Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive854

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

Noticeboard archives


DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney[edit]

Time to close this: the horse is dead. One wonders if Msnicki is really helping Barney the barney barney with this display of persistence; what's not in doubt is that the claim of involved admin behavior is not upheld, and that's the charge of this ANI. If Bearcat did something wrong, it should be handled separately, though again I don't see evidence here that this will gain much traction. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 10 September 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.

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

Just so others reading this thread don't have to search for them this post full of personal attacks and this post with its threatening wording are being equated to this. IMO there is absolutely no comparison. Again IMO, the two posts by Btbb deserve the removal of talk page privileges. B always has the WP:STANDARDOFFER should they ever want to return to productive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that DangerousPanda's insulting remarks toward me were worse than Barney's, I am saying DangerousPanda's insults were similarly childish playground material and, more important, completely unprovoked. When you start comparing provoked versus unprovoked insults as if the same standards should apply, aren't you out on rather thin ice? Msnicki (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
False, at no time did I insult you. This has been discussed, and clarified with you directly, and subjected to consensus - please stop using your erroneous reading as a need to provide some form of action against me. the panda ₯’ 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I suspect this is the "consensus" outcome DangerousPanda is referring to. You'll pardon my uncertainty. It happened so fast. Msnicki (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
DP's remarks were in no way, shape, manner or form like B's. You claimed that DP was somehow "involved" without offering any evidence. That can be seen as childish playground material as well. What is it that you want from admins here? I doubt that they are going to tell DP to stop reasonably explaining any actions taken. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Not true. I did not claim DangerousPanda was involved. I said there was an appearance developing and that when DP's response to my raising the concern respectfully was to insult me, that that was evidence it might be more than appearance. What I recommend is that another admin step in and that Bearcat be asked to stop stirring the pot. (He's the only admin who's never read WP:STICK and doesn't know to back away when he's already won?) The objective, realistically, the only legitimate objective, is good behavior all around. The continued escalation of sanctions and the continued remarks on Barney's talk page by editors with history of conflict with Barney is not getting us there. Get these other folks with their own axes to grind out of there, back off the talk page ban, tell everyone to get a little thicker skin and I think the situation could be resolved. That's what I want. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DP blocked a user who called another editor, repeatedly and at length, names like idiot, liar, and troll, and all over the stunningly insignificant matter of the proposed deletion of an article about an obscure city official. The block was entirely appropriate regardless of how allegedly WP:INVOLVED DP was or was not. I would hope any admin would have done the same. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
And so why is Bearcat (an admin, for pete's sake!) still stirring the pot on Barney's talk page over this insignificant matter even after Barney was indef'ed? Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what that has to do with DP or the appropriateness of the block, but perhaps it would be appropriate to issue a warning to Bearcat. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just looked at BBB's talk page again and I don't see any new messages past the 1st from Bearcat., so it looks like any alleged potstirring has passed. Even so, I think it is appropriate to ask Bearcat to drop the matter and stay away from now on, without passing judgement on the appropriateness of previous comments. Gamaliel (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This was Bearcat's last pot-stirring. Barney had already been indef'ed so what exactly was the point of all this except to poke Barney in the eye when he was already down? That's what prompted Barney's response, the one got him blocked even from his own talk page. Frankly, while I don't condone Barney's response, if I'd been Barney, I definitely wouldn't have appreciated Bearcat's boorish behavior. I might have had some choice words as well. I'll say again, the objective here should be good behavior all around. It would be helpful if we can make that outcome the easy one for Barney to accept. Allowing Bearcat to continue stirring the pot is not helping that. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
BBB had already called Bearcat a liar, a troll, and an idiot many days before this alleged potstirring, so this appears to me that you are blaming the victim for provoking the attacker. Even if we were to accept your reading of the situation, what is your preferred outcome or recommended course of action? The alleged potstirring is days in the past. It's over. No one is continuing to stir the pot except those of us participating in this ANI thread. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You care a lot more about who started it than I do. I care more about outcomes. My experience of Barney is that he's been a steady and constructive contributor. The outcome I'd like is one where that can continue. Msnicki (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Can you please try to be specific in your responses and make them actual responses to the points being discussed? First, you complained about Dangerous Panda, then when I responded about his actions, your response to me was about Bearcat, and when I responded to your point about Bearcat, now you are talking about Barney. We're not going to make any progress to any outcome if you are veering all over the map. I still have no idea about what specific outcome you expect to come from this discussion and what steps you think we should take to get there. Gamaliel (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing "boorish" about responding, politely, to continued namecalling and continued mischaracterization of one's behaviour — especially when the editor in question was actively @pinging me, even when he was responding to somebody else, to make sure I knew that the personal attacks were continuing. I was not purposely watching his talk page to see what was happening; I was getting active announcements in my notification queue that I was being discussed, and responded to those notifications in exactly the same way that I'd be perfectly entitled to respond to similar discussion of me, and/or similar active @pinging of my attention, in any other space on Wikipedia. I will step away as you wish, but there is no basis for claiming that I've acted inappropriately at any point in this matter. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen any proof of anyone being involved and you did state that DP was involved..."then yes, I do think you're no longer uninvolved and that you should step back." Please explain this. The only thing that I see Bearcat is guilty of is not archiving his talk page. Are you asking for a proxy block review because DP revoked talk page access or asking for review of admin behavior? Please clarify.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Fine. Let's not split hairs. I said I thought there was an appearance developing. Every sanction had been applied only by DangerousPanda and it was beginning to look to me like a possible test of wills. When an experienced editor is facing an indef, I expect to see a history of problems where several admins have had to step in and there was none of that. Whether DangerousPanda is or is not really involved may not even be knowable unless someone here is an undisclosed mind-reader able to tell us what motivated his behavior. But when DangerousPanda's response was to insult me, I thought that was actual evidence (not proof) of involvement. My personal opinion is that he is. But either way, I don't think this is a constructive situation conducive to de-escalation. I think it would be useful for another admin to step in to avoid even the appearance of involvement. Does that clarify my position for you? Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Partially. What would you like admins reading this to do? What action(s) are you looking for?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
{ec}Restore talk page access. 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I recommend backing off this latest indef ban even from his own talk page. This serves no purpose except to pour salt in the wound, making the one desirable outcome less likely. Bearcat should be asked to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Barney, especially on Barney's talk page. The condition of lifting Barney's indef should be that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. He shouldn't have to say he's sorry or that he didn't mean it. He does need to say he won't do it again. It would be helpful if another uninvolved admin could volunteer to monitor the discussion on Barney's talk page and review any unblock request Barney may make. Msnicki (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Msnicki, it's common for an administrator who blocked a user to keep monitoring the situation. The fact that Btbb - in the unblock request - basically turned around and lashed out at DP made it so that most admins would have declined and re-sanctioned Btbb. WP is not a bureaucracy*. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 02:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Exceptions apply in certain places, but that's besides the point.
  • What unblock request?? NE Ent 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Unblock request but then he changed it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The purpose of dispute resolution volunteers -- including admins -- is (or should be) to resolve conflicts, not administer "justice." Although it's not written down -- because we are not (supposed to be) a bureaucracy -- it's generally understood editors involved in a conflict -- regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong" -- should not be posting on the talk page of a blocked editor. Had DP addressed that issue first, the situation was much more likely to be resolved. NE Ent 03:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Even if "acceptable", are the actions "helpful"? At this point it seems that the actions on all sides are merely winding the spring tighter and unlikely to help achieve any beneficial outcomes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a growing and disturbing trend for admins to indefinitely block content builders, demand that they grovel as a condition for their return, and then gag them by blocking access to their own talk page when they get upset. Another point of view is that this is a destructive strategy that unnecessarily alienates content builders from Wikipedia. That included content builders who just see this nastiness going on from the sidelines. Presumably admins who employ these methods feel that the mission of admins is to severely administer discipline to the rabble of content builders and show them who is boss. After all, there is no mission statement for admins. No one knows what they are here for, and individual admins are free to make up and follow their own ideas. There are many other ways of resolving behaviour issues, but admins are not taught about them, and generally seem to lack skilful means for resolving them. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

