Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive860

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

Noticeboard archives


Participation by Admin Dreadstar in edit war at The Federalist (website) AFTER fully protecting the article[edit]

I wrote the following before becoming aware of the ANI report almost immediately above ((since archived)), but it is in any case a separate issue. Dreadstar wtites there, "I've fully protected the article due to edit warring. I've also removed the material identified as a potential BLP violation. Work it out on the article talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 23:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)" But this is not ok. You don't get to win edit wars and delete what you want merely by alleging a BLP vio. Some consideration must be given to whether the allegation is simply gaming the system.

I went to look at this article after not editing it for some time, and was not shocked to discover that it was protected again. What I was a bit shocked by was this edit [1] by the protecting administrator, immediately after the protection. I had consulted a previous protecting administrator, HJ Mitchell, about scare quotes added by a third administrator, drmies, to this article which HJ Mitchell had placed under full protection, and was assured that "[an admin... work[ing] on a protected page as if it were not protected] is definitely out... Adminship is about enacting (and sometimes enforcing) consensus and, by extension, policy (which is a codification of policy). Admins shouldn't act unilaterally, and they have to respect full protection like anyone else. So they can make edits requested on the talk page that have consensus or are uncontroversial (eg typo fixes), and they can remove serious policy violations (copyvios, I would say it would have to be a serious BLP violation, vandalism, and other serious issues), but they shouldn't just edit through protection as though it wasn't there, even though they have the technical ability."[2]

But here[3] admin Dreadstar removes the disputed material from the page AFTER fully protecting it, with the comment, "BLP has been invoked, take it to the talk page". But of course HJ Mitchell had assured me that BLP had not merely to be "invoked", but there had to be a clear and serious violation for an admin to take sides. In this case the material (on Neil deGrasse Tyson's "misquote" of GWBush) is fully cited and had been on the page in substantially similar form, except when briefly removed during edit wars, for a considerable time and is substantiated by Tyson's admission of the mistake.

I brought this up with HJ Mitchell, and he pointed to WP:PREFER's statement that, "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists", otherwise declining to get involved again. But that can't be right: The Tyson material has been on the page, in substantially similar form, far longer than the coatrack of anti-Federalist material that is now the sole text content of the protected page. It has been off the page briefly during edit wars and when protection happened to catch it off the page, but the current version is in no way "an old version of the page predating the edit war".

Can I here get a recommendation that Dreadstar self-revert? Andyvphil (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG 2607:FB90:704:938C:C9D:4B21:F6A3:A960 (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
What is the meaning of this obscurity? Andyvphil (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I feel the right thing was done per WP:HARM. Consensus is not clear if the material goes against WP:BLP yet, so rather than going on like it does and it is okay to include the information it is best to air on the side of caution here and keep it removed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Dreadstar did not "keep it removed". He took affirmative action to remove the contested material. THAT is why I am here.
So-called "erring on the side of caution" has, as I noted, the effect of freezing the article on "The Federalist" in the state of being a straight attack piece on its subject. The attempt to delete this article, as well as keep any mention of Tyson's inventive way with the truth out of Wikipedia has received significant negative coverage in the conservative press, enhancing Wikipedia's reputation as a partisan environment. The attempt to delete this article failed BrD, but this gaming of the system has the effect of handing the failing side in that debate the result they wanted. Further, there at least was a tradition on Wikipedia of editors instituting page protection leaving the article in the state they found it rather than involving themselves in the content dispute, absent a clear policy violation. Failing to seriously engage the question of whether such a policy violation exists before giving one side of such a debate what it wants has serious costs. Andyvphil (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Good-faith invocations of BLP are generally to be supported; The Federalist is not a living person and is not subject to the same protections as actual people. If you think the article would be best completely stubbed, blown up and started over again, that's probably worth offering as a suggestion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, good-faith invocations of BLP are generally to be supported. The question is what to do about determined bad-faith or obtuse invocations of BLP. See WP:GAME. Is your suggestion that I have adopted a position opposite to the one I expressed in the BrD based on anything I have said? Andyvphil (talk) 07:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
No comment on this particular issue, but reality has a well-known liberal bias and Wikipedia reflects reality. --NE2 07:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The reality in this case is that there is no BLP issue with informing Wikipedia readers of The Federalist 's page of its success in bringing attention to Tyson's inventions. Somehow the liberal bias of this particular bit of reality has escaped the attention of the apparently "liberal" would-be censors, as they otherwise would presumably not be so anxious to make sure that in this case Wikipedia does not reflect reality. Feel free to inform yourself on this issue before again attempting to hijack this section. Your smugness is noted, but not helpful. Andyvphil (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Support indefinite block on reality. Facts are funny things, known unknowns, welcomed as liberators, mission accomplished, etc. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I confess I have no idea what that's intended to mean, although an indefinite block on reality is exactly what I'm being forced to combat.
Despite my pinging you[4] you have not chosen to respond to my inquiry about what you meant when you said, I think, that Obsidi had been "previously corrected" in objecting to the misleading "1RR warnings" you leave on others' talk pages. Is that your final decision? Andyvphil (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Please be mindful of edit warring on the Tyson article due to the new WP:NEWBLPBAN discretionary sanctions. It will be best to limit yourself to WP:1RR and let the other editor get blocked or topic banned." What part of that statement is misleading? Obsidi was corrected on this point in another discussion,[5] now I would like the opportunity to correct you. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. I will take this up further at the target of your link, i.e. Talk:NDG (and not, unfortunately, your "correction" of Obsidi, which is what I would still like), since I will be referring to material there. Andyvphil (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me say this again, I did NOT say that you stated that 1RR was a part of WP:NEWBLPBAN, just that it could have been mistaken to think so for someone who didnt know WP:NEWBLPBAN. You are stating it as if the other editor would get banned for violating 1RR and so you should avoid it. Now I am NOT claiming that Viriditas should be sanctioned for misrepresenting ArbCom, what you said was not incorrect. I just said it so that next time you might want to think about clarifying the fact that 1RR is not a part of WP:NEWBLPBAN so more people don't get confused. (And other then yourself "correcting" me, I have not been "corrected", and I stand by what I said) If you do need to notify someone that discretionary sanctions apply, you can use: {{Ds/alert}} or in this case {{subst:alert|blp}} --Obsidi (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh and I wish if you guys start talking about me by name on this board, I ask that you ping me next time. --Obsidi (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Ping" is an invention post-dating my last active interest in Wikipedia. I apologize for not mentioning that I had inquired of Virditas what he had said to you when I linked to here on your talk page. I'm still trying to find out if he was told then that his warnings were misleading. Andyvphil (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
What I wrote does not in any way imply that "the other editor would get banned for violating 1RR". Per the applicable sanctions, editors must "comply with all applicable policies and guidelines" and "follow editorial and behavioral best practice". That especially applies to edit warring. Self-imposed 1RR helps avoid coming under such sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a trumped up version of "the admin protected the wrong revision". It's perfectly acceptable to remove a COATRACK allegation (to which the article owes its existence in a discussion many of us are now wishing ended differently) on the basis of BLP and protect the article. Protonk (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is an essay, not policy, and even if the article were that it would not be proper for an administrator to "fix" that problem as part of the protection process. Absent a policy violation requiring immediate address (and COATRACK is obviously not that) it is completely inappropriate for a protecting admin to "fix" the text for quality -- he can revert to a stable version prior to the edit war, if it exits (as I mention above) or just leave what's on the page undisturbed. This used to be widely understood. When did it become controversial?
Dreadstar didn't "protect the wrong version". He protected the version that existed... then CREATED another. Andyvphil (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Close this Actual WP:BLP issue or not, admins are given wide discretion to enforce BLP on questionable cases. There are enough editors and reasonable information available to determine that reverting contested BLP information from the article is acceptable. The only argument is whether the material actually is a BLP violation or not. That has no impact at all on Dreadstar's revert. The fact that it is being discussed justifies his actions. Therefore, take the discussion to the talk page, gain consensus, and then restore the material.--v/r - TP 05:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Knowledgekid87 and TParis that removal was correct (controversial BLP content pending discussion). It sounds like there is a legitimate dispute about whether it's a WP:BLP violation. It might not be, and eventual discussion might find consensus that it's not (leading to re-adding it within a few days), but the case for it being problematic is not obviously nonsense and I don't see prior consensus that it should be included. BLP policy clearly gives very high priority to avoiding harm to LPs, so we should favor removing the material for now (avoiding harm to LP, at the lesser cost of the remaining content being claimed unbalanced against a non-LP). DMacks (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Whatever anyone's behavioral or edit warring issues, this an inappropriate use of tools. It undermines confidence in the neutrality of admins, or their respect for the content decisions of the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Re, "Whatever anyone's behavioral or edit warring issues...", let me repeat: I discovered this protection and edit after coming to the project page after some time away from it. I was not involved it the edit war that prompted the protection. Andyvphil (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:PROT says "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies..." It is accepted practice to remove policy violations from a protected page. Chillum 04:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Chillum, for finding the guidance policy I vaguely remembered, as recited above. But it doesn't support your conclusion. @Dreadstar: did not purport to conclude that the then-current "version contain[ed] content that clearly violate[ed] content policies". As I quote him above, he said the exact opposite: "I've also removed the material identified as a potential BLP violation."(emphasis added). Hopefully, he will come here and clarify this. Andyvphil (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Unless I missed something there is no policy violation that has been established, much less clearly so. Indeed, as far as I can tell well-established editors are arguing in good faith on both sides. So it boils down to an admin enforcing their view on a disputed content matter using admin tools. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I admit the case is not entirely clear cut. I can however imagine Dread was confident it was a clear violation at the time he/she made the edit. While the validity of the edit can be disputed I don't think there was an abuse of admin tools here. Chillum 06:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, you can imagine "Dread was confident it was a clear violation", but see my response to you above. Andyvphil (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, not abuse. Perhaps hasty use. When editors are debating whether an issue legitimately invokes BLP, best to hear it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
" to hear it out"? Meaning what, in this context? I am, sincerly, not understanding what you're saying.
If not abuse, clear error if Dreadstar made no attempt to evaluate the alleged policy violation, as he seems to say?
I've noticed him, and later pinged him, but he's failed to show up. This appears to be a violation of WP:ADMINACCT.
The protection is expiring, but I don't believe this moots the question of the propriety of his actions, absent a promise not to do it again. Which I would accept. Andyvphil (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Sarr X[edit]

Resolved: by reinstating the indefblock. Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 21 October 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.

Switched Geranium and Germanium articles

Announced so proudly on user page:

Was already banned in the past

--Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 01:14, 21 October 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.

Aggressive and abusive editing, excessive abuse etc by User:FleetCommand[edit]

At List of The Big Bang Theory characters, FleetCommand is being aggressive and confrontational in such a way that rationally disussing disputed content is not possible. He has also been edit-warring and attacking me in edit-summaries in the article. It is not presently possibly to make constructive edits to the article because FleetCommand would rather edit-war than discuss and refuses to respect WP:BRD, also demonstrating a degree of WP:OWN over the article.

FleetCommand visited my talk page a month ago. Discussion seemed to be progressing until he decided to call me scatterbrained.[6] He was called out on this by another editor,[7][8] and from there the discussion went downhill. (see archived discussion) More than a month after last editing List of The Big Bang Theory characters he returned to the article, leaving an edit summary that read "Repaired damage inflicted by User:AussieLegend".[9] The "damage" was a deliberate choice to use {{anchor}} instead of {{visible anchor}} for a non-credited name. After that edit, I fixed a template name leaving an admittedly childish summary, as a way of hinting to him that he isn't perfect either.[10] That was reverted with the summary "Reverted tendentious violation of WP:NOTBROKEN. {{tl|Official}} redirects {{tl|Official website}}. Only AussieLegend is interested in conflict. I went to his talk page in peace but he kept stonewalling me and playing dumb". Seeing that as clearly going overboard, I left a note on FleetCommand's talk page.[11] I don't believe I went too far in addressing the situation, although I was (naturally) a bit terse. At this point Codename Lisa inserted herself into the discussion. Despite attempts to give her some background (We have had prior amicable dealings at Windows XP) her posts became more and more accusatory and hypocritical. She even criticised the editor who had called out FleetCommand on my talk page, simply because he said "fuck", even though he was not part of the conversation. Eventually I chose to withdraw from that discussion, and concentrate on the content issues by moving the disussion to the article's talk page.[12] However, that didn't stop her unjustly accusing me of being a liar.[13] Discussion on the article's talk page continued but Codename Lisa continued to question my conduct so I left what I feel was an appropriate post on her talk page[14] (several times she admonished me for addressing FleetCommand's conduct but, hypocritically, continued to criticise mine[15]).

FleetCommand's involvement in the article talk page discussion had been minimal, essentially consisting of a single paragraph, to which he added a trivial question and a baseless claim of sockpuppetry.[16] Since then he has only announced that he made an edit that hadn't been properly discussed,[17] followed by an attack.[18] FleetCommand has made aggressive and inappropriate edit summaries in the article, edit-warring as he did so:

In addition to the inappropriate summaries, FleetCommand has edit-warred. Because of threats by Codename Lisa,[20] I decided to document the warring instead of fixing the errors that were introduced. I did this here for anybody who wants to look. The edit-warring continues. Today, FleetCommand made some unexplained changes to the article, which I partially reverted, explaining why in each summary.[21][22] Note that I did not revert all of his edits, as there was some constructive editing.[23] In fact I deliberately did not restore two notes that have been added to the article because of prior problems with other editors. In today's edits I also made two changes so that the article reflected what is in the sources (the previous version contained significant WP:SYNTH).[24] FleetCommand's actions were to revert most of the changes that I made,[25] leaving just this portion remaining. He graciously "consented" (his word, not mine[26]) to that edit. And there is still no attempt by him at discussion on the article talk page. I am not claiming total innocence, but I believe that I have tried my best to collaborate with this editor, only to be abused for my efforts. This is not a simple case of edit-warring. A break from the article for whatever reason has been shown not to work. After a month away FleetCommand returned to the article and with his first edits he chose to attack me.[27] While content is an important part of this, the main problem here is FleetCommand's continued aggressive editing and abusive edit summaries. He has been blocked in the past, multiple times, for his attitude to other editors and edit-warring. There are even concerns about his actions at WP:AN right now. This is an editor who needs to be reminded that he has to collaborate with other editors, and fully justify his own actions, not to rely on somebody who seems to have a rather strange off-wiki relationship with him. I'm asking that he be given some firm direction in this area, and reminded that he can't edit-war. Even after he was convinced in an IM to revert an inappropriate reversion,[28] he has continued edit-warring. He also needs to respect the BRD process and not discount edits made by other editors. Given that he's editing just as he was when he was blocked I don't have a lot of hope though. --AussieLegend () 14:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

  • User:FleetCommand: Hey, quit talking about the editor. Calling people warriors in edit summaries is going to make them warriors. Your causing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Quit being a dick. Okay, let's close this and everyone move on.--v/r - TP 19:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If only it was that easy. FleetCommand only seems to be taking advice from Codename Lisa, and then only when it suits him. In this edit he self-reverted because she told him to, but in his very next edit, he effectively reverted himself, removing a ref and completely changed the context of one statement, turning a sourced statement into nonsense.[29] that had to be fixed.[30] --AussieLegend () 20:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Those are content issues, we can only address behavioral issues here, sorry.--v/r - TP 21:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I was addressing behavioural issues. My point was that he is unlikely to take notice of your comment. The edits I referred to were examples of his inconsistent behaviour. --AussieLegend () 21:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Just keep reporting instances of WP:NPA and at some point an admin will have to take preventative action.--v/r - TP 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@TParis: Should I have to keep reporting until an admin finally decides to do something? This is an editor I'm reporting now for several instances of inappropriate behaviour including, but not limited to NPA, incivility, edit warring, asserting ownership of an article and refusing to discuss edits. This is an editor who has a long history of NPA and incivility and has been blocked for it several times. A quick check through his edit history shows instances of incivility, such as one edit where he calls another editor a pig.[31] Why shouldn't something be done now? @FleetCommand: - That Codename Lisa may have said that verification does not fail does not mean she is correct. Anyone can look at the episodes and see she is wrong and I have explained why on the article's talk page. You claim to be open to discussion, but I've tried to discuss and you don't seem to want to. All you do is edit-war and when I try to discuss you fob me off or ignore me completely. You need to collaborate and respect BRD, not make excuses not to do so. --AussieLegend () 11:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
"...when I try to discuss you..." Diff of your attempt please! Fleet Command (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, here's an example: I tried to address the issue of the unexplained heading changes,[32], which you completely ignored in your reply.[33] --AussieLegend () 16:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
"He graciously "consented" (his word, not mine[129])".
"you completely ignored in your reply."
Make up your mind. Did he ignored or did he graciously consented? (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
He graciously consented to restoring the row scopes that he deleted but completely ignored the issue of the unexplained heading changes that he had changed. --AussieLegend () 04:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If so, "completely" is false, he partially ignored, partially consented. Next, you complain when he disagrees, you complain when he is silent, you complain and mock when he consents. Hence, you complain regardless of what he does and find the idea of reaching a consensus moot. Hence, he is not to blame for what he does. (talk) 08:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I realise you're from Iran, so English probably isn't your first language, but he "completely ignored the issue of the unexplained heading changes" is entirely accurate. The point is, he only responds to what he wants to respond to. For example, I've been waiting four days for him to discuss the issue of the original research that he has inserted into the article on the article's talk page but he has not been seen there. --AussieLegend () 08:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You realize wrong; I am in Iran, not from. And I know six languages including English. But, if you want to continue down this path, please be my guest; I'll take my leave now but I would be very surprised if anyone, be it Iranians, Australians, Americans, Frenchmen, Russians, Chinese, Cubans, North Koreans or Syrians ever tried to help you. (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@TParis: You talk exactly like Codename Lisa. (So, if you ever wanted to be his paid sockpuppet, ask for a hefty sum! Face-wink.svg It was a joke by the way.)
Look here, now. I am open to an actual discussion. But a peace conference is not held in the middle of a war. Saying "The matter of failed verification has been thoroughly rebutted without further opposition" does not change the talk page sentence from "verification doesn't fail" to "verification does fail". Also, I think you would agree that I wasn't a dick throughout September. But looking at that time, do I look a hero to you? Or do I look like a dufus? Fleet Command (talk) 10:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • An example of the ongoing confrontational editing by FleetCommand can be seen above. When I replied here I noticed that FleetCommand had applied some peculiar indenting, but I tried to retain the original indenting. Expecting that fixing his would result in an inappropriate response, I decided not to fix his indenting. He subsequently changed my indenting with the edit summary "Indenting your message correctly is a good start. As for the rest, do your worst."[34] After I actually fixed the indenting, the confrontational summaries continued.[35] Instead of leaving the indenting alone, he's now moved his post after mine, so I'm now replying to a post after mine,[36] which is bound to confuse the casual reader. It doesn't matter what he's replying to, FleetCommand just continues to be confrontational. --AussieLegend () 16:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello. So, these two finally found their way into ANI? Sad but predictable.
Overall assessment:
  • The article's condition is stable; this amount of revert and partial revert is natural on any article. Only by looking at the user conduct we see that there is actually a problem.
  • Fleet Command (FC)'s edits are resentful; he edits at the wrong time, and doesn't seem to be in hurry to call in appropriate dispute resolution processes. I know how to deal with such editors; a little respect and a little compromise can solve it.
  • AussieLegend (AL) has entered Mastadon Mode: Not only he is assuming bad faith, he sees everyone and everything as threat, does not give up an inch of his position for a compromise and aggressively posts a combative reply to every talk page post. (If I posted a comment that said "Fleet Command, shut up!", AL(not FC) would have replied by saying "I won't shut up".) And most importantly, he resorts to lying a lot. Should I list them chronologically or categorically? Let's go with chronological. (See below)
  • Other involved editors are myself (Codename Lisa) and CyphoidBomb, although we didn't the article. CyphoidBomb was only present during the first stage of the dispute.
User talk:AussieLegend
The whole discussion can be seen in revision #625920663. It started on 1 September 2014. FC started it with an icebreaker, but unlike what AL said in the opening statement here, it was not going well. I was aware that AL is misinforming FC, although only when the "scatterbrained" comment came I realized that FC was acutely aware of this. Now, AL did mention that CyphoidBomb used less-that-civil language to scold FC. What he didn't mention – TParis, I hope you are reading this – was that FC apologized early in the incident. almost immediately. In addition, AL does not seem much bothered by this brief exchange at that time. Later, CyphoidBomb also apologized. Most importantly, the discussion didn't go downhill since; it died then and there, and not because of the brief uncivil exchange.
User talk:FleetCommand
The whole discussion can be seen in revision #629285971 except for what's visible in revision #629165515. Please correct me if I am wrong but the opening statement by AL is purely ad hominem because its purpose seems to be to hurt, to threaten or to get even. (It certainly wasn't a collegial attempt to resolve any dispute.) When I tried to calm both down and said "discuss the content, not the people"; FC replied "let's do it" while AL replied "don't throw NPA at me"!
Also, AL revealed his absolute unwillingness to give any form of compromise, not matter how small. Normally, when I see such edit, I don't bother thinking about it, let alone bringing it to ANI. If I know that it upsets someone and hinders discussion, I categorically avoid it. Instead, AL did this: [37] Childish! Very Childish! It is the very embodiment of refusing to have any compromise even one that makes no difference to anyone. Also, see how AL actually defends this edit in the opening statement. It would have been a more convincing argument if AL said "okay, I made a mistake. Doesn't everyone?" (Indeed it can happen.) But no! He says 'The "damage" was a deliberate choice to use instead of for a non-credited name'. (The problem is, if I did believe it was a deliberate choice, it would have been vandalism.)
Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters
AL contended above FC's presence in the discussion was minor. But what he didn't say was that the so-called discussion didn't deal much with the treatment of the dispute and was mostly exchange of incivilities. Mainly, he refused to get the point, especially, when had no answer for the objections registered. Lying was his modus operandi and assuming good faith or the will to negotiate was non-existent. FC didn't do good there either; not participating in uncivil discussions is good but it is not dispute resolution. WP:DRN and WP:RFC were the avenues that he must have tried. Most importantly, none of them properly explored the avenue of alternatives to resolve their dispute. In fact, I did that. But I shouldn't flatter myself.
Perhaps the most important thing that AL did in that discussion was one particularly nasty comment that forever shattered any hope of having good relations with FC. FC implemented a particular form of compromise that I had proposed and asked whether it is edit warring. Naturally, yes and no are both wrong answers. So, instead I resorted to invoking a certain event in which one editor reverted another 56 times in the same day, under the supervision of six admins, and was one of the most peaceful and constructive wiki-cooperations I ever had encountered. (FYI, it was a WP:FACR speedy resolution, if you are wondering what that could be!) I was hoping that this memory will forever erase any thought of further dispute from FC's mind by showing that no matter what, a collegial discussion is more worthy than any outcome of it. It didn't, because AL came along and posted a comment that showed that he would simply go to any length to fight FC just for the hell of it. AL could have just shut up and enjoy the outcome, but no! He must poke the sleeping hellhound. Eventually, I switched to instant messaging (IM) and convinced FC to end this whole inferno with revision #629673768.
User talk:FleetCommand § BRD
Well, here AL is wrong, plain and simple! He is not assuming good faith; otherwise, BRD is followed perfectly. FC said "I did a B. You partially reverted, especially the scope part. That's an R. I consented, matter closed." In the opening statement, AL has described this as an instance of WP:OWN because he assumes bad faith. But in reality, this sentence is saying "I liked your revert; we have a consensus". For all I know, this could have been what I and one of my esteemed colleagues do, except without the talk page showdown and without the ANI.
Final comment
I see two editors; one who starts a potentially troublesome discussion with a discuss-first approach and is mature enough to say "I humbly apologize"; another editor who cannot even confess that he made a slight mistake (which everybody does every now and then) and must interfere in a topic that he knows nothing about just to incite more hatred and combat. Can I really be mad at the first one?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Codename Lisa presents what is best described as an unrealistic and severely distorted view of events:
"I was aware that AL is misinforming FC," - No, that's not true. I was informing FC what was normal practice, even citing examples. I actually doubt that claim as Codename Lisa was not involved until I posted on FleetCommand's talk page, well over a month after FleetCommand attacked me at mine.
"What he didn't mention – TParis, I hope you are reading this – was that FC apologized almost immediately." - That's also not true at all. FC called me scatterbrained,[38] and was challenged by Cyphoidbomb.[39] FleetCommand then tried to justify his incivility by arguing that it would have been more uncivil not to because it would be relevant at RfA.[40] (If you can understand that you are better than me!) Meanwhile, I was still carrying on a conversation with FleetCommand,[41] and other editors on my talk page. From the time that FleetCommand was first uncivil to the "apology", (note this edit summary) NINE days elapsed.[42] In that time he made 25 other edits. That's not even in the realm of the realm next to "almost immediately"!
"AL does not seem much bothered by this brief exchange at that time" - No, I was bothered by it but I chose to ignore it, other than making a single comment.[43]
"Please correct me if I am wrong but the opening statement by AL is purely ad hominem because its purpose seems to be to hurt, to threaten or to get even" - Yes, you're wrong. I saw fit to post because of yet another of FleetCommand's uncivil/NPA edit summaries.[44] His attitude towards other editors is far too agressive and clearly needed to be reminded of the ramifications.
"When I tried to calm both down and said "discuss the content, not the people"; FC replied "let's do it" while AL replied "don't throw NPA at me"!" - Rubbish. What you actually said is here and my response was this. I did not say "don't throw NPA at me" until you had persistently attacked me for daring to take umbrage at FleetCommand's uncivil/NPA edit summaries. You have persistently said "discuss the content, not the people", but then you do exactly that yourself.
"AL contended above FC's presence in the discussion was minor. But what he didn't say was that the so-called discussion didn't deal much with the treatment of the dispute and was mostly exchange of incivilities." - Because of Lisa's own aggressive actions at FleetCommand's talk page I withdrew from the page and tried to continue a discussion there. That discussion seemed to be productive up until this post (ignoring FleetCommand's bogus sockpuppetry claim[45]) but then Codename Lisa decided to continue her attacks from FleetCommand's page.[46] She could easily have omitted the last paragraph of her post but instead, once again, decided to question my "questionable past conduct". since then I've had to ask her more than once to keep on topic.[47][48] However, even attempting to keep the focus on editors off the page,[49] has not been successful.
"because AL came along and posted a comment that showed that he would simply go to any length to fight FC just for the hell of it" - More rubbish. All I did was copy what Wikipedia:Edit warring actually said in response to an off-topic discussion that should have been conducted on FleetCommand or Codename Lisa's talkpage, or via IM, instead of continong to drag the discussion off-topic.
There is plenty more of Codename Lisa's post that warrants comment because it is blantantly and verifiably incorrect, but I'm sure nobody wants to read it. Ironically, the one thing that FleetCommand and I do agree on is that her presence at the article has not been helpful.[50] --AussieLegend () 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I too disagree with Lisa's claim that FC almost immediately apologized. FC's first reaction was to downplay the insult against Aussie by pretending he was insulting Aussie for Aussie's own good. It wasn't until 9 days after the insult that FC struck it out with a "Whatever..." edit summary, then apologized. I also disagree with Lisa's claim that my language was incivil. I described the insult (not Fleet the individual) as "shit" (which I felt it was) and as "irritating as fuck" to read (which I felt it was). I described Fleet's attempt to backpedal on the insult as "crap" and "sub-adult", the latter of which is no different from Lisa's "Childish! Very Childish!" language above. That said, after Lisa accused me of "grossly" insulting Fleet, I apologized to Fleