitimate criticism of another user's apparently disruptive behaviour into a "personal attack". Per WP:DICK, use of the phrase "don't be a dick" is even among other uncensored/uncensorable profanities uniquely accepted on Wikipedia. Per WP:DTTR I would submit that the OP is in fact the one at fault here for haranguing another user on their talk page. (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC) (this user's phone)
BTW, by what moon logic does Copyedits. This must be one of the most badly written and boring articles on Wikipedia. A complete dog's breakfast. qualify as an "inappropriate edit summary which also included profanity"? (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED does not negate WP:PERSONAL, and the user had been warned accordingly prior to the second attack. AldezD (talk) 11:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
What attack??? (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah okay, I see it now: he called you "arrogant" and accused you of violating WP:OWN (an accusation that may or may not have merit, but is seldom made without some kind of background...), so you templated his talk page multiple times, he removed your templates, you then accused him again of making personal attacks solely for removing the templates, and now you are asking the admin corps to block him for using debatably foul language? It seems like we're only hearing one side of this story... (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I think he's talking about the vulgarisms used in those items he linked. Or maybe he's confused about what FYI means. It means "for your information". Meanwhile "WP not censored" has to do with article content. It's not a license to hurl low-life language at another editor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when other users repeatedly link a particular guideline/policy page in a certain context, I have a tendency to take their word for it that it is relevant. Anyway, if one user harangues another user to the point where the latter is driven to use one or two curse words, the standard procedure is to block/ban the harasser and leave a polite reminder to keep it cool on the talk page of the user who used foul language. So far, the emerging timeline of this dispute indicates that that is exactly what happened here, and the OP appears to have disingenuously hidden said timeline for other users to have to dig it up. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
No one is "driven" to talk like a low-life, they choose to do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have more patience that 99% of Wikipedians, and I applaud you for this, but please bear in mind that not everyone shares that patience. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The user's talk page has not been "templated...multiple times". The user made an unconstructive edit to The Chase (UK game show) (that included grammatical and spacing errors, and did not follow general principles of WP:MOS) and an appropriate notification was left on the talk page. The user responded to the warning with an edit summary that included profanity ([23]) and also left a personal attack on my own page. Following the first personal attack, the appropriate template was left on the user's page as a warning, after which again the user removed the template and included an edit summary with profanity ([24]). A warning was left today again regarding the second personal attack before the ANI was opened. AldezD (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fiddle faddle. Stop it with the template abuse on Afterwriting's page. Don't post there unless you have something constructive to say, and use humanspeak, not templates, for the purpose or you may be sanctioned for battleground editing. Those edit summaries aren't models of courtesy, but neither is it surprising that your persistent templating irritated the user into what you call "profanity". ("Bullshit" can sometimes be a usefully descriptive word.) Bishonen | talk 15:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
I have only made four edits to the user's talk page—two were in response to the personal attacks already linked above. The others were the original template & clarification for the user's edit to The Chase (UK game show), and the notice of this ANI. AldezD (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
All four of those edits were to add templates, which either said, condescendingly, "Welcome to Wikipedia", or threatened him with a block. Of the two "personal attacks" mentioned, it seems that so far you have only linked one borderline personal attack (this one) and are under the impression that adding mild profanity to otherwise completely innocuous comments on user behaviour qualifies as a personal attack. However, it seems that the one engaged in disruptive behaviour is you more than anyone else and said behaviour just pushed another user slightly over the edge, and I think you should drop it before you see a WP:BOOMERANG effect. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That edit summary is indeed a direct, low-life style personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
So, wait, you didn't like some of his stylistic choices so you posted a "Welcome to Wikipedia" notice on the talkpage of a user who has been here since 2005? I'm sorry, but that kind of bugs me, especially considering several other parts of his "unconstructive edits" (the parts where he was clearly fixing the broken grammar) were apparently acceptable to you. You re-inserted an obviously broken sentence to the lede, and I guess you consider this justified by the minor misprint of "the" as "thr"? Why didn't you re-revert him on this point after it was re-added? Was it just an honest mistake the first time? We all make mistakes from time to time, but when you made this mistake your talk page wasn't tagged with a "warning" from your Wikipedia junior that included the phrase "Welcome to Wikipedia", and you are not now being threatened with a block. Your OP comment here contained four diffs, two of which you claimed were personal attacks but one was just a seemingly accurate assertion that you are engaged in disruptive templating and the other was a slightly more aggressive version of the same; the other two you claimed included "profanity" but of these only one actually did. And yes, when something like 70 of the past 500 edits to the article are one user constantly (and blindly) reverting the edits of what looks like dozens of other users (who likely account for the majority of the other 430 edits), that certainly does look like an OWN scenario. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Although the user has been here since 2005, the user consistently receives notifications from BracketBot based upon the user's edits not containing proper coding. That, and the user's revision which included capitalization & spacing not consistent with WP:MOS in this edit was the impetus for the template warning on 7 August.
Have you reviewed the content I have reverted? The reversions are not "blindly" being made. The edits are either vandalism ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]), re-addition of content that was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes ([31], [32]—specifically, the Episode results section and additional unsourced details, [33], [34], [35]) or other unsourced additions ([36], [37]). AldezD (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't give a damn about some game show in the UK, so I don't care about the content. As for the stylistic choices, I have to agree with Afterwriting on a lot of them. You reinserted inappropriate "in-universe" language with no explanation into a section title ("Final Chase" should have inverted commas), for instance. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unbelievable stuff. Afterwriting made a pretty good copyedit of the article (which as Hijiri88 notes, you seem to have ownership issues with) that included him making one typo and not only did you make a wholesale revert, but you templated him and and added your own personal note questioning his competence. It's one of the more condescending things I've seen on Wikipedia and that's saying something. I think his response to you was perfectly appropriate. Jenks24 (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So my initial template also warrants a second harassing message from the user despite no further interaction after the initial exchange? AldezD (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Reverts and edit summaries at the article would in question would still be "interaction". Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Please review the article's history as well as the talk pages for the user and for me. The user hasn't made any edits to the article since 7 August, the date of my reversion. The user's first personal attack was 10 August, and the second 24 August. AldezD (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • So, to be clear, the OP reverted a (mostly) perfectly good copyedit - at least one section was a clear improvement - and then templated the editor for unconstructive editing, leading him to revert it with a profane but frankly quite understandable edit summary. The OP then templated him again with a level 3 NPA for the edit summary. Under the circumstances, I'd agree with Jenks24. I don't see any reason for admin action here and would suggest closing this. Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, this is not the order of events.
  1. I undid an edit the user made that introduced a spelling error, removed commas and introduced capitalization & grammar issues.—[38]
  2. The user undid my revision and then made additional edits to the article that introduced additional grammar issues—[39]
  3. I cleaned up the user's edit—[40]
  4. The user made additional edits that introduced grammatical errors "If the contestants elects to play...", "Once the contestants nominates"—[41]
  5. I cleaned up the user's edit—[42]—and left a template message on the user's talk page with additional revision explaining the grammar issue.
  6. The user left a personal attack on my talk page—[43]
  7. I warned the user about the personal attack and noted prior warnings by other editors for inappropriate edit summaries—[44]
  8. The user left a second personal attack on my talk page—[45]
  9. I warned the user about the personal attack and opened the ANI—[46]

The user and I had no user space interaction between #7 and #8 above, and there were no interactions in article content after #5. AldezD (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • In reality, your (1) introduced grammatical errors ("contestants'" is correct), and your (3) isn't a cleanup as some of the language is actually poorer (i.e. the repetition of the word "contestants"). And in reality, your (5) didn't only "explain the grammar issue", you questioned their competence as an editor. Still, if you think leaving an "unconstructive editing" warning template on the talk page of an experienced editor for a couple of minor spelling errors is a good idea, then I suspect that the edit summary he left won't be the last one you get. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
You undid dozens of probably good-faith edits to the article. Among said edits was a mostly-good copyedit by an established Wikipedian. When said Wikipedian reverted you, fixing almost all of his own mistakes, and accused you of OWNership, you reverted back, all the time belittling him and "welcoming" him to Wikipedia on his talk page. When said user told you to knock it off, you continued to post inane template-talk on his page. At some point in this process you were called "arrogant" and unpleasant to work with. You took this as a personal attack, and also apparently take the use of "profanity" like "bullshit" and "don't be a dick" (I noticed he used the word "fuckwit" elsewhere, but you don't seem to be referring to that) and "dog's dinner" as personal attacks, and are now asking for this user to be blocked? Please just give it a rest. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Try not to get wrapped around the axle over "NPA" vs "NOTCENSORED" and realize that "This must be one of the most badly written and boring articles on Wikipedia. A complete dog's breakfast." is a shitty and unnecessary thing to say. Yes, it is specifically talking about "content, not contributors", but c'mon. We don't need to leave edit summaries like this. However, the answer to an edit summary like that is not to find the closest Wikipedia policy which matches the perceived slight and template the bejesus out of the editor who left it. Protonk (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


I'm feeling increasingly that the OP deserves to be sanctioned or at least warned for WP:OWN on this article (among others?) and for abuse of usertalk templates. Immediately after being told off by myself and several admins here, he went straight back to the article[47] and did the exact same thing again[48] to another user. That user (unlike the subject of the above thread) is relatively new and apparently doesn't understand our sourcing standards, but it would appear that Aldez reverted to an outdated figure when "557" appears to be slightly more up-to-date as of now. (The currently-cited source is inherently WP:UNRELIABLE when it comes to up-to-date figures for an ongoing game show.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In fact he's left four consecutive messages on that user's talk page, mostly accusing said user of adding unsourced information, even though all that happened in the other three cases was replacing of one unsourced number/date with another unsourced number/date -- Aldez did not template either of the other users involved in these "disputes".[49][50] Additionally, I find it somewhat disturbing that someone is going around asking for blocks to be issued for "foul language" when that person considers "dog's dinner" to be foul language. Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think sanctions are necessary for either editor right now. I agree with Protonk's above post that both should strive for more civility. More consensus-building would help to alleviate perceived issues of page ownership. Because discussions form a large part of consensus-building, AldezD should employ fewer templated warnings and unilateral reverts. A polite note on the talk page works just as well as a patronizing template, and it often invites a more civil discourse. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerns on Brahma Kumaris article[edit]

Regarding Brahma Kumaris article. Last time a new editor jumped in and started deleting large amounts of RS based material I was told at WP:SPI under the first checkuser comment it could have been handled here as WP:Duck. There may also be other policies that relate to disruptive/suspect editing that are pertinent. For the sake of keeping things tidy, the concern relates to 2 fairly new editing accounts (though one is probably now abandoned). The first account in question (that hasn't been used since May) had only one stint of edits. The same revert was made by this banned user as their first edit too. Thanks to User:McGeddon reverting, that strategy failed and the account appears to have been discarded. The second accountin question has only edited on 3 separate occasions in August, all in relation to one topic. On each of those 3 occasions, substantial RS based content has been deleted - I thought the contribs would be the easiest way to see the wholesale deletions. A bot reverted this one as suspected vandalism, so the editor simply did a slightly reduced machete job. The rhetoric is concerningly similar to comments by these banned users/suspected socks [51] [52] [53] which may or may not be part of an even longer lineage of socks Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lucyintheskywithdada/Archive that stalk this article. The changes now being made appear to be piecemeal cut and pastes from the way the article was at the time this user was blocked. The user openly uses multiple accounts, here creating a new account to edit their talk page because their access was removed from the old now blocked account. I don't usually like to suggest blocking people, but it's hard to see either of these accounts contributing to Wikipedia. My hope was to get this nipped in the bud before either of the accounts get established and resume a path of disruptive editing. The way User:Truth_is_the_only_religion edits, they are clearly not new to Wikipedia which raises the question of why they are not using their previous account. Their username doesn't suggest they have the most openminded approach to editing religious/spiritual topics. I have stalled posting here for a few weeks to see if anything useful came out of the account, but now consider that highly unlikely. Advice/suggestions most welcome. Regards and thanks Danh108 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you think you have sufficient basis to file a sockpuppet investigation that would probably be an appropriate step to take. Not really sure what else to say based on the information given.John Carter (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks John Carter. I can try that. However I remember last time User:Adjwilley raised a sock he was advised by TParis that it would have been better handled here as WP:Duck. I can't get the exact diff because it has been archived, but it is in the checkuser comments here [54]. It's a bit worrying if old users can just waddle back in with the same quacking and resume their disruptions...each block makes them older and wiser about how to work the system too.Danh108 (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems clear to me that the account is not new, but User:JamesBWatson's comments here are definitely worth reading. Perhaps the account should be blocked per WP:CGTW #14 :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well Adjwilley, maybe I am getting a bit cynical :'( I do appreciate this users sense of humour though - they always choose great usernames. My favourite was Lucy in the sky with Dada (Dada is a name for the BK co-founder). Reading JBW's comments it looks like I may have been premature in posting here....anyway, it's nice to be part of a forgiving community...maybe the editor has put aside their battleground mentality I'm wrong about this editors connection to past Wiki accounts. Nice to know there are people keeping a watchful/experienced eye on things :-) CheersDanh108 (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23's conduct in enforcing article probation[edit]

There is WP:SNOW levels of support for Bbb23's actions in this case. As for a community topic ban, vs a continuation of Bbb23's application of an article probation based topic ban, there isn't clear consensus. While the discussion could be left open for further discussion on that point, the only non-semantic difference is whether Bbb23 can rescind the topic ban unilaterally, or whether an appeal must go through the community, as I don't think Bbb23 is planning to rescind the topic ban any time soon, that distinction is academic. Monty845 20:29, 27 August 2014 (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 related to the "Men's rights movement" article probation and the administrative actions of Bbb23.

There are two recent cases I find odd.

  1. In the article domestic violence (article history) user called Casusbelli1 made four edits, which were reverted by another user. Casusbelli1 then made two smaller edits, which were unrelated to the rationale the other user made his revert on and was only very partial (a single paragraph on the issue of same-sex partners and domestic violence). That was then discussed on the article talk page, which is perfectly healthy BRD. Bbb23 proceeded to attach a warning to Domestic violence that it is related to the men's rights article probation. He warned Casusbelli1 on his talkpage to not edit-war and 1RR. This was rebuked by me and another user, Tutelary, on Casusbelli1's talk page. We argued that the whole MRM probation being extended to domestic violence is far-streched, as the domestic violence ratio of gay men hardly is a MRM topic. I made sure to use the ping feature to notify Bbb23 but he did not respond to either me or Tutelary despite both of essentially completely disagreeing what he had done.
  2. Memills, who has a history of MRM article probation sanctions, made two edits: 1 one to masculism and the other one 2 to Michael Kimmel. Both of the edits were reverted by Sonicyouth86, who posted a comment on Memill's talk page and asked Bbb23 to perform an administrative action on Memills. Tutelary disagreed with that in the same section, again something what Bbb23 just ignored and did not reply to. Between the comments to Memills' and Bbb23's talkpage, Bbb23 had already proceeded to inform that Memills has been indefinitely topic banned from anything broadly related to "men's rights", including any page like WP:RSN, apparently based on Sonicyouth86's and his own assessment that Memills' edits were harmful. The previous actual ANI case on a potential Memills topic ban was turned down. An indefinitive topic ban is a harsh measure, especially as this time Memills' edits seemed reasonable enough. What's more important however is that Bbb23 is not an uninvolved admin: he has blocked Memills before and has had quarrels with him on his talkpage. Is an indefinite topic ban within the limits of a normal admin action anyway, given that an earlier attempt at ANI failed?

Is Bbb23 able to continue enforcing the article probation? In any case I wish article probations like that had a more diverse group of admins enforcing it, because it seems like they easily turn into battlegroundish behauvior. --Pudeo' 04:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

As shown here at the Domestic violence article talk page, Bbb23 having placed the Domestic violence article under Men's rights movement/Article probation has nothing to do with gay men. And as shown in this section, I called on Bbb23 to consider putting that article under Men's rights movement/Article probation. Such probation has to do with men's rights editors, and those similar, highjacking every topic that reports women as the majority of victims, such as domestic violence, and trying to give false balance to men as victims. This has recently been the case with the Reproductive coercion article, where one such editor WP:Canvassed men's rights editors to show up at that article; the Reddit thread that the editor used to WP:Canvass shows "battlegroundish behauvior" and bashes Kevin Gorman. Flyer22 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22, you seem eager to apply sanctions on pages which you are personally having a content dispute with. Additionally, is there any evidence that these editors you're smearing are 'men's rights editors'? Tutelary (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both Both the enforcement of article probation, and the topic ban for Memills look fine - their poor behaviour continued after I closed the ANI as barely not implementing a topic ban. By the way, by bringing Memills topic ban here to ANI, you realize that you're going to turn it into a community-imposed topic ban now? I'm not sure Memills would have appreciated that, but whatever the result of the discussion, it's a fait accomplit the panda ₯’ 09:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no doubt that is exactly what Sonicyouth86 and Bbb23 intended, given their involvement in the previous AN. That didn't go in their direction, so, here is the second attempt. Battlegroundish. However, note that the AN request was about Bbb23 and whether (1) Bbb23 should continue enforcing the article probation, and (2) whether there should be a more diverse group of admins involved in the MRM pages. It was not an AN to reverse either administrative action taken by Bbb23. Memills (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both Bbb23's actions. And I add.......about time. Also...would wholeheartedly support an upgrade to a community topic ban.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both enforcement and topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both Bbb23 has done nothing wrong here. Also support (indirectly) upgrading tban to a community tban. --Mdann52talk to me! 09:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both Casusbelli1 has edited or commented on Domestic violence and Men's rights movement and Reproductive coercion so MRM certainly applies, and two edits remove the same text (01:15 and 07:34) so a 1RR warning applies (is the admin supposed to impose 1RR and not warn, creating a trap?). I can't sum up the Memills situation in a few words, except to say that it is time for relief from the MRM advocates. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Article sanctions don't carry between pages, it's on an individual article basis only. My 1 revert on Men's Rights Movement doesn't establish itself to my revert about The Legend of Korra or even similar topics, such as Abortion (though it does have its own sanctions). Tutelary (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both The description of the first case contains a false statement about the talk page warning. Casusbelli1 was not warned for 1RR on their talk page in this warning. It was for WP:3RR concerns and it was explicitly not a warning under MRM probations. (The OP should strike this misinformation.) The talk page warning looks reasonable and designed to prevent disruptions without blocks. In the second case there is the suggestion that the admin is WP:INVOLVED because they have dealt with the editor as an admin and blocked them in the past. "Involved" doesn't work that way.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • 1RR is discussed in his section, the article probation with 1RR was extended to that article, he had made only one revert so clearly 1RR was implied. Bbb23 was not involved in the content dispute, but if you take a look at Memills' talk page see how many times he has been rebuking or sanctioning Memills. Bbb23 actually voted support for the topic in the ANI, which was rejected, then goes to indef topic ban him weeks later. You don't feel there could be a less involved admin available for such a heavy sanction like indef topic ban?--Pudeo' 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • 1RR was mentioned in relation to how it was not the specific reason for the warning. We aren't talking about a block here, just a talk page warning, and those are often and correctly given out before 3RR is formally breached, at admin discretion. It's what admins are expected to do, when they believe it will prevent imminent disruption. This talk page reminder seems reasonable in context. Your analysis of the editor's history is flawed as well; there was more than one revert to the same material so he had made only one revert is also a false statement. Bbb23 was crystal clear that the warning was not dependent on the probation. It is patently misleading to misrepresent it as a warning based on the probation. The warning says it was for actions taken not in the sections covered by the probation and for more general edit warring concerns. And as far as "involved" goes, an admin who has previously expressed an opinion about whether certain actions deserve blocking is not "involved". If that were the case no admins could give warnings or advice or communicate about an editor previous to blocking without being "involved", an obviously impossible scenario.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Can you give diffs for Casusbelli1's other revert? This is the only one and it is just a partial revert (448 out of 1522 bytes). His other edit is copyediting. Earlier edits (in early August) stand to this day. He did only one revert. --Pudeo' 14:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both and support community topic ban for Memills. Considering the level of misinformation and what has become a repeat pattern of Men's rights advocate editor trying to remove Bbb23 from moderating this area I would suggest WP:Boomerang might be worth considering--Cailil talk 13:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Did you call me a "men's rights editor"? For the record, I have never made attempts to remove Bbb23 from moderating this area, this is the first ANI I've ever commented on Bbb23. A repeated pattern is formed pretty fast, then. And please do point out all that missinformation, I'd be glad to fix it. --Pudeo' 13:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment to all of the above: Flyer22 reverted Casusbelli1's edits (1 revert) and after that Casusbelli1 did only that one very partial revert on the issue of same-sex couples (1 revert). Is there any reason why Casusbelli1 was warned for edit-warring, considered to suddenly be in article probation area and why Flyer22 was not considered to be edit-warring when they both had made just 1 revert? One potential reason is that Bbb23 just personally disagreed with Casusbelli1. Casusbelli1 is a new user: is it a nice greeting to post a huge "stop, you are edit-warring or you will blocked" after doing just one revert? Also, if an user has edited an MRM article: the article probation can be just extended to a section of domestic violence of same-sex couples after that user happens to edit there? That's pretty absurd in my opinion, given that the article probation has 1RR and other severe sanctions, the scope should be pretty clear. --Pudeo' 13:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I already stated above that the article probation is not about same-sex couples. Furthermore, like I stated on the talk page to Casusbelli1, "I was focused on one line [he] removed, and felt that editors might want to discuss some of [his] removals." The same-sex couple content he removed was poorly sourced, and so I didn't much object to that removal...other than stating that, per the WP:Preserve policy (policy, not simply a guideline), he should look for better sources to see if the content can be validly supported. Flyer22 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, regarding why Bbb23 did not warn me, I think he took a WP:Don't template the regulars approach. I am already familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and with how Men's rights movement/Article probation works. Flyer22 (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Compare the history with An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.. The editor warned was clearly closer than Flyer22 to potential trouble at that time. The one warning wasn't directly based on 1RR or discretionary sanctions, but basic WP:3RR. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Differentiate edits and reverts. Casusbelli1 made edits (modifying content), which does not constitute a revert in 3RR, these edits reverted by Flyer22, and in turn Casusbelli partially reverted Flyer22. Both made one revert and that was normal BRD. --Pudeo' 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If they both made one revert, that's BRRD, not BRD. Any failure of BRD might be interpreted as evidence of edit-warring or potentially imminent edit-warring by an admin, at their judgement and discretion at the time. An admin discussing the avoidance of edit-warring on a person's talk page after they've failed BRD is common to the point of being routine admin work. No block was issued there. If the admin's actions prevented disruption without sanctions being handed out, that is a positive outcome.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That could be it, Flyer22. However, some transparency would be appreciated in expanding the article probation. Potentially almost any social issue could be a "men's rights" topic. Is it based on a single administrator's consideration, does it have to be edited by an editor considered to be symphatetic to the MRM (according to who?) or just any editor who has edited those articles? Labelling other editors "men's rights editors" or "feminist editors" could be a personal attack and atleast definitely against assuming good faith. --Pudeo' 15:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't consider calling editors "men's rights editors" or "feminist editors" to be a WP:Personal attack violation, especially when it's obvious that they are such editors, and I'm certain that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors feel like I do on that. Sure, "men's rights editor" or "feminist editor" can be considered dirty words and/or a personal attack simply because of the strong political nature and hatred many people have for both the masculism and feminism sides, but calling an editor either does not violate a WP:Personal attack. Something else to think about is that some of our editors proudly identify as feminists on Wikipedia, but I don't see any masculinist editors proudly identifying as such on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
So you wouldn't mind if I called you a Communist or a Marxist when editing certain social topics? Those are polarizing labels and why the editor in question didn't like it that you slapped a label on them. The reasoning on why WP:NPA is there in the first place is that it creates a polar divide between editors and prohibits reasonable and constructive discussions on the article's content. Right now, people in this noticeboard have separated people into two different polarizing groups and is currently inhibiting the discussion on the page. Your accusations of canvassing have further polluted the water, and created a semi-witch hunt because obviously, any editor who is arguing in favor of the status quo on the page was obviously canvassed to it and we should dismiss their thoughts entirely. Tutelary (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It's the canvassing that polluted the waters, not the accusations and the subsequent admission. Take it easy. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's more telling when people associate someone to a movement when the individual doesn't ascribe it to themselves. Wikipedia shouldn't be about identifiers, such things fall into the realm of battleground behavior and is disruptive to collaboration. Editors that choose to identify themselves with a particular identity are already drawing battle lines, and the only point I see from trying to push someone into a political group is to poison the well with regard to certain arguments. This is disruptive wether it's coming from "feminist", "MRA", "Liberal", "Conservative" or any other identifier. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support probation and topic ban I'm surprised that this had to reach ANI. I would have rather dropped a good job note to Bbb23 on his efforts. Pudeo, you should perhaps pester Bbb23 more, than coming here. Wifione Message 15:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Bbb23 did not respond to my or Tutelary's comments on Casusbelli1's talk page. Since those critical questions were ignored, I made this ANI as I can't discuss something by myself only. Especially I find it very important to know on what basis the article probation is expanded on, that shouldn't be ignored by the operating admin. --Pudeo' 15:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support probation and topic ban - This is long overdue and a good move by Bbb23 -- (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both. Memills just came back from a six-month topic ban and barely avoided an indefinite topic ban last month. The closing admin noted that Memills has been disruptive and advised him to voluntarily withdraw from the men's rights topic area. But Memills went back to the same men's rights articles and the same behavior. To give just one example: In May 2013, Memills was blocked for one month for violating 1RR at Masculism. Memills added POV commentary ("which she erroneously believes"), synthesis and a bunch of mistakes to the article and then edit-warred over his edit. He also added some other obvious POV material (such as unrelated info sourced to blacklisted men's rights website A Voice for Men) and misrepresented sources. In October 2013, he edited the same paragraph, deleting it in its entirety and giving his personal opinion that the material was "inaccurate". This month, he went back to the same paragraph and removed it with a patently false edit summary. His edit was reverted and Memills went back to the paragraph for a second time this month and restored most of the synthesis that he tried to add in May 2013. He was reverted again, so this time he just re-reverted without consensus and despite the fact that several editors have explained why his contributions re this particular paragraph are unhelpful. Contrary to Pudeo's misleading assertion that Memills' most recent topic ban is based on only one edit in the article masculism, Memills was sanctioned for a pattern of tendentious editing that spanned over a year. Despite the many sanctions and despite DangerousPanda giving Memills the benefit of the doubt and letting him off with a warning, Memills' keeps going back to the same articles and disruptive editing. His repeated attempt to add a diatribe from a fringe men's rights journal to Michael Kimmel's BLP is yet another example. Most worrying of all is that after eight sanctions, multiple discussions and several warnings, Memills' still doesn't seem to understand why his editing is disruptive and how it violates our content and behavioral policies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose both As noted in the last AN re these issues, there is an attempt by some here to censor Wikipedia.
Sonicyouth86 -- think we have a disagreement about what the word "disruptive" means. For myself and others, disruptive does not refer to edits or Talk page discussions that are designed in improve the accuracy and neutrality of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that there are some folks here who find that edits or discussion that are counter to their strongly held POVs can be labeled as "disruptive" as a gambit to silence and censor such views. I strongly disagree with censorship, and I believe it seriously damages WP.
Peudo -- I appreciate your concern Bbb23's behavior with respect to me and to others, and your concerns about some of the perspectives expressed above. But my sense is that we are preaching to the wrong choir -- one that comes from a different WP "faith tradition" where is OK to silence and censor editors and ideas with which one strongly disagrees. We need to appeal to a "higher power."
At this point, the focus should turn to Bbb23. Bbb23 has repeatedly violated administrator conduct policies. He was called out on this once by Jimbo himself, who asked Bbb23 to resign. The same issues regarding Bbb23's administrative actions that Jimbo complained about have continued, and are still at issue here. Some of these violations are subtle, especially since Bbb23 refuses to discuss and defend his administrative actions that affect editors (which is against WP policy). In this case, Bbb23 failed to even include a Diff of my edit in question on my Talk page when imposing an "indefinite topic ban" and apparently Bbb23 simply uncritically accepted the post of a highly involved and highly opinionated editor on my Talk page. A couple of Bbb23's recent actions have been obvious and blatant policy violations. Others are more subtle, but could be revealed by statistical patterns of non-neutral sanctioning, etc. To bring this to light will require a bit of background research. Bbb23's overt and subtle administrative policy violations that prompted Jimbo's previous warning to Bbb23 ("I think you need to resign your admin bit. Your actions are very very far outside the standard that I expect admins to follow") deserves a thorough examination by the Arbitration Committee. Memills (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Memills, Jimbo's only human. In this case he was all-too human. (I mean, "wrong".) Drmies (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
*Drmies, presumably you agree that Bbb23 is only human too? Also capable of being "wrong"? Opinions here on both sides are already ossified. It is time to have some fresh eyes from the Arbitration Committee review the long history of Bbb23 administrative actions and assess who was "more wrong" re these issues, Jimbo or Bbb23
  • Bbb is highly human and highly fallible, caring neither for bacon nor Alabama football. I have tried to reform them, for years now, yet they somehow managed to get the community's trust and be picked for admin. (I don't think Jimbo ran for that office.) Of course Bbb is fallible, but you're waving Jimbo's opinion around like it's a litmus test, and it isn't, as NeilN indicates below. If you want to start something, start with a Request for Comment/User. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nah, Jimbo's opinion is just that - Jimbo's opinion. It would count for something more if he actually participated in the day to day maintenance of Wikipedia, patrolling WP:BLPN, actively contributing to areas under sanction, dealing with POV-pushers and offwiki collaborations. He's free to make declarations from his talk page of course, and some of them are useful, but I'll listen a lot more closely to the opinions of admins who do the actual heavy lifting. --NeilN talk to me 18:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support both- The descriptions posted by the OP are back asswards, and it's beyond obvious that the amount of canvassing for advocates has devolved and gotten way out of hand. The declarations of wrong doing by a couple shit stirrers only highlights the need for admin action, probation and topic bans. Strongly support all. Dave Dial (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It would be good if you didn't use unnecessarily profane words because that kind of hostile language doesn't feel very constructive. My account of the happenings has been disputed in two ways: that 1RR wasn't implied in Casusbelli1's warning (I've already explained why I think it was, after just one revert) and that Casusbelli1 reverted more than once (which is not true according to the article history. My account is in chronological order with appropriate links. If you feel it it wrong, I have nothing against you writing your own version with similar diffs, instead of name-calling. --Pudeo' 19:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hold on folks - this AN was NOT a request for votes re Bbb23 actions. The issues were whether (1) should Bbb23 continue enforcing the article probation on MRM articles? and (2) should there be a more diverse group of admins involved in the MRM pages? Those are the issues that were raised. My votes on these issues follow.
  • No: "should Bbb23 continue enforcing the article probation on MRM articles?" Non-neutral enforcement, personal involvement, etc.
  • Yes: "should there be a more diverse group of admins involved in the MRM pages?" This one is a no-brainer. Memills (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait--have you stopped beating your wife? Drmies (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
...what have you heard? Only MRAs beat their wives (insert RS here). I'm not an MRA. Memills (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like everybody misunderstood the exact same way. How are we supposed to find consensus if everybody agrees on the wrong thing? /ironic comment __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Cognitive biases, especially the Self-serving bias and groupthink. Memills (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
If it's not obvious, people are rejecting the original description and choices. When you bring something to ANI you don't get to decide what the community reactions will be. Everyone is fully aware of the false choices presented by the OP, and have rejected them. Dave Dial (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Apparently everyone was not "fully aware" -- per the comment just above: "Looks like everybody misunderstood the exact same way. How are we supposed to find consensus if everybody agrees on the wrong thing?" But, heck, as long as we can see things as we wish and vote on anything we want:
  • Support: "Ice cream for everyone!"Memills (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just the the OP didn't realize that those who frequent ANI can usually spot bullshit when they see it, and fling it back with a shovel. I personally took a lot of flack for the way I closed the last ANI ... the least you could have done was to behave appropriately. the panda ₯’ 20:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, behave!
Don't take others' word for it, Panda. Check out the actual diff of the edit that triggered this new round of 'shoveling'... Nothing to write home to momma about. "Evolutionist psychology" (sic) never suggested that sex roles are complementary, just the opposite. I tried to set that straight. For the good of the article, for the good of WP. And for people all over the world who might read it and otherwise be led astray.
You should be proud of me, Panda. I done good by you. Memills (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2014 (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.

Legal threat for reverting material with unreliable source material[edit]

Please note edit [55] where Copyrights once lasted 56 years has made a legal threat against me for reverting his edits on The Janoskians‎ which contained unreliable sources. AlanS (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • @AlanS: Do you think this helped or harmed the situation? Protonk (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Left a note. I'd prefer not to indef the user for this because it's a transparently toothless threat aimed at an editor who clearly wasn't cowed by it. Protonk (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Considering the threat has been made twice now and a warning given I would suggest zero tolerance to further legal intimidation. Chillum 15:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, just the one, I misread the links. Chillum 15:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Protonk: Agreed it was a limp threat. However, my experience so far has been that any threat limp or not aught be brought here, due to there being a zero tolerance policy around legal threats. AlanS (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't disagree with bringing it here one whit. I do think that saying "You've just made yourself a huge mistake there my friend" is not exactly the best response. Apologies for messing up the diff link in the comment I made above. Meant to point to your first response to the threat, not the threat itself. That was probably confusing. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Point taken. I was just a little surprised about having a legal threat made (however limp it was). Will resist the urge to react and if I encounter the same situation (or similar) in the future I'll just report it here without any sort of statements against those I'm reporting (I don't know if that all made sense). AlanS (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to warn a user instead of blocking them then that user should at the very least remove the legal threat. Policy is clear that the block should stand as long as the legal threat does so if we aren't going to block then the threat should not stand. Chillum 15:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Chillum. I'm not seeing in NLT where we're required to redact the threat and reading Wikipedia:NLT#Perceived_legal_threats leads me to believe that in this case a warning w/ an explanation may be the best route. Protonk (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
"Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding", this means that if a user is to be unblocked after a legal threat it is only to be done after the threat is not longer outstanding. As long as the threat remains on the page then it is outstanding. I think the user should remove it. Chillum 15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that's meant to refer to an actual legal threat, e.g. "I'm going to call my lawyer to sue you over thing X" where "outstanding" means the threat itself, not its manifestation on a talk page. I don't have a problem with asking the user to retract the threat, right now I'm trying to make sure they understand that they've made the threat in the first place. Protonk (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × many) I agree it's pretty toothless, and not direct. But looking at the situation itself... what's happening is Copyrights is repeatedly adding content to the lede which deals with an incident aboard an airliner (which resulted in band members being escorted off the airliner). The sources supporting this content are of questionable reliability: one is a Feral Audio podcast (no transcript or timestamp provided), and the other is a Splitsider blog entry. I think even if this isn't blockable as a legal threat, it should be examined as an incivility/intimidation issue. Even if there wasn't evident intimidation that resulted from this action, there is surely disruption, and potential for further disruption down the line should Copyrights find someone who does cave to such statements. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Indefinite ban for Copyrights once lasted 56 years[edit]

Given that Copyrights once lasted 56 years has not acknowledged Protonk's statement and question on their talk page I propose an indefinite ban until such time as they do acknowledge that making legal threats is not acceptable. Simple acknowledgement will be sufficient and necessary reason for an unban. AlanS (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. AlanS (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No. They haven't made an edit since I left the second comment. Let's wait until we're sure they know they've even made a legal threat before trotting out a block. I'm not interested in indeffing someone for a dumb, grandiose statement which didn't even phase the intended recipient. If you find an admin who is interested in doing so, they can block them without a ban discussion like this, as the proposed reason for the ban is basically superfluous to the legal threats policy. Protonk (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Moved to no real opinion. I have no intention of replying to this. I still think a ban thread is pointless, but I won't object anymore. It's not worth it. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Organized effort to vandalize pages[edit]

Warning to readers: transphobia, hate speech.

Admins and fellow users should be aware of an effort by users on to vandalize pages on WP related to transwomen, specifically Laverne Cox. Today, an IP editor linked to this webpage and many similar anti-trans remarks on Talk:War on Women. Today, an IP editor posted a link to this webpage and made similar anti-trans remarks on Talk:War on Women. Link to page regarding effort: link here. Thank you to ‎Ramendik for bringing this to our attention. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I used DoNotLink, but it works fine for me. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Ctrl-F wiki - 0 results. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Two kinds of pork - On my link or yours? Ctrl-F works fine for me on my link (using FF 31.0). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's direct link: link here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
TheAnon IP is from a US House Representative address. This incident has been covered by mainstream media - see The hill, Raw Story, etc. The issue already has been dealt with as of several days ago but I guess they are back.
The "warning" is a bit of hyperbole, since we'd have to search around history for whatever was written and quickly reverted on Cox article. (As opposed to the rather obvious use of "C*NT" word in various recent ANI and or Jimbo Wales talk page discussions.)
Also, this header is inaccurate since you yourself say its some readers of Gendertrender not necessarily the couple individuals involved in the site. So let's not try to out people without evidence it is them - or at all?? The subject line should be changed.
Finally, re: the "War on Women" talk page, "gendertrender" itself obviously is not RS. However, the site often links to mainstream articles on the topic. Some of the issues they mentioned are gaining more mainstream attention. So at some point editors could bring them up in relevant articles with proper sourcing, if not in the "war on women" article, since the phrase would have to be used in a RS article. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Carolmooredc I have no idea what you mean. A user brought this up. I don't know if this is related to the US House IPs, but there's still a group trying to vandalize WP and that warrants mention on ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all one must wonder about ‎Ramendik's handle and lack of other edits. In any case, you are falsely alleging specific individuals (whoever runs/writes at) that website is doing vandalism. Do you know that those individuals have IP Addresses in Congress or those specific IP Addresses? Accusing individuals of vandalism that has been discussed in news sources is tacky at best and libelous if they decided to claim libel. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The opening comment here says "users", not site-owners (it's the anonymous posters in the comment thread who are openly talking about gaming Wikipedia, not the people who run the site, and not known "specific individuals"). I don't think a mass of anonymous comment-thread people can claim specific libel. It's not "tacky" to warn other editors of threats of vandalism. __ E L A Q U E A T E 03:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
As mentioned on WP:XX, I think there was a miscommunication. I have struckout and reworded a sentence in the original sentence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Re "having to wonder": my handle is my real last name; my edits are few but do include a rework of the Sex reassignment therapy article in February 2014, so not the first time I show up on this topic. I never stated anything about any specific persons or IP addresses, my concern is about plans being discussed in comments on the website. I would be honestly surprised if these people were connected to the Congress. Ramendik (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
[Insert: Before seeing this I noticed your red link had gone blue, read it, realized that that actually might be a real name, searched it and low and behold, it was! Given you had two red links and there are puerile individuals who register with no good in mind, and might want to get away with a misspelling of the phrase "rammin dick" and edit sex-related articles, you can understand my wondering. Probably best to explain the ethnic/linquistic origin of the name on your main page so no one else wonders, especially if you edit in that area. Might save you some headaches! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't use DoNotLink for links on wikipedia, as external links are already marked as no-follow, and DoNotLink is a service which will fail gracelessly when the link rots. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Protonk Thanks for the info. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Evergreen, I read though that and found the comments. I wouldn't worry about this too much. The articles they are talking about are high visibility articles and unlikely to suffer any damage. If you are still concerned, create a list of articles they are talking about and then post a notice to the relevant projects. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • EvergreenFir, the thing about the IP is that it's considered a sensitive IP address (it's part of the range), and if blocks are applied, WMF will have to be notified and get involved. Thus, Carol's information is very important from an admin's point of view. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 04:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Aint that just like Congress don't have to follow rules and no consequences if they don't.
    • Since Wikipedia isn't a government agency, it couldn't care less about blocking Congress. The only thing is that the Wikimedia Foundation might need to be told about this... Epicgenius (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The warning is there because blocks of congress tend to get press (see here for an example) so a little additional forethought is advised before hitting the block button. Note that's for a block on an individual IP address, not the range associated with the house or senate. Protonk (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, If you block an IP address in any of the following ranges, you are required to immediately notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee, regardless of whether it's only one IP or a range... - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 03:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, sorry, @Penwhale. I made the single/range distinction as a way of noting that a block of even one IP in the range which is regularly used will get noticed. A range block (which would be kinda fun, I admit) would cause a shit show. Although it's possible that the press wouldn't distinguish between a single IP and the range, but I don't think we're that lucky. Protonk (talk) 12:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

RE Stephen Yagman article[edit]

Serious accusations of personal, legal, and business interests made by IPs regarding each other's editing of this article of now disbarred lawyer, to wit:
a) "(Revisions by & should be undone because they are identifiable to to a litigation antagonist of subject, at law firm of Lawrence Beach Allen & Choi in Glendale, California, who stand to profit from editing entry negatively.)"
b) "(Undid revision 621514535 by (talk) ( is subject; whois reveals Venice, CA IP address; further manipulation by subject will be reported))"
c) Not sure which, if any, IP is telling the truth.
d) see [56]
NOTE: Also reported at ANI for indefinite page protection.
Quis separabit? 22:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reporting Martin451 for personal attack.[edit]

Nothing blockable to see here. Let's not talk politics here: our goal is to hold hands and perfect our singing of Kumbaya. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2014 (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.

Diff [57] request 36hour block Martin451 19:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Martin451: How about going for a nice walk to cool off and we'll call it even? --NeilN talk to me 19:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait, are you reporting yourself? Ansh666 20:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I have notified the subject of this thread, just in case they didn't notice it. :) G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 21:55, 27 August 2014 (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.

Eyes on Zoe Quinn[edit]

Could we get some people watching Zoe Quinn, and possibly even more restrictive protection? It was previously set at admin-only which got people discussing at Talk:Zoe Quinn, but now that it's set to autoconfirmed users we've got a lot of back and forth reverting and serious WP:BLP violations. In particular, User:Crisis has been adding controversial statements based on a porn site and Know Your Meme, Reddit, and Imgur, and even blatantly misrepresenting a source. Woodroar (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

First, thank you for notifying me, second, I'd also like to call attention to the article myself, as anything that seems to be remotely negative about Miss Quinn is being removed citing unreliable sources or allegations, which is interesting seeing as one of the things removed was a blog from Quinn herself alluding to the allegations (TLDR: (Redacted)) Crisis.EXE 04:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think a better solution than full protection would be the blocking of the problem users/issuing them one final warning and noting that if they add material like that into the article again they will be blocked. Let's not shut down the whole castle because a servant did something wrong. Added Note: It appears an admin just issued that final warning so if they revert again...well... Tutelary (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Bear in mind that I'm involved here, so I can't make any administrative actions regarding the article. I won't be blocking anybody here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Note: this is also at RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisis blocked for 48 hours for BLP violations. Negative material sourced to reddit and a porn site are just beyond the pale and with this edit it is clear that Crisis intends to continue.--v/r - TP 04:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't have blocked in this situation (if I were an admin, but I'm not), but it's on you. Since after the final warning Mr. Stradivarius gave him, he didn't revert again. Essentially a softer version of WP:ROPE (since they aren't blocked yet), where if they did just one more revert...they would've been blocked. But redundant now. Tutelary (talk) 05:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, if you were an admin, you should have blocked for it. I've revdeleted the porn stuff; I don't know if there's more in the history that needs removing. Thanks for blocking, TParis. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I did a pass back as far as the 16th and revdel'd a mess of stuff, but the links you got were likely the worst of it. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Good block. Kudos for taking swift action. We shouldn't allow that sort of nonsense to continue any longer once the pattern of behaviour was identified. Daniel (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you understand WP:BLP, you seem quite personally invested in this particular issue too, is it possible that you don't like Zoe Quinn? -- (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. (talk) 05:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the article is currently being targeted for harrassment by users of 4chan and reddit, and they're doing their best to spread their campaign to Wikipedia. There's a great deal of back and forth on the Talk page which ranges from the tendentious to the straight up BLP-violating, and the intervention of an uninvolved administrator would be very much appreciated. While much of what is being debated is a content dispute, the rate of unsupportable claim are becoming rapidly unmanagable for most editors. (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done --j⚛e deckertalk 02:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
In connection to this mess, Phil Fish and Polytron Corporation (Fish' previous company) have just been hacked in relationship to Fish' strong opinion on the Quinn matter. Those pages might see activity similar to the Quinn ones, but nothing yet that I immediately see. Just documenting this in case that needs admin help --MASEM (t) 05:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Phil Fish is lying about that hack. He was talking about a hack to his cloudflare account, which would require a 2 point verification, and unless the "hacker" stole then returned both his laptop and phone, that wouldn't be possible, as he was posting selfies he'd taking with game industry people throughout this "hack" Crisis.EXE 16:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Fresh off a block for BLP violations, and you're committing another BLP violation? Woodroar (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deletionist comment Crisis, I'm pretty sure Cloudflare doesn't require 2FA. I don't know whether Phil Fish uses it or not. I can sympathize with the idea that there's a big disconnect between RS about the Quinn saga, and the content of public discourse in her sphere of notability. I.e. there's a lot of info about Quinn that's obviously accurate, subjectively relevant to the interests of readers seeking the info, and trivial to find with a search engine, but that doesn't have high-provenance RS so we have to exclude it from Wikipedia for extremely well justified BLP reasons. That means the article will necessarily fail a back-to-basics, non-wikilawyered version of NPOV, and I can understand it when people react angrily to this even if they haven't worked out the reasoning.

If it were up to me I'd delete the article outright on NPOV grounds--I'd rather say "Wikipedia does not have an article about this person" than "here is a media whitewash", and deletion is probably the most compassionate thing to do for the subject as well. But Wikipedia doesn't work that way. That battle raged for many years and basically converged to where we are now, so we just have to live with an unfixable neutrality deficit in a few articles here and there. There's will always be tons of things wrong with Wikipedia and it's less frustrating to quietly improve the fixable parts, than continue to shed blood for lost causes. In other words, I'd advise giving the Quinn thing a rest for a while, and have a better time contributing to other articles. (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Am more a reader than an editor, but wanted to say it's cool to see the encyclopedic integrity of the page being protected with such patience and civility and attentiveness from veteran Wikipedians during this onslaught of attention. I feel like I'm learning more about Wikipedia just by observing. (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

First thing on google. Also, sorry for being minorly off topic here with this Phil Fish issue, but I'm also not buying it because he at one point posted a "smoking gun" screenshot from /v/ board on 4chan claiming to be posted by "the leader of /V/" (note the never used capital) "and all 4chan" (this would be one Christopher Poole asking people to hack Phil's website.
Secondly, the file containing the employees personal details, as well as the companies financial information was 1.5 gigabytes in size. It was uploaded 15 seconds after the site was hacked.
So after the ‘hackers’ gained access to Polytron’s website they were able to locate that information and download it all, compress it into a 1.5 gig file and then upload it to the public. All in 15 seconds.
So either someone is using a military supercomputer with access to the best internet in the world to hack Polytron, or Phil Fish or one of his associates with access to that information pretended to hack themselves.
I'm not violating BLP here, I'm using basic fact. If anyone hacked Phil Fish, the likely suspect is Phil Fish Crisis.EXE 08:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
And yes, I'm staying out of article space for this entire incident Crisis.EXE 08:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Our BLP policy applies to Talk pages as well as articles. Comments and accusations like these about a living person are unacceptable. Woodroar (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
@TParis, PhilKnight, Drmies, and The Bushranger: Sorry to ping everyone, but you were all working with User:Crisis prior to and during his block. Woodroar (talk) 09:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are pinging all these administrators because they favor the outcome that you seek, and sided on your side. This may be a violation of canvassing. Tutelary (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I pinged all of the admins involved on his page. It