That's unclear on just about every point, Phil. To mention a couple, where is this mission statement you refer to and what is this "integrity" admins are supposed to be protecting? Who ensures the integrity of the admins themselves? I'm not sure why you think BtBB doesn't qualify as a content builder. You say that the "standard OFFER" applies to BtBB. According to that offer BtBB is in effect now banned for six months, after which he may shop around and see if he can find an admin to grovel in front of, a grovel which "usually takes a few days". In the meantime if BtBB want to return, he would be "well-advised to make significant and useful contributions to other WMF projects". That's sickening. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if you find my thoughts unclear–let me clarify. I didn't use the word "statement"—I said "mission" while the "integrity" I refer to is ensuring compliance with the corpus of guidelines and policies that shape Wikipedia according to consensus. Admin's are !voted in as trusted members of the community and you are free to question their interpretation of community consensus through discussion. I also didn't say BtBB did not "qualify as a content builder", I said that the matter under consideration had nothing to do with content building, which it doesn't. The standard Wikipedia procedure in the case of an indef block is covered in WP:OFFER. If a review is considered appropriate before the expiration of six months, then everyone will have the opportunity to comment at the subsequent discussion.  Philg88 talk 07:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of a mission statement, the "mission" you refer to is just one you decided upon yourself. Which is the point I was making, that admins just make up their own mission. Likewise, the guidelines and policies are controlled by and largely written by admins, not the community. There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. But admins have appointed themselves for life. In long past halcyon days, would-be admins including school children needed do little more than ask to be an admin. Many of these legacy admins would not get community approval if they ran again. Nor would many of the more recent entrants to the admin corps. So it is not correct to say that admins as a body have the trust of the community. The admin corp might gain trust and respect from the community if enough admins found the courage to address the absurdities of their own system. Rational change can come now only from within the body of admins. Content builders are powerless, and recent events have clearly shown that Jimbo and the Foundation lack the insight needed for helpful intervention. Wikipedia has been hijacked by an admin system which controls its own terms and refuses to look squarely at what it is doing. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The admin in question was in fact rejected once by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DangerousPanda (redirects to /Bwilkins) in April 2009. Later, they were accepted by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bwilkins 2 in January 2010. This was four and a half years ago, and the last discussion had 116 participants, the overwhelming majority of whom were in favor of adminship for this editor. Your generalizations are moot at best. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Your strange "rebuttal" has nothing to do with anything I said. In fact I said the diametric opposite to what you apparently understood: There may be a degree of community consensus at the point where an admin undertakes an RfA. Bwilkins was not remotely in my mind when I wrote that. My generalizations are in fact accurate and easy to authenticate. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If the apparent topic of this discussion was not remotely in your mind when writing here, then why are you writing here and not in a separate section? Do you not see the potential for this kind of a tangential rant to be offending to that person? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I was talking about the principle of indefinitely blocking content builders, which is most certainly central to this thread, and replying specifically to Philg88. Do you not see the potential for this kind of failure to read what was said to be offending? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Bit hard for barney to respond to the all encompasing witch-hunt now that he's had all editing powers removed. Maybe unrevoke his talkpage first to see if he's able to discuss this now he's had a chance to sleep on it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I second this. But I suggest a 48 hour cooling off period.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
We don't do anything that EVER resembles "cooling off blocks" - that's a dangerous suggestion. This is the second time I've removed talkpage access - it was returned, and they continued their attacks. They've had a couple of weeks to "cool off" if that was indeed possible. Barney still has many avenues of appeal open to them; let them use those wisely once they have formulated their appeal offline the panda ₯’ 09:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Well as long as you look like a reasonable human being and not some crackpot on a powertrip. Good work! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
If letting him edit his own talk page hasn't worked in the past, how about if we make a couple changes that might give us a better chance it will work this time? First, ask Bearcat to stay away. His stirring the pot isn't helping and the fact you defended Bearcat's boorish behavior rather than stopping it isn't helping either. Second, let's ask you to stay away, too. I don't think Barney is ever going to "knuckle under" for you but I also don't think that should be the condition for being able to edit here. The condition should be that he behaves himself. Let another admin decide whether Barney can behave himself at least on his own talk page if there are no new provocations. If we can make these changes, I think it can work. Msnicki (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You know what? You need to screw off with the suggestion that I'm trying to make him "knuckle under" and the "gosh darn it, you are going to make Barney behave" bullshit. I don't play power games, and such suggestion are inflammatory rhetoric in and of themselves. Those are serious accusations that you neither provide proof of, or withdraw. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment Having had implications made about my competence and knowledge by BtBB at discussions surrounding Talk:Jacob Barnett, to the point where he/she tried to get me topic banned, I have been following the above discussion. The problem is that when you are subjected to personal attacks, it becomes very difficult to maintain the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia rightly demands. The signs of emotion are usually there, I see them in the above contribution. Therefore I would tend to support the view that DP should withdraw from this case, and should probably have left it to another, previously uninvolved admin to extend the block to the talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Unfortunately, I need to bring up a new development in this matter — namely, about three hours ago Barney sent me a pvt e-mail consisting of one line: "It is not too late for you to apologise for your actions." Apart from the fact that I still haven't at any point taken any actions that need to be "apologized" for, there's obviously a veiled threat here of what might happen if and when he decides that it is "too late" anymore. I'm certainly not going to engage the matter by actually responding to his e-mail at all, but the fact that it was sent at all needed to be raised. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please follow the protocol at WP:EMAILABUSE; note that emails should not be posted online. (This is not an endorsement of Bearcat's interpretation of the email, just a note that conduct in emails are out of scope of ANI due to copyright / privacy concerns). NE Ent 01:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you should apologize, Bearcat. Per WP:IUC, "Other uncivil behaviors [include] taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Msnicki (talk) 01:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
If he read my advice to him earlier in the day, he knows that apologies are always voluntary, else they'd be worthless anyway. If he can't be required to apologize, he knows you can't be, either. So I'd be inclined to take his remark at face value, that he's open to negotiating a way to bury the hatchet. Of the three possible choices I outlined for him, avoid, get along or fight, but only within the guidelines, maybe he'd like to get along. Perhaps he'd be willing to exchange apologies. There's nothing wrong with asking him, well, if I apologized, could I expect one from you? WP:AGF Msnicki (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Should Indefinite Block Be Limited?[edit]

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

  • Support. Yes. It's time to move on. But to avoid new problems, I would also ask that Bearcat avoid interaction with Barney, especially on his talk page, for a period of 3 months to let this heal. His behavior, continuing to stir the pot, even after Barney had already been banned, is a big reason we're here and coming from an admin, I find this inexcusably boorish. Additionally, I would ask that DangerousPanda avoid interaction with Barney in his capacity as an admin for a similar period, again, simply to let this heal. There are lots of admins; if Barney has done something new and even more egregrious, surely another admin can be found to deal with it. And I would ask Barney, try to move on, behave yourself, learn from this experience, don't blow it. Msnicki (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd advise you to read my response above to the first time you characterized my actions as "boorish" — users and administrators are allowed to respond to namecalling attacks and mischaracterizations of their actions, especially when their attention to the discussion is being actively @pinged. Perhaps I misread what the result was going to be, but my intention was a good faith attempt to clarify the matter rather than to "poke" it or "pick at a scab" — and there's nothing "boorish" about politely responding to a personal attack. I gave my promise above to step back as you requested, but I'm not going to accept being described as "boorish" in this discussion for simply responding to personal attacks in a polite and civil manner. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I read your earlier comments about being pinged whenever he had something nasty to say about you. Like Robert, I haven't even been able to find that AfD that apparently started it all and frankly, I don't really care that much how it got started. I do care about fixing this and getting good behavior all around. I don't think this is about the AfD anyway. I think it's just about people who don't like each other.
I am not calling you to task over any response you might have made before he was blocked. I am calling you to task for this specific post to Barney's talk page after he'd already been indefinitely blocked. This was over the line. You had to know this couldn't possibly improve the odds the situation could be defused. I think the whole point was to give Barney another poke and see if he'd make another mistake. You should have simply walked away. That post was where I became sympathetic to Barney's position. If you were that boorish (and, sorry, that is the word), that determined to keep beating the dead horse even after you'd won and gotten Barney blocked, I thought it seemed a lot more possible you could have been truly annoying in a heated debate and not nearly so innocent. Msnicki (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I have the right as a Wikipedian to directly respond to any and all attacks on my intelligence, integrity and capability, regardless of the venue in which they're occurring — it's not my responsibility to have predicted that he would respond by ramping the attacks up even further, nor is it my responsibility to ever leave a personal attack on me sitting on the table as the "last word" in any discussion. My responses were always polite and WP:CIVIL — I've been accused in the past of being a bit too blunt, and sometimes coming off more aggressively than I intended to, in my writing style, so I (a) make every effort to be careful about how I phrase myself in a conflict situation, and (b) only ever respond to the substance of what the person is saying, and never attack or insult the individual who's saying them. I'd certainly be willing to accept "boorish" if I had lapsed into responding with similar insults, but I refuse to own that adjective for responding civilly to personal insults that I had no responsibility to not respond to. I'll certainly own up to misreading how productive the attempt was actually going to be, but there's still a massive gap between "misread the situation" and "acted boorishly". Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
For those who care, this is the AFD that some people are pretending doesn't exist. Look at the edits. Look at the hatted comments. Look at the edit-summaries. Every editor has a right to nominate an article for AFD if they truly believe it's not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. They do not deserve to be called a "liar", a "troll" and/or an "idiot" simply because they nominated an article for deletion and defended their nomination. It is the behavior on this specific AFD that led to the original ANI report, the original block, and BtBB's behavior has led to all escalations since. This block is NOT about "boors" or "people who don't like each other", it's about one person's behaviour; period. Indeed, I have neither likes nor dislikes for any of the editors on this site - you're simply someone on the other end of a computer. I may dislike behaviours, but that's not the same as disliking a person. Sticking one's head in the sand and pretending this AFD is not the reason for the block is short-sighted, and fails to get to the true root of the overall issue. If you want to have someone unblocked, the root behavior needs to be addressed the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose There's a real misunderstanding of the purpose of an indefinite block above. "Indef" means "until the community is convinced that the behavior will not recur". I blocked BtBB originally from an ANI report about disruption and personal attacks, primarily in an AFD. When he continued his personal attacks, I removed talkpage access. Following a brief discussion at ANI, I returned their talkpage access. They then used this newfound freedom to not only continue their personal attacks, but to increase their ferocity. This led to me increasing the block to "indef", using the definition above, and when they continued further, re-removal of talkpage access - no member of this community should be forced to live with continual personal attacks. I have admitted more than once that BtBB can be a beneficial content creator, but that the personal attacks MUST be curtailed before the block can be lifted. The process for unblock is clear in WP:GAB: they need to recognize their behavior was contrary to community norms, and give the community (or at least the reviewing admin) that there will not be a recurrence. In the times that BtBB has had access to their talkpage, they've done nothing but attack another editor. As such, there cannot be an unblock at this time, based simply on the process for unblock. When they're able to make a WP:GAB-compliant request, they're welcome to use UTRS for that purpose. There's also ZERO question about me being "involved", as there's simply no proof put forward that such a relationship existed: calling me involved does not make me involved the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose barring some sort of recognition on his part that those personal attacks are inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
This is reasonable. I supported Robert's proprosal but per my comments above in the main section at 03:03, I would also support proceeding in steps, first lifting the talk page block and setting as a condition of lifting Barney's indef that he state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. But to make any of this happen and make it stick, I think we need to ask that both Bearcat and DP step back. Their continued involvement is no longer helpful in achieving the desired outcome, the one in which Barney is able to contribute and there are no behavior problems. Msnicki (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The block was justified and necessary to prevent further disruption. All Barney the barney barney has to do is convince the community that the behavior will stop. The amount of time served has no bearing on whether he understands why he was blocked and what he needs to do differently to have his edit privileges restored. I disagree with Robert McClenon's premise that indefinite blocks should be reserved for editors who are NOTHERE. - MrX 16:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per my comments above.  Philg88 talk 17:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
But, as shown above, your comments are not correct. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree. This matches the advice I gave Barney on his talk page when all I knew was that he'd gotten himself blocked and probably deserved every bit of it. It's still my advice. But I think the real problem is 3 people who don't like each other and have become locked in a pattern. Expecting Barney to offer up even a non-apology to an angry Panda who also happens to be defending Bearcat's continuing stirring of the pot is just silly. The simple answer is to separate these 3, at least temporarily, and see how much of the problem that fixes. If you think of this as a problem in negotiation, of negotiating good behavior from Barney, I'm proposing what's known as changing the negotiator. Msnicki (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
There you go, suggesting I'm "angry" or dislike BtBB. False on both counts. I have no emotional involvement when it comes to BtBB at all ... you and your false and unfounded statements on the other hand ... so seriously, screw off with that bullshit. the panda ₯’ 20:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, right. "I'm not angry, not a bit!" For more on just how not angry you are, please see here. Msnicki (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
As noted already multiple times, that is nothing to do with BtBB: that's being "angry" at you and your unfounded accusations and lies, plus your inability to address this with me directly rather than embarrass yourself with such false statements due to horrible assumptions. Yeah, I'm "angry" that I've lost all respect for someone who I once considered a respectable person the panda ₯’ 21:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, my. Now I'm a liar? Isn't that one of the characterizations that got Barney blocked? But how much sweeter when you say it, I guess.
If indeed you aren't invested in this, not emotionally involved, why is it so hard to walk away? Why is it important that you have to be admin who reviews Barney's next unblock request? At minimum, you know he doesn't like you. So why can't that be handed off to someone else? What is the benefit of your continued involvement? Is it more likely or less likely the problem can be resolved if you handle it? Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Who says I'm going to handle anything? Jumping off into bizarre conclusions, aren't you? You would have been better off discussing this like an adult with me before coming here, rather than attacking and making random, unfounded accusations. All the best to you - I have little time for people who choose this bizarre stance the panda ₯’ 22:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Does that mean you're willing to walk away? If so, I think this can be solved. Msnicki (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Although I said I would refuse to respond to your insults, false claims, and baiting, here is my response: I will continue to use appropriate restraint in all situations with all editors, and act what I believe to be appropriately when a) needed, b) not involved (except in emergency situations). If there's ever CONSENSUS (not unfounded accusations) that I have erred, I will deal with that accordingly as I always have in the past the panda ₯’ 20:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: This proposal is not aimed at enhancing admin privileges and power. The usual voting pattern with such proposals is opposition from admins and would-be admins and support from content builders who are not admins. That is the voting pattern above, with just one possible exception. Admins and would-be admins have a conflict of interest here. A parallel would be allowing the military in a country with a military dictatorship to decide what powers and privileges they should have. There is a lot of appeal to the "community" above, when what is meant in practice is merely the views of a blocking admin. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A misunderstanding is that indef means forever, it doesn't it means when an uninvolved admin sees fit the block is lifted. Indef blocks are also not to be confused with bans. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Indef is not infinite. Also the WP:STANDARDOFFER is there for any and all blocked editors to return to the editing community. Epipelagic if there is empirical evidence to support your blanket statement please present it. Otherwise please mark your comment as opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarnetteD (talkcontribs) 18:45, 4 September 2014
  • Oppose Indef doesn't mean forever, and considering the circumstances, I think the appropriate block is in place. Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Indef is often used to quickly get rid of an issue, but i think indef should be only used in very rare cases, for users who have been blocked repeatedly, without any signs of positive contributions. My suggestions if for indef in general and i do not want to judge the particular incident discussed here. --prokaryotes (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I hope Barney will eventually satisfy the Wikipedia community that he/she will refrain from referring to other contributors as liars and idiots but from his/her most recent posts I see little evidence that that is about to happen. Viewfinder (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (reading section titles is hard) Wikipedia is certainly strong enough to persevere in even these strenuous times when a blocked editor calls another editor a liar, idiot or troll on their talk page. Protonk (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose lifting of block without concerns leading to the being addressed. Having said that, no objections to restoring talk page priveleges to allow for normal block appeals. It is of course understood that misuse of the user talk page again will lead to revocation of talk page again and likely be seen negatively in later requests as well. John Carter (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose reducing block length until BtBB makes some sort of commitment to tone down the attacks. This is troubling; even a token gesture of a non-apology apology is needed here. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Barney has made a habit of being hostile and uncivil for quite some time; this isn't a bolt from the blue but the result of a consistent pattern of behavior. When he's willing to put forth a good-faith effort to follow policy, including the Five Pillars, then the block can be lifted immediately - but until then we need not to let the usual chorus of admin abuse (i.e. abuse aimed at admins) cause, once again, somebody who refuses to follow policy be given a pass because 'they create content'. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The only person who has mentioned "abuse" in this thread has been you, Bushranger. So what is this "usual chorus of admin abuse" you refer to? If you just made that up and it's not true, then you have just provided an example of an admin gratuitously abusing content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - long-term nuisance editor. GiantSnowman 10:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I stand with those saying enough is enough. Jusdafax 11:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - I believe Dangerous Panda revoking the Talk Page editing from BtBB was justified, but I do believe that BtBB deserves a shortening of the block. On second hand an indef block doesnt always stay Indef, as I have seen many cases where that "Indef" lasts less than a month. As long as BtBB is willing to be civil in the future, I support. --Acetotyce (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Let it go and move on. Everyking (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A different proposal[edit]

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

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

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

  • This seems like a solution in search of a problem. This is all standard stuff that should happen or is happening anyway. Regardless of whatever potstirring may or may not have occurred, I see no evidence of continuing disruption on the part of DP or Bearcat which requires intervention or all this talk on this page. But I will support this proposal in order to bring this matter to a close, on the condition that the nominator also avoids any interaction with the parties or this matter for three months as well, as I feel that the vigorous pursuit of this matter has exacerbated a situation which would have come to a natural resolution on its own. Gamaliel (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, NP. You make a good point. I've revised my proposal accordingly to incorporate your suggestion. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Re: any "evidence of continuing disruption", what evidence would you expect? Barney is now completely blocked, even from his own talk page. Bearcat might have enjoyed potstirring when Barney could be provoked into another poorly-chosen response, but what would be the point now? And I wouldn't expect DP to be reviewing new unblock requests if Barney's not able to post them. The question is what happens if all we do is unblock Barney from his talk page. If we don't ask Bearcat and DP to avoid him, I think we're doing what didn't work last time and expecting a different result. Bearcat volunteered above that he would avoid Barney. I asked DP directly but he hasn't answered. I think it would be helpful to put this into an actual agreement, one that was Barney also could rely on in choosing his response. Msnicki (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Just as I think there's no reason to needlessly hammer on an editor for attacks made while they're blocked there is also little reason to enact some sort of ad hoc framework to solve a problem that doesn't really exist. If we can ask bearcat to ignore the personal attacks made we can surely ask barney to ignore the comments made on their page and get on with editing. I suspect DP will exercise their judgment in interaction w/ Barney--that's not a euphemism for "won't interact" but a statement that we should trust them enough to interact in a reasonable manner as judged by them, not a random AN/I discussion. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose No problem exists here. The suggestion above is that I've somehow done something wrong, which consensus says otherwise. The sole person launching shyte all over the place is MsNicki who continues to make false claims, attribute false intentions, not just about me, but about other editors. IMHO Msnicki should be blocked for these continued unfounded, unproven personal attacks which she makes simply because she (as she already admits) refuses to actually read the entire situation. Neither Bearcat nor I have acted in any way uncivil, boorish, or inappropriately, as per continued consensus. If a block is going to get Msnicki to drop the WP:STICK and go back to what they do best, then great. BtBB's way forward has already been set in stone. Close this farce and move on people the panda ₯’ 19:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I'm saying your choices weren't very good and that I thought they were adversely affected by your emotions. I don't blame, dislike or disrespect you for any of that. I get mad, too, like everyone else, so I know how my decisions become compromised when my emotions are running high. This is what it means to be human. But I thought your escalation to blocking Barney even from his own user page was too fast and that your defense of Bearcat's posts was unhelpful and I suspect your emotions were an unhelpful factor in how it played out.
Fundamentally, my complaint isn't that you did anything wrong, it's that you didn't perform very well. You started with a routine situation involving two otherwise productive people who'd been fighting over something apparently quite unimportant, one of whom had now crossed the line into silly playground personal attacks. Eleven days later, you'd escalated it into a situation where one of those editors will likely never be back. The successful outcome should have been, the behavior problems have ended and both those editors are now productive again. Sure, you could argue, that's all on Barney. But it's not. As the admin, you were the manager of this people problem and it's reasonable to ask, can you solve a people problem like this or not. Here's one that only got worse, the longer you worked on it. Frankly, as soon as you knew Barney disliked you so intensely, that alone should have been a reason to hand him off to someone else, even if only so that Barney could know for sure that what was happening to him wasn't personal and he really did need to shape up. But I think Barney probably got to you with his insults and that's why you couldn't give it up and why you were so inclined to support Bearcat's actions even though obviously they were torpedoing any chance you had of a successful outcome. When I asked you to reconsider the talk page block, you blew me off. That's why we're here. When I asked (above) if you'd now be willing to walk away, you didn't answer. That's why we're still here. Msnicki (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't answer above because I told you in advance that I wouldn't due to your continued false statements, personal attacks, and bullshit which you've merely rephrased and repeated above. I have more than once disproven your "emotion"; you call Bearcat's post "unhelpful" when it's been shown by both a good reading AND by consensus to be otherwise; I have no knowledge nor understanding that BtBB "dislikes me intently", nor do you have such confirmation - it's not inherent in any of the written words so far, so we cannot assign background "hatred" to anything; what you NEGLECT is that I once already returned his talkpage access, and returning access led to BtBB escalating his attacks - even you have admitted that you have refused to read the actual DISCUSSION that led to his block. You jumped in mid-situation, read the entire situation wrong. CONSENSUS through multiple discussions has said otherwise, yet you continue to refuse to drop the stick and and gigantic chip on your shoulder. BtBB's block AND removal of talkpage access has been determined by the community to be valid; Bearcats comments and ability to comment have been confirmed by the community - now you're simply attacking Bearcat and I, hoping that some shit will stick - modifying your words, and modifying the locus of blame to where it doesn't exist does not make for some special kind of velcro. Cut it out, becausr this bullshit harassment has got to stop the panda ₯’ 21:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? You're not sure how Barney feels about you? Wasn't this a clue? Msnicki (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Never saw that before. Entertaining, but it appears that he removed it before anyone could see it. I don't get rattled, nor put stock in what someone says in the heat of the moment and then remove after rethinking; it's continual insults like yours that rattle me :-) the panda ₯’ 21:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The proposal I've put on the table is that we all just walk away. If we have an agreement, I am done. There won't be anything continuing from me. Barney becomes someone else's problem but he does get another try on his talk page with a different admin and less provocative conditions to do the right thing.
(Barney, if you're reading this, you need to know that I'll be really disappointed if I discover I've gone to this much effort, basically for a stranger I felt sorry for, and you blow it. If you get a second chance, you do need to do the right thing and move on. I won't feel sorry for you a second time.) Msnicki (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Your "proposal" is based on a bunch of lies, a bunch of incorrect readings, and a bunch of things that have been rejected again and again. Again, your harassment and personal attacks are unwelcome. Stop, and drop the stick. If anyone has damaged BtBB's case, it's you by screwing this up so royally. I have advise BtBB that I fully support them making their appeal to BASC or OTRS. Drop the stick. This is a massive blemish on what has been until this date a pretty stellar wikicareer for you...but this one has been a doozy that you could have avoided by a) reading, b) following process, c) re-reading the panda ₯’ 23:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
You've persisted in this and I've tried to ignore it. But I think it's time to remind you, as KonveyorBelt already tried, that per WP:NPA, "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." An admin who can't resist making personal attacks of his own doesn't seem to me like the best choice to manage people problems involving personal attacks by others. 00:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Not sure who this random person is, but you've solidified my point: MsNicki has cast aspersions again and again, has assigned emotions and motive where none existed, called people boors, and yet has never been able to link to a single place that proves her point - THOSE are clear violations of wP:NPA as you note above. All I've ever done is remind her every time she does it that it's a PA. As such, I have never levelled a single PA here. Thanks for clarifying it for everyone the panda ₯’ 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to jump in on either side, but personal attacks don't further your cause. KonveyorBelt 21:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose MsNicki keeps making blanket statements about how things "are" yet provides no evidence to back up these assertions. De-escalation has already occurred and, as stated more than once, BtBB has a way back to editing - it is called the WP:STANDARDOFFER. MarnetteD|Talk 19:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but that standard offer starts with demanding that Barney wait six months. I don't think that's justified. I'm asking that we dial back and let Barney try again under less provocative conditions to post a suitable unblock request on his own talk page now. He could turn around and blow this, in which case, you can bet I certainly won't be rushing back to his defense. But I think this is worth a try for an editor with a history of otherwise generally helpful contributions. Msnicki (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I personally don't think that the standard offer is required. As I've said before, he can formulate his unblock request offline, submit it through WP:OTRS or even the Arbs unblock process (wasn't WP:BASC a way of doing this, or did they stop). Last time he was granted access to his talkpage, it didn't go well - we have no proof that's going to change. Using OTRS or BASC will allow him to create a WP:GAB-compliant request, realizing that he's going to have to abide by his promises - this cannot be empty words. Indeed, OTRS or BASC might add additional limitations/restrictions on unblock, but that's not my purview. Nobody has provoked BtBB for the last 2 weeks, so people need to actually read the entire set of exchanges, and STOP suggesting that there's anyone's actions "at fault" but their own. the panda ₯’ 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think at this point, we're better off letting BtBB form the unblock request offline, as this is out of the line, and when taken the rest of the matter into consideration, I can't help but to think that there's not enough assurance that similar attacks on editors won't repeat if we return the talk page access to BtBB. So unfortunately, I must vote no on point 1. The rest I'm neutral on. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If Barney is unblocked from his own talk page and decides to use it for more bad behavior instead of doing the right thing, believe me, I'll be the first to ask that the block be reinstated. I'll be genuinely annoyed that I'll have wasted my time on someone so undeserving. But if the rest of this agreement is place, I think he'll do the right thing and I'd like to see him have the chance to show us. Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Msnicki: - at least 1 person (i.e. Knowledgekid87) thinks that your first point meant an unblock when what you mean to say is restoring the talk page access. I think fixing that would definitely help. (To Knowledgekid87: If I make the assumption erroneously, you have the permission to WP:TROUT me. Or even {{whale}}.) - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 01:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for that suggestion. That's very helpful. I've added some additional clarification that I hope will help. Let me know what you think. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Why should Barney be given another chance here? I mean what is the difference between him and all of the other editors? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The difference is that this situation was managed far more poorly than usual. Where else have you seen someone who's just been blocked suffering long argumentative missives like this one on his own talk page, stirring the pot just 40 minutes after the second block? Bearcat should have known better and when apparently he didn't, DangerousPanda should have stepped up to manage the situation and discourage this behavior. Instead, DP endorsed that boorish behavior, yet still expected Barney to cool down enough to prepare a suitable unblock request for an admin he likely began to perceive as one of his main tormentors. This was never going to work and that wasn't Barney's fault alone. DP mismanaged what started out as a routine problem that should have been easy to solve and that part's not on Barney. That's what's different. Msnicki (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
More personal attacks - this situation was NOT managed poorly, in fact, as per consensus above, it was managed quite sanely. Repeating that I shouldn't have done something when the community says otherwise is improper. Just because you fucked this up and refuse to back down and eat crow does not mean I managed anything poorly - I gave BtBB a hell of a lot of rope, and he used it as I hoped he wouldn't. Stop questioning my competence (because that's a personal attack) when the community has determined otherwise. Again, this is harassment, so cut it out the panda ₯’ 09:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock - Based on the latest The unblock request, it is again attacking users and using the everybody but me wording. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - For the same reasons as given in the section above, in addition to this being another case where WP:INVOLVED is misunderstood. 'Involved' explicitly exempts administrative actions - including (but not limited to) blocks, warnings, and policy advice. If it's felt that an admin shouldn't be further handling a case where they have blocked someone, then those cases may or may not have merit, but waving the flag of WP:INVOLVED on them makes them invalid from the start. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
There was quite obviously nothing wrong with that statement - Msnicki even dropped by my talkpage to discuss it because she too read something into it that was obviously not there. It was by no means uncivil, contained no personal attacks (indeed, it commented on CONTENT, and not the CONTRIBUTOR), but wholly questioned the LOGIC of her paragraph and personal attacks against me that by her own admission, was based on not-reading the entire situation that led to BtBB's sanctions. Thanks for playing though Ent ... usually you're better at doing your research, which is why I respect you the panda ₯’ 18:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Another model display of deftness deafness in dispute resolution. I know I was satisfied, about the way NE Ent must also feel about now. It wasn't like you'd said something clearly rude, like "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen". It wasn't at all like that. Msnicki (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
More insults or just sarcasm (or both)? English is not my first language, after all...sometimes I miss some of the nuances the panda ₯’ 08:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Here is some advice I just posted to Barney's talk page. I realized that if my proposal was accepted, I would no longer be able to give him this advice. I should do it now. Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

What started it all[edit]

I finally found time to read the original AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Mutton, the article itself, John Mutton (as it appears now) and as it appeared when Bearcat nominated it to AfD, and the original ANI complaint Bearcat lodged against Barney at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive851#John Mutton AFD. (How do you admins ever find time to do this except rarely??)

In its present state, I stopped checking the sources (via Higheam, many thanks to WP as it's really helpful for AfDs!) after the first 3 of many news stories on this subject, all helpfully contributed by I am One of Many, who got my thanks and deserves many more. There's no question the subject easily satisfies WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent secondary sources.

When I am One of Many reports at 01:34 24 Aug having found and added 10 sources on Highbeam, Bearcat responds at 01:54 24 Aug, "Now we're getting somewhere! I'd be more than happy to withdraw this if the actual substance of the article were expanded to go along with the sourcing". This is not actually the test at AfD. We do not decide notability based on whether sources have been properly cited in an article; that is a content question to be discussed on the article talk page. The question at AfD is not whether sources have been cited, but whether they exist.

But in the case at hand, it's clear that I am One of Many not only demonstrated the existence of these sources, this editor took the time and effort to incorporate them into the article. Presented with this clear evidence I am One of Many had found, struck his delete !vote and went to keep. Though Bearcat had told I am One of Many that he'd withdraw his nomination if proper sources and content were provided, he never did.

Curiously, the case is closed by SpinningSpark as no consensus, despite the sourcing. (AfDs are not a vote, Spark.)

Turning to the specifics of the fight between Bearcat and Barney, Bearcat nominated the article to AfD arguing that there was only a single trivial source at the time (true) and that that the subject was merely a city councillor and that city councillors are not entitled to presumed notability in lieu of sources. He argued that if there was a distinction, it was "purely ceremonial".

Barney responded that this was not true, pointing out that the subject was not just any councillor, "he was "Leader of the Majority Party", and therefore the most important councillor politically, for a significant period", which seemed like a pretty good point to me. As an American, I don't think, e.g., that even the minority leader in our House is just like any other congressman. Bearcat is unwilling to concede and switches to arguing that it's about sources and at 10:31 21 Aug, Barney asks him, "Well please try to make your mind up". It goes downhill from there.

By 07:14 23 Aug, Bearcat is accusing Barney, "Your accusations of bad faith are inappropriate and I'm taking you to WP:RFC if they don't stop immediately."

At 10:53 23 Aug, Barney tells Bearcat, " I think you'll find that I have spent a lot of good faithing on you. ... This has led me to the conclusion that you deliberately and purposefully misrepresented the original case, above. I stand by everything I say, always and without exception. An RFC on Bearcat (talk · contribs)'s behaviour might be appropriate as I'd like to see what other articles he's lynched with lies."

At 20:54 23 Aug, Bearcat files his complaint at ANI, alleging "persistent allegations that my nomination was a bad faith attempt to misrepresent the subject's notability". Up to this point, Barney had not received any warnings about this alleged misbehavior on his talk page. He had not, e.g., been templated with a warning to stop any misbehavior or face a block.

At 20:56 23 Aug (two minutes later!), Bearcat tells Barney back at the AfD, "I have not made a "mistake", I have not "lied" or "misrepresented" anything, and I do not have a pattern of "lynching" articles with "lies" ... I'm not engaging this discussion any further in this venue; take it to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#John_Mutton_AFD."

At 21:25 23 Aug (29 minutes after Bearcat's complaint and without other discussion), DangerousPanda reports at ANI, "I've blocked him for the duration of the AFD (96 hours) for disruption and personal attacks".

The following exchange then takes between DangerousPanda and Roxy the dog at ANI:

This block needs reviewing by an uninvolved admin, quickly. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Is that because I've now extended it and locked his talkpage for further violations of NPA while blocked? the panda ₯’ 00:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it is because I believe your blocking of BBB is excessive, punitive and unwarranted. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've never issued a punitive block in my life. But hey, if you think personal attacks and disruption are ok, then go ahead the panda ₯’ 00:38, 24 August

Wow. This is a new way to try to win an AfD. I don't get to come in here and have someone blocked in 29 minutes flat based only my own self-serving description of events and without any discussion just because I think they said something I didn't like. I get treated far more disrespectfully all the time, but I don't find it easy to get them blocked, much less driven completely off the project, even when I report it here at ANI. I think Bearcat (however unintentionally) abused his status as admin to get a favor here, a presumption of innocence he wasn't entitled to, to get a strong opponent eliminated from a discussion in way that isn't open to the rest of us ordinary mortals. As NE Ent pointed out earlier, the standards for admins should be higher. They should model behavior for the rest of us and we should be able to expect them to demonstrate better than average ability to resolve disputes rather than escalate them. I don't think Bearcat demonstrated that.

After Barney was blocked, he responded at 23:44, 23 Aug that Bearcat "wrote an AFD nomination that misrepresented the subject as only being a minor , and specifically mentioned the role of mayor. He made innuendo that the role of mayor was unimportant (which is technically true), but failed to mention that the gentleman was a long-time leader of the majority party on the council, and used inneundo to conflate the two unrelated. He also apparently omitted to conduct a WP:BEFORE search for sources because when such a search is performed a plethora of sources are to be found. When I politely pointed out this to him and gave him the opportunity to correct himself, he refused to do this". So far so good, and I agree with this as an absolutely fair summary, now that I've read the whole thing.

What got him blocked from his talk page 20 minutes later was this unhelpful addition: "asserting things that are clearly not true to anyone with at least half a brain (that a leader of a party group is equally as important as a non-leader) and started to make personal allegations against me. He has now compounded his lies by writing further lies at WP:AN/I which have led a productive and editor of good character being blocked. WP:BOOMERANG should have applied to the petty vindictive request of a liar and a troll." Again, now that I've read the whole thing, I can be more sympathetic to Barney's opinion, but it's just not an opinion he or anyone else is allowed to voice in that way under our guidelines.

Forty minutes after Barney has been blocked, even from his own talk page for saying this, Bearcat lands on him on right there on that same talk page where Barney can no longer respond with a long complaint that Barney has it all wrong. When Barney gains access again and responds that Bearcat is "piling new lies on top of old lies ... and getting your pet admin to do the job for you", DangerousPanda blocks Barney indefinitely. I goes on from there and continues to escalate, despite remarks by Roxy the dog at 11:23 28 Aug, in defense of Barney. Bearcat continues to make long argumentative posts to Barney's page in clear violation of WP:IUC, that ""Other uncivil behaviors [include] taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves." Eventually we are here.

About the best that can be said for Bearcat is that he was never warned, e.g., with a template at the time about his uncivil behavior on Barney's talk page after Barney was blocked. (Otoh, Barney wasn't templated either before he was blocked.) This was obviously a heated discussion and of course anyone can understand what that does for anyone's judgment. But that's why have what are supposed to be uninvolved detached administrators with better than average people skills and better than average ability to resolve disputes. Never mind that DP should never have blocked Barney for 4 days on such flimsy evidence and zero discussion. He definitely should have warned Bearcat to cease this uncivil behavior. If Bearcat wasn't willing to do that, Bearcat should have faced a block.

Whenever bad behavior is reported, we always ask, were they told at the time? You can't expect people to be mind-readers. Bearcat should have been warned and he wasn't. We can all concede that. But Bearcat isn't just any ordinary editor. He's an admin. Being an admin isn't a right, this a privilege, to be enjoyed only to the extent that the individual can contribute to a sense of legitimate authority behind our guidelines, our basic social compact to be enjoyed by all. An admin is expected to have more than just ordinary ability to deal with disputes. As NE Ent points out, an admin should display model behavior. An admin should know the rules and display exemplary adherence to them. That just didn't happen.

Instead, what happened is that Bearcat took advantage of his superior status to knock out his strongest opponent. He then continue baiting Barney until Barney had been completely driven off the project. This was an incredible failure. I knew that Barney was being treated unfairly but until now, I didn't realize how unfairly. Msnicki (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't let opinion get in the way of facts. I request immediate action to be taken against Msnicki for continued harassment, false claims, trying to find "evidence" that doesn't exist. I've had enough of this bullshit, and I have asked MULTIPLE times that this be stopped. the panda ₯’ 20:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And now canvassing under the guise of "hey, I said nice things about you, now do me a favour and come to ANI and comment" when she knows full well that simply mentioning someone on ANI does not require notification, it's only filing a report on them that requires such notification. This flogging and disgusting behaviour has to stop now the panda ₯’ 22:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@DangerousPanda: Panda I understand why you are upset right now, my advice would be to step back for a few and let other editors comment. I agree that what she is doing is WP:CANVASSING but also agree that this discussion should be closed now and a new one focused on the behavior be opened up if desired. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
[Post-closure, Msnicki disagreed with the charge of canvassing. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)]

I agree with Barney's block. He has made it clear that he has no intention of making repairs to this situation, as indicated by these comments (bold markings added by me):

At 23:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC) - I stated it was my policy to apologise for things that I have done wrong. However, as I have done nothing wrong in this case, no apology will be forthcoming.

At 10:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC) - Thanks Bearcat (talk · contribs) - thanks to your efforst I've been lbocked from editnig for the past 4 days. Bet you feel proud of yourself. However, no, piling lies on top of further lies won't help your cause. You are clearly quite delusional, a calculating liar and should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. A leader of a council is more important than a non-leader. This is an indisuptable fact that you choose to ignore mostly because you're a complete idiot.

At 16:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC) - I seem to recall Bearcat (talk · contribs) that *YOUR* refusal to acknowledge indisputable basic facts was teh root cause of teh disruption YOU initiated at the original AFD. Although I do enjoy watching your squirm in your little hole trying to justify unjustifiable actions, it is gettting slightly tiring now. You are clearly incapable of understanding and my guess is 50% of both of your braincells are malfunctioning. You lied. Then you snuck to the teacher. Admit these facts now and we can deal with this sordid little affair appropriately.

Sure, maybe all involved here got overheated (admins are human too, you know), but I think Barney's comments are the most obvious and insulting than all the rest. Thus, I feel the block was rightly deserved.

My recommendation is that this discussion be closed, everyone walk away, and that no major actions be taken. Intense discussions rarely get anywhere. Hopefully, Barney will think about his actions and appeal the block in the appropriate way.

Writing Enthusiast 22:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Close this, enough beating the WP:DEADHORSE already... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed Writing Enthusiast 22:24, 10 September 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.

User:Evlekis quacking again[edit]

Green tickY Already done by Smalljim. Amortias (T)(C) 19:52, 11 September 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.

And a swift block would be appreciated for Educated Guesses. Amortias (T)(C) 19:43, 11 September 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.

Devi ever : fx[edit]

I think we can close this thread, with thanks to the participants. Drmies (talk) 20:13, 11 September 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.

I'm having a bit of an issue with a slew of SPA IPs and accounts inserting what I consider to be incorrect and unacceptable material in this little article about a minor company. Further details are on Talk:Devi_ever_:_fx#.22Controversy.22, and I don't wish to repeat myself, but in brief, primary references represented keep getting reinserted into the article, and a manufactured "controversy" keeps getting put in our article, along with information about the former owner--information that, if not an outright BLP violation, is at least deeply problematic. I'd like for an admin or two to assess a. whether these are indeed BLP violations, b. whether the editor (who I believe to be the same as two IPs in the history, and see talk page) needs a warning or stern talking to, and c. whether perhaps the article needs some protection.

As a side note, perhaps editors can see if this shouldn't be nominated for deletion. I'm all for supporting small manufacturers of boutique stuff, but this one is really quite minor and the sourcing is, well, meager. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Let me add, real brief, that I think there's a COI here as well--related to the company ownership, or perhaps to the botched Kickstarter campaign. Why else these comments on the former owner? Drmies (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In the meantime the new account has found the talk page, so the pressure is off a little bit. I'm still interested in opinions, of course. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
The company comfortably fails WP:CORP, and a run-of-the-mill kickstarter controversy doesn't make it otherwise. It's neither our job to support small companies nor give a platform for unhappy kickstarter donors. We don't need to dissect which parts of this stuff belong in Wikipedia - none of it does. Off to AfD with it. -- Finlay McWalterTalk 20:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and nominated it for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devi ever : fx. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:30, 9 September 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.

1RR breach by SeattliteTungsten[edit]

SeattliteTungsten cautioned; no further action necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

About Israeli West Bank barrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

Editor SeattliteTungsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reverted twice within half an hour: [1] and [2]. I pointed this out to them, mentioning the WP:1RR rule (by WP:ARBPIA) [3]. I also did so on the article talkpage [4] (a thread started post-incident). The user rejected my request, a bit sneaky IMO [5]. I request/suggest that an uninvolved admin/editor undoes the trespassing (2nd) revert, and maybe write a clarifying note to the editor.

Then, the user added this to my talkpage, which I can take as a personal attack. This also could use a clarifying note to the editor. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (notified user [6])

And this arrived on my talkpage after I posted this here. -DePiep (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Sequence on my talkpage: 1. the link mentioned, 2. I reverted (=deleted), 3. I notified [7] to not write on my talkpage any more, 4. ST undid the deletion, and added comment [8]. Time for a stronger approach? -DePiep (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I've spent 20 minutes looking at this and I agree ST's conduct is sub-par, but I'm not seeing a clear 1RR violation. The two diffs you cite might just about be a violation, but they're two days old. They've edited the article twice today, but neither is an obvious revert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Two reverts within 25 minutes there is a 1RR. That shouldn't need 20 min. (I could revert myself by now, but I thought I'd take the royal route: ANI). Then, a user calling me a 'terrorist' (twice) should not not take 20 mins looking. Please act. -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell Despite panda's distractions below, I'd like to read your response. -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There's at least 4 possible interpretations of that phrasing in their use of the word "terrorist" on your talkpage. Only 1 of them parses remotely into it looking like they called you one, as per WP:NPA. Barring other NPA violations, we'd have to AGF that it's one of the other possible ones, especially since we typically warn on a first one the panda ₯’ 23:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
That's only the second part. What about reverting the 1RR breach? -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
SeattliteTungsten repeated the PA, as I diff'ed. -DePiep (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You were already advised - and already knew - that we will not block for 1RR violations that took place 2 days ago as that would be punitive, not preventative. And no; nowhere in the later diff's did they flat out call you a terrorist, so the PA was not interpreted it as related to the first, but again can easily be interpreted differently. So, warn them for NPA, and let us know if it actually happens again, which is the normal procedure as you already know the panda ₯’ 23:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a block for a 1RR violation would be completely inappropriate at this point. We permit blocks for edit-warring only to stop an edit-war that can't be stopped any other way; when two days have passed, the edit-war has stopped. SeattliteTungsten's introduction of scare quotes around Israeli in his most recent edit is clearly not appropriate from a WP:NPOV perspective, but unless you can show us that it's part of a longstanding pattern, I don't see a need for sanctions just for that one bit. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I did explicitly not ask for a block. Is this your pavlov dog? (although, their afterward calling me a 'terrorist' twice might trigger that from any admin awake). I-did-not-ask-for-a-block. I asked ANI to revert the second revert or the two reverts, I diff'ed. Why does not @HJ Mitchell: or @Nyttend: simply revert the 1RR breach? -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC) --sp, and add pings. -DePiep (talk) 00:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You might want to add a ping for HJ Mitchell — I only came here because I felt like it, since I didn't get a ping. Meanwhile...aside from a block, we have no type of sanction or action that would be appropriate in this case. I can't imagine a situation in which it would be good to revert a 1RR violation just because it's a 1RR violation: it only restarts the edit-war. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand your ping remark. Anyway: let me explain to you. After a 1RR trespassing, I can not revert myself, however right I might be. So I ask the trespasser to correct - to no effect, in this case. Also, your fellow-admins here can advise me to 'take a distance' (all this is in the diffs. Ditd you take note?). Now conflict resolution says: then ask outside. So I did. And again (why do admins here alway drews to block by pavlov?), I asked to revert an edit. I did not ask for a block, that is your mental issue. Asking ANI is a WP:DISPUTE basic route. If you think that I did wrong going here, click that and win it there.
Now if you don't simply revert as I simply asked in my OP, what do you say I should have done, theoretically? -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
DePiep, please please please read WP:THEWRONGVERSION, and understand the basic principle of that bit of satire: admins do not involve themselves in content disputes to favor one side or the other. If the user in question is not actively edit warring, and no one else is, the solution to your problem is to take up a discussion on the article talk page, establish consensus, then put in the version that has consensus. Literally no one here would find it appropriate to, acting in an administrator capacity, revert merely on your say so. Nor are we to, as admins, act to favor one side of a dispute or another. Instead, what you do is establish consensus via a discussion, then make the change after the discussion has had adequate time to establish consensus. The existence of a 2-day old borderline 1RR violation is not reason to short circuit normal processes at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 01:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Well thanks, this reads like a sensible response. But I don't get the fun intended. 1RR is not about talkpage or content at all. It is, well, 1RR. And didn't I describe: 1RR - I took a break (not reload) -- then I got insults? (Had I waited just 25 hrs to revert myself, you and all here could & would have accused me of gaming the system &tc.). Now could you please3 read WP:CONFLICT, especially wrt xRR: it says don't keep fighting, take a break and ask help elsewhere. So here I came.
Reverting a 1RR break is not taking position, it is solving an edit war. I can also note that I took a look & question at talkpages (what was not picked up here at all, after all the diffs I added). I find it weird that that is not rewarded or even seen as part of my editwar solution. Instead, all I get here is that - otherwise serious - admins give a "we don't block" non-response.
Of course I get by now I won't get an admin action from here. The disappointment is that the pavlov reaction at ANI is: "who can I block?". And it shows that serious admins did not even read my OP. -DePiep (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── And I repeat for clarity: SeattliteTungsten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) called me a 'terrorist' twice on my talkpage (diffs already provided above). Please act. -DePiep (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

So, as you were already advised, warn them for WP:NPA and move on - let us know if personal attacks happen after the warning the panda ₯’ 08:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


  1. You can ping me to your heart's content in the middle of the night and I'm still no going to respond, because I do have to sleep at some point.
  2. I'm not going to revert the edit because that would make me a party to the dispute and I don't won't to get involved (not in the plain English sense, nor in the Wikipedia jargon sense).
  3. The only clear 1RR violation is now getting on for three days old; no admin action is going to be taken in respect of that. There is nothing preventing any other party from reverting the edit, provided they adhere to the 1RR (note that 1RR is one revert per 24 hours) themselves, though note that violating the 1RR is not in itself an adequate reason o revert an edit.
  4. As DP says, there a multiple interpretations of the message ST left, and it's a stretch to consider it to be a personal attack. It is, though, unnecessary and deliberately provocative, so I will caution him against that sort of thing.
  5. If any editor wanted to make a case that another editor's behaviour constituted a battleground mentality, or in future wanted to allege a violation of the 1RR, they should take the matter to WP:AE, with diffs and a clear (and concise) explanation.
  6. Can we close this thread now?

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

re 1.: You mean a ping wakes you up? Am I supposed to check that before, somehow?
re 2.: Not a dispute. Just an edit counting thing. xRR is edit warring, and I did respond along this. I am still surprised that I my de-escalating approach is used against me here.
re 3.: violating the 1RR is not in itself an adequate reason o revert an edit. -- It is a solution to edit warring. Note that I asked for a revert, not a block. As you say, 'nothing preventing any other party from reverting the edit'.
re 4.: Calling someone a 'terrorist' is a PA, and more so when repeated. It also illustrates the editor's attitude in this. Thanks for the action though.
re 5.: see re2. AE is for blocks only. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't wake me up, but if I'm pinged while I'm asleep, I'm not going to see it until I wake up, so it doesn't accomplish much. And AE is not just for blocks, though it is mainly about requesting sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
On pinging you HJ Mitchell, I didn't mean that you were ignoring things. DePiep's edit of 00:55, 11 September 2014 included the code to ping you and to ping me in the same edit, but I never got a notification, so I thought maybe you never got one either. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. OK then, WP:AE is for sanctions, not just blocks. But I did not ask for sanctions. I asked for a revert. I de-escalated an editwar. Why do the responses here keep and keep diverting? One could a. provide a to the point answer or b. ask for a clarification. Nowhere is written that ANI is a hammering-only page. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Now that I have read HJ Mitchell's carefully written caution (I compliment), and understanding that this thread won't produce much more, I OP agree to close it. -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrator abuse[edit]

We do not act on "personal convictions" alone, and an accusation of paid editing requires some sort of evidence, which the OP admits they do not have. The questions of sourcing, reversion, etc. are content questions, which can be addressed through the usual channels. Writ Keeper  20:11, 11 September 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.

It is my personal conviction that User:Mr. Stradivarius was contacted by email and offered financial incentives in order to settle a dispute on Nabih Berri. The page was previously targeted by Beirut-based PR agency AddBloom and I am personally aware of the fact that the team of the politician whose article is in question has a tendency to buy off or financially settle any problem that they encounter. Mr. Stradivarius has consistently removed heavily sourced paragraphs and kept replacing them, until just recently, with unsourced hagiography. The following are the sourced (which he maliciously calls unsourced) paragraphs that were removed:

  • According to former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, in his book By Way of Deception, the Mossad "was deeply involved with several other warring Lebanese families, paying for information, passing it between groups, even paying the gangs and some Palestinians in the refugee camps for intelligence and services. Besides Gemayel, both the Jumblatt and Berri families were on the Mossad payroll. Source: Ostrovsky, Victor (1990). By Way of Deception: The Making and Unmaking of a Mossad Officer, p. 316
  • Berri is involved in corruption allegations regarding a 1996 coastal motorway in southern Lebanon. The contract for the motorway was won by a firm run by Berri's wife, Randa Assi, and was said to be overpriced by over three hundred million US dollars. Sources: Johnson, Michael (2001). All Honorable Men: The Social Origins Of War In Lebanon , p.236; Schwerna, Tobias (2010). Lebanon: A Model of Consociational Conflict , p.128.
  • In 2004, Berri was mentioned in several of the diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks. One cable said that Amal is "near universally derided as corrupt to the core", and that Berri was described by a relative of Musa al-Sadr as having provided social services in the south only through "wheeling, dealing, and stealing". Also according to the cables, Berri receives USD 400,000 a month from Iran, using a fourth of the sum to shore up his support and pocketing the rest. Sources: Gloria Center, Wikileaks cables.
  • According to one source, Berri was considered by Rafik Hariri to be "irredeemably corrupt and unreliable", as well as an opportunist, and is thought to maintain his support base through access to state funds. Source: Blanford, Nicholas (2006). Killing Mr. Lebanon: The Assasination of Rafik Hariri and Its Impact on the Middle East , p. 118
  • According to leaked diplomatic cables, during the 2006 Lebanon war, Berri, publicly an ally of Hezbollah, described Israel's attacks on Hezbollah to US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman as being "like honey", and hoped that Israel would complete its mission against Hezbollah quickly. He suggested that the IDF "markedly improve its targeting intelligence to make air strikes more effective. Either that, or they would have to wipe Hizballah out of the south with a ground offensive." He also suggested that "if Israel succeeds in weakening Hizballah militarily, then he will be more willing to weaken them politically". Sources: Wikileaks cables, NOW Media, Aspen Institute, Middle East Online.
  • Berri's sister-in-law and close business associate Samira Assi, is said to have made a fortune by getting a contract from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to print one million copies of Gaddafi's "Green Book". Assi's deals are seen as highly controversial, since the founder of the Amal Movement, Musa al-Sadr, is known to have been disappeared on the orders of Gaddafi himself. Sources: Middle East Intelligence Bulletin report, written by the current news director of Congress-funded Al Hurra.

Why should anyone bother to edit Wikipedia, when their efforts are compromised by the actions of such individuals as User:Mr. Stradivarius with dubious actions and intentions? I hope this could be referred to an arbitration or mediation committee that would decide upon restoring these sourced paragraphs in the article, and I hope that User:Mr. Stradivarius's actions could be thoroughly investigated.

Callsfortruth (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You'd better come up with some proof that he was offered financial incentive pretty darned quick, or else I smell a block ... the panda ₯’ 19:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Anyone hearing a feint whistle getting louder really quick?--v/r - TP 19:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It sounds more like someoen trying to cut air with a stick more like a woosh woosh to me. Amortias (T)(C) 20:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
If I had any proof, he would have been blocked already. I am assuming, based on the fact that a PR-firm has targeted this article, and because said politician has copious amounts of money that he spends on whitewashing his image, especially when it comes to the first result in a Google search of his name. Callsfortruth (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, the reason for this post is not primarily to get someone to investigate admin's action (though it is my stated intention), it is to have this article reviewed by a committee. I am not acquainted with the procedures, as I have too little time to edit Wikipedia, so I hope any admin here could help. Callsfortruth (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I know that this is section has been closed, but I thought I should clarify - I haven't been contacted by anyone off-wiki about this article, and I certainly haven't been offered any money to edit it. Actually, I came across it by patrolling Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:30, 12 September 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.

IP vandalizing[edit]

Closed by OP
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.

IP has been vandalizing Mary Birdsong page. (notification) diff1, diff2. IP was warned earlier for making similar changes. Also has other warnings about vandalism on the talk page. Kingsindian (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the right forum for reports like this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've reported the IP user already. Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is a user being reported for allegedly making good-faith edits? Drmies (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • A BLP that's so poorly verified, so full of resume information, where it's so difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff and every individual little job, no matter the size, is included in a filmography--well, I don't think we can throw an IP in the slammer for some unverified shuffling of content. That article is ridiculously bad. BTW, if we're going to bring the hammer down on this IP (who seems to have done some more work on this article with different IP addresses) because of "unverified changes" (not simply removal, Kingsindian)--well, what are we supposed to do about this wholly unexplained revert of 19 edits by Freshh? Who then warned the IP, a warning that can add up to four, so that one of us admins will block? Well, one thing we can do is tell them to stop using Twinkle. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies: I am afraid, I have very little experience in these things, so my efforts might have caused more trouble that they were worth. I was just looking at recent changes and noticed some stuff by an IP and reverted assuming good faith. I looked at the contributions and found that this stuff has been going on for some time. I looked at the talk page, and it seemed that this kind of stuff was widespread. There has been no response by the IP to anything on the talk page. This is why I reported it. Take my report with a ton of salt, and any pointers on how to deal with these kind of things are appreciated. Kingsindian (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
No no, not salt, Kingsindian--that's not the issue, and my problem isn't so much with you--I suppose you're new here, and didn't know, perhaps, that one should be reticent in starting ANI threads. In a situation like this, where editors are simply reverting each other, it's worth something trying to get them to go to the talk page. But that IP editor has nothing but templated warnings on their talk page, so I would say they have very little incentive to do anything but reinstate their information. If your counterpart Freshh had left a human message on that talk page, perhaps the IP might have found their tongue. At any rate, since there is no talk page discussion or edit summaries that explain what was vandalism here, no admin is going to act on it. The lesson, if there is one: judge an edit for what it's worth, and that includes others' reverts of edits. Another one: editors who get templated are more likely to get angry than to start talking. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This seems to have happened with me before: that I was too trigger-happy. I will keep it in mind. Kingsindian (talk) 03:11, 12 September 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.

Jack Vale[edit]

Jack Vale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There appears to be a lawsuit regarding Jack Vale. Two new editors Jackvale (talk · contribs) and Boscositcks (talk · contribs) have repeatedly removed the "controversy" section and two external links. Sources are an article in and "The Hunington Beach Police Department Facebook page". Jim1138 (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

TheBlaze is a news website, which I would classify as a reliable source even if a biased source, because face it, 90% of sources are biased one way or the other, and this to me is a pretty newsy article, not an opinion piece about Obama or the Democrats. I don't know that I like using Facebook as a source even if it is an official Facebook page, but at least it's not the only source. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It's WP:CONSENSUS that an 'official' Facebook or Twitter page is an acceptable primary source the same as if it was an official website. (Largely, I'd imagine, because a lot of places nowadays have them, especially the former, instead of/as official websites...) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I would support a block on User:Jackvale because it's clear that he is a single purpose account interested only in editing his own page, plus there's a chance it's a troll rather than the actual man behind the account, in which case would be impersonation. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Boscositcks' edits seems rather sockish. JV stops editing immediately after I warned NLT, then Bsitchs edits 22 minutes after JV, uploaded the image, adds it, then stops followed by JV 8 minutes later. File:Jack_Vale.jpg was uploaded by Boscositcks, an uncropped version of what is returned by google image search. Jim1138 (talk) 04:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy fanaticism by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz[edit]

This appears to be a content dispute and should be handled in dispute resolution. There does not seem to be anything actionable by an admin at this point. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 04:29, 12 September 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 crosses several noticeboards (BLP and Edit Warring at least), hence why I'm posting this here. An issue has come to light by this particular User, but one that is repeated quite often on WP by others. That is using BLP policy as a blanket shield to revert endless times any content that they contest under the guise of protecting WP and/or the person the article is about. In this particular instance, the subject is not only upset over the perceived "gutting" of her article, but has since used her radio show and her Facebook page with over 10,000 followers to comment on this User and also to debase and degrade Wikipedia.

The specifics are as follows: Rebecca Bardoux, is a former adult film actress and currently an internet radio show host and a stand-up comedian. In July of last year, content began to be added (the expansion of a stub article) regarding her comedian work [9]. This went through various revisions, had references added, reworked, removed and re-added, but was left in the article until August of this year when the User in question removed it along with its cited reference [10]. It was subsequently re-added by several other Editors and then removed or reverted by this User [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] using various claims such as "unsourced" and then "sockpuppetry" and finally calling it "promotional".

Then the subject of the article noticed and commented publicly[edit]

It appears that new users where involved as well and my next point might explain why I believe this to be true. In the midst of this "BLP compliance allowed edit warring", the person who is the subject of this article took notice of what was happening to her article and she did not like it. She first commented on it on her Facebook page on August 27th [21](forgive me, I am unsure how to get that exact link, but its there now, just scroll down) and then again on her radio show on August 28th [22] at the 27:40 mark. The subject called for her listeners to go on this site and try to recover her article content which was seemingly attempted. Over these two days, Wikipedia was maligned in a variety of ways from being called unreliable to being "a bunch of bullshit" and calling Wikipedia Editors a "bunch of vigilantes". The subject even went to so far as to post Hullaballoo Wolfowitz' User name on her Facebook page. Others joined in and tried to update the article with additional sources, but this User just won't have it and continues to revert all of the material that has been recently added along with the associated references, see difs above.

The subject also mentioned on her radio show another adult film actress, Brittany Andrews, that she has similar problems with her article over several years. the other person also commented on the subjects Facebook page. The subject also questioned the legality of preventing accurate information from being posted on Wikipedia and speculated about what legal action would be required to prevent people from deleting accurate information about her.

Was this attention as damaging as this transpiring in a major newspaper or magazine, No, but my point is that a User who routinely uses BLP policy as a catch-all shield has not only obscured accurate information, but has caused damage to Wikipedia's reputation and the image of its editors. Regardless of your opinion of the subject or her profession, past or present, what this User is doing is making all of us look bad. For the record, I did notify this User of the consequences of his actions here.

I don't know what corrective action to request, because I don't know how this problem should be addressed. We have Editors who use BLP policy to run roughshod over any article about a living person as they see fit regardless of what happens in the real world and/or seemingly without regard for accurate information that even the subject themselves actually want posted. I have heard about similar instances, but this is the first time I have seen it actually transpire as well as hear in the subject's own words about what they think of how their article is managed by the Wikipedia community. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


The basic problem here is that PORNBIO is bullshit and these articles should be deleted, not edit warred over. (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your opinion, but this happens with all types of BLP articles. Another that comes to mind is for Robert Spitzer. This person has gone so far as to comment directly on their article's Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Those should probably mostly be deleted too. The reason we have all those restrictive BLP policies that screw up the articles' neutrality is our practice of writing BLP's against the subject's wishes. We should instead write them the same way we write other articles, but delete them if the subject asks us to. Anyway, yeah, it does look like HW is being POINTy and should back away. (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I can find no evidence of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz editing the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article, or commenting on that article's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No, no, no, no, NO! That was NOT the intention or inference AT ALL. I was simply responding to the IP with an example of another BLP article where the subject had commented on their WP article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
If we write only what the subject wants, we are not an encyclopedia. If we delete the article if the subject does not like it, we're no better than their PR shill. The policy of paying any attention to subject requests for deletion is a very dangerous one, and this and similar discussions have shown the dangers. (Yes, I oppose a broad interpretation current policy of doing it for non-famous by admin discretion--admin discretion at BLP is much too variable; the proper interpretation of our policy should permit it only in exceptional cases, where for one reason or another, it is not possible to write a fair article. (I have in fact closed a few AfDs as delete on that basis--my objection is to the overuse.0 DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored. If a person is notable, we don't delete their article just because they don't like it. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think 50.0's main point is right, but his supporting argument is weak. If we had stronger notability standards, instead of standards that let us write articles on very marginally known people, then there would be far less problems with this sort of thing.
Notability should be a more or less iron clad answer to "Why do you have an article about me?" Achievement based SNGs are letting us write articles about people who, for some of them, Wikipedia is the only source of serious biographical coverage. That should not be the case. We should amend the GNG to require solid independent biographical coverage before we can write a biography, or amend all the achievement based SNGs to require biographical coverage (or just repeal all the achievement-based standards).
There are far too many cases of "notable work from non-notable people" that still merit an AfD-proof BLP under our current guidelines, which in turn often leads to marginal violations of our other core policies. Yes, the majority of the cases are benign, but this has become a systemic problem, a real flaw in our network of guidelines and policies that is slowly rotting our core mission. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Simply put, this is a crock.

Scalhotrod has saying a lot of things that aren't true. For example, he says that "several other Editors" added content to the article. There's no reason to believe this. Beginning on August 28, three SPA accounts -- User:Inyourhead4ever, User: Mosmos69 and User:Spottytina have been tag-team editing Rebecca Bardoux to add promotional content to the article. None of these accounts have edited any other articles. There is no significant variation between their edits. It's more than fair to infer sockpuppetry from this behavior pattern; at best, it's coordinated promotional editing in an attempt to evade WP:BLP standards.

And HW still seems to be missing the main point. The subject that the article is about is aware of how its being edited, is unhappy about it, has commented publicly about it, AND asked for accurate information to be restored. And we know this via a statement by the subject, here 27:40 mark until the end. What is the point of having any BLP rules if we as Editors can't respect the REAL WORLD wishes of the person being written about? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And so what? Exactly the same thing happened at Theodore Beale a short time ago (including the article subject teeing off on The Big Bad Wolfowitz off-wiki), and their "REAL WORLD wishes" weren't complied with because they weren't consistent with applicable policy. As DS quite properly noted on that article's talk page, even if the article subject wants something included, we generally don't include it unless it has "drawn significant independent external attention." That's basic RS 101, and there's no special pleading for porn performers in it. BTW, Ms. Bardoux also complains that there is no way for her to discuss the issues on-wiki, or to contact me on-wiki, which makes it pretty clear that she doesn't understand Wikipedia at all, making the idea of indulging her unhappiness even less appropriate. Perhaps you should be trying to educate her rather than inflicting groundless completes on the community here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
First off, thank you for admitting openly that your strict adherence to your interpretation of policy is more important than the integrity of this encyclopedia even if it sacrifices content. So now we all understand that you simply don't fathom the 5th pillar of Wikipedia at all. As for Theodore Beale, I don't see DS's comment on that Talk page, but thank you again for admitting that you have done this before. Since you "edit" so many BLP articles, this is likely a pattern of POINTy behavior. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Promotional content[edit]

The content involved (which can be seen here [23]) is highly promotional and dreadfully sourced. Using the reference numbers on that page, we have:

  • (ref 3) An AVN article describing Bardoux as a "performer-cum-comedienne" and describing the audience as "barely aware" of her efforts at comedy. This is the closest to a reliable, independent source to be found in the disputed material.
  • (ref 4) Promotionally phrased text taken from a promotional biography on a vendor site hawking Bardoux videos. Neither reliable nor independent, and thoroughly unacceptable in a BLP.
  • (ref 5) Promotional interview with the article subject, not independent, likely including kayfabe, not really supporting the claim in the article, and inconsistent with other interviews.
  • (ref 6) Grossly promotional text taken from a promotional page on a vendor site hawking Bardoux videos. Neither reliable nor independent, and thoroughly unacceptable in a BLP.
  • (ref 7) Promotionally phrased text taken from a blog post promoting an appearance by Bardoux on behalf of the blogger's business. Neither reliable nor independent.
  • (ref 8) Promotional interview with the article subject, not independent, likely including kayfabe.
  • (ref 9) Audio recording of article subject posted under her name to youtube. Not independent, at best.
  • (ref 10) Press release hawking future appearances by article subject. Not independent, not reliable, and as a report of future events doesn't support the claim that the appearances actually took place. It's particularly curious that the linked pages for the specific appearances (eg, the "Refried Comedy" page for the gig involved) don't even list Bardoux as a performer.

Extensive copyvios[edit]

The same disputed content is laced with obvious cut-and-paste copyvios. For example:

  • Paragraph 1, "She broke into hardcore in 1992's 'Brother Act,' and soon was one of the hardest working women in the business" is word-for-word identical to the second sentence in the second paragraph of [24].
  • Paragraph 3, "She is best known for her anal scenes that are showcased in many of the over 200 titles in which she performed. One of her most memorable scenes was a threesome with Peter North and Sean Michaels in Sodomania 2" is word-for-word identical to the closing sentences of the first paragraph of [25], except that the original begins "Bardoux is best known".
  • Paragraph 4, a lengthy paragraph making up roughly half the body of the article, is cut-and pasted without change from [26].

There are 15 sentences in the article. At least eight of them are cut-and pasted from PR sources, in direct violation of both our BLP and copyright policies.

Scalhotrod's accusations[edit]

For all his invective, there's nothing to them. It's important to notice that he makes no claim that any of my edits are not justified by policy. It's even more important to notice that he misrepresents the events involved. Claims about Bardoux's putative standup career have been added to the article without proper sourcing since at least the beginning of this year, and I am neither the only nor even the first to remove them. (I believe the first removal was almost exactly a year ago when an editor using the name "Rbardoux" tried to spamlink her youtube channel and was reverted by a bot.) After multiple attempts to plug her as a stand-up comic without reliable, third-party sourcing were rejected, Bardoux used her Facebook page and podcast to inveigh against Wikipedia and. I guess, The Big Bad Wolfowitz. And then the dispute he describes really broke out.

And, really, who cares? This happens all the time. I don't think a day goes by without an article subject being pissed off that they can't turn "their" Wikipedia article into an advertisement or a promotional soapbox. Their wishes are not indulged. Their off-wiki complaints aren't taken as proof they've been mistreated. There's absolutely no reason to give Ms. Bardoux special treatment here.

So what's the bottom line here? Scalhotrod has repeatedly reinstated obvious, substantial violations of BLP and copyright policies to the Rebecca Bardoux article without any substantive explanation, just his standard "Wolfowitz bad" edit summaries. Removing such violations isn't "fanaticism"; it's applying very basic BLP and copyright policies in a situation where there is no reasonable doubt about their application.

Either Scalhotrod's failure to understand WP:BLP principles is so profound that WP:CIR means he shouldn't be editing BLPs at all, or he hasn't brought this complaint in good faith. As the comments made by User:Spartaz and User:Lightbreather in response to his comments about me here just a few days ago[27] underscore, he applies different standards to those he disagrees with than to himself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course HW, people that act like jerks, get treated like jerks, myself included. When I do something stupid, do I deserve to be scolded for it, of course. But the difference that I perceive between us is that I learn from my mistakes and make the effort to analyze, evolve, and modify my behavior. You... well, IMO you're kind of set in your ways and you're entitled to be that way, but the limits of WP:AGF shouldn't be tested (nor blindly invoked) every time someone wants to be a jerk. For example, Lightbreather and I have had our fair share of disagreements and as you've so keenly mentioned in various places, we've been subject to restrictions as a result. That said, I have learned such a ridiculous amount about the site's inner workings, processes, and procedures because of this interaction that I'll never be able to thank her enough. The most positive thing I have to say about our interactions is that the efforts (regardless of the intention) of yourself with regard to Porn related articles is that their collective quality is probably at an all-time high because so many have been inspired to research and cite sources that either were not cited or that were less than preferred. All we (the Editors who are OK with editing porn related articles) have to do is follow in your wake to see what needs fixing or improving. Thank you HW... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


Though I'm not going to actually debate the merits of this case, HW's outright dismissal of any critique is completely anticipated. I brought a similar issue to ANI recently and while nothing happened, I did notice that HW's edit summaries had a lot less BITE to them once I reported. HW's style to other editors tends to always start with a BITE and get worse from there. The only exception is when he's writing to an admin, during which he assumes an obsequious tone so as to not raise attention to his normal communication style. It has inspired an essay I'm working to describe the "Eddie Haskell editor style" where one behaves politely only when the parents are around. All that said, the one thing I will add is that anyone's opinion that some BIOs should be deleted is completely meaningless to this discussion. If he (or anyone else) believes they ought to be deleted, take them to AfD for consensus. Otherwise, keep your opinion to yourself, because that opinion clouds the real issue here - of whether or not the edits are correct. I'm very thankful that HW spends so much time on PORNBIO pages, as it causes our paths to cross less frequently, as I don't spend any time there at all. Whether HW is gaming the system with all the red-letter fanaticism or not is for someone else to decide. I just know he needs to back off the personal attacks. Vertium When all is said and done 00:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment I looked at the content of the deleted material and I'm not seeing the problem with it. It could stand to be cleaned up for NPOV, but it is sourced. If the reliability of the sources is in question then maybe this should be brought to the RS noticeboard. In short, I see no BLP violations and the content is no more promotional than any information on any bio of a living person. It's impossible to write an article about a professional entertainer without talking about their careers and what they do... Kindzmarauli (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • If you believe that "it's impossible to write an article about a professional entertainer" without using press releases and similar promotional material, you are profoundly mistaken. Just check out any of the hundreds of relevant biographies that have been declared featured articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggest this be closed[edit]

Aren't discussions about content disputes supposed to START on the article talk pages? Please read what I wrote[28] on this disputed article's talk page. I suggest this discussion be closed. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Vertium raises some larger behavioral issues that might merit discussion here. That said, I don't particularly see this thread resulting in any useful outcome. Gigs (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Vertium appears to be another user with a grudge against HW and their comment is entirely diff free. That's character assassination not evidence. Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed this should be closed. This seems to boil down to a dispute about whether or not a source is reliable; that belongs at WP:RS/N. Other than that, there's a whole lot of 'he said, she said' but it boils down to whether or not AVN is a reliable source. Nothing to be sorted out here. GoldenRing (talk) 03:44, 12 September 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.

Unresolved COI issue, with veiled threats from other editor[edit]

Editor warned. Please re-report if problems persist.  Philg88 talk 08:12, 12 September 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.

Dear Administrators. Apologies if I am in the wrong place. I raised this matter at the History Portal, but was told it was not the right place for it, took the matter to COI but it did not get any traction there. So I hope that I am now in the right place.

Ndandulalibingi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (earlier Libingi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) is an official of a semi-political organisation representing the interests and aspirations of the Mbunda people in Southern Africa, as can be seen from his user page. This constitutes a clear case of COI.

The editor clearly identifies himself as Ndandula Libingi, as can be seen here, towards the end (even including his own name in the WP in matters pertaining to the Mbunda people, as can be seen here). This editor further says he does not trust secondary sources or sources written by foreigners and is thus changing all references to all things Mbunda across many pages with information gathered in a collection of oral testimonies commissioned by the Mbunda authorities, of which he is himself an office-bearer and two other works. The editor is in fact, the official who signs the communiques on behalf of the organisation, as can be seen hereHe further states that everything that he edits is done in strict consultation with the Mbunda council. Finally, because of trying to stop this editor from rewriting history, he has threatened that he will report me to the Mbunda council. To put things in perspective, Angola, with a population of 19 million, has a population of 250 thousand Mbunda people, i.e., 1.3% of the population. This editor insists in overdoing everything to do with the Mbunda people, with some articles consisting almost exclusively of information about the Mbunda people and their kings, others with numerous notes, references, etc linking to the Mbunda website.

All this has been repeatedly pointed out to this editor over the years by two editors who did their best to get him to work withing the Wikipedia mold, but to no avail, such that these very same editors ended up esorting to threats of blocking him.

For now, I’d be happy for a resolution on the COI issue. The second issue is the rewriting of history, and ensuring that sctions on Mbunda issues are proportionate to both other peoples and size of artcile as per WP guidelines, for which I am counting on history editors to help with. I trust that this is in order. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep looks like the right place to me. "he has threatened that he will report me to the Mbunda council.", sounds like a legal threat or at least aimed to have a chilling effect which should be reported here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't look like a resolvable situation, unless he should decide to shape up; your comments here and the links you give, plus things he says at his talk page, convince me that an indefinite block is already in order, but I'll go easy for the moment. I've given him a warning, which basically says "stop using primary sources and stop the COI, or you'll be indeffed"; I included an offer of help, but given your comments above, I doubt its usefulness. Please report him to me should he continue, or come back here. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 11 September 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.

India Against Corruption yet again[edit]

Lindashiers (talk · contribs) blocked as part of the IAC sock/meatfarm. Further sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts by IAC should likely be blocked on sight. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:04, 12 September 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.

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

Regular watchers of this page know the sock/meat puppeting that surrounds this article. A new user, Lindashiers, editing on this, and other articles, prompted Sitush to give them a discretionary notice. [29] In a tit-for-tat gesture, Lindashiers placed the same notice on Sitush's page. [30] I observed this could be seen as disruptive. [31] Lindashiers' reply included: [32]

  • "Accordingly, I firmly believe that Sitush is a disruptive editor at Wikipedia, hence the notice."
  • "he is also incompetent to edit India related articles on such a scale,"
  • "PS: surely Sitush is old enough to speak for himself, or is he a minor/child that you must do so ?"

Can we nip this in the bud? --NeilN talk to me 02:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a result of massive copy-violation [33] by User Sitush on this article (which I reported using a template) which controversial copy-vio text has resulted in persistent attacks on the article by Mr Anna Hazare's organisation using sock/meatpuppets. I have put certain specific queries to User Sitush which are here [34], [35], [36]. Lindashiers (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Discussion of "massive copy-violation": Talk:India_Against_Corruption#Discussion_on_edits_to_Team_Anna_article. --NeilN talk to me 02:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • This is equally a disruptive edit, because this is not where the discussion on the copy-vio [37] is taking place. Lindashiers (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Sitush has directly accused me of being a sock of "Zuggernaut". Prove it. Lindashiers (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not a "new user". I have never claimed to be a new user. I am not a banned user at Wikimedia project either. I regularly edit at Wikipedia, without bothering to open accounts, in part because of the hostile attitude of squatters like User Sitush who target expert females and other minorities. The only reasons I edited under a user name is because the copy-vio notice required it to be from an "auto confirmed user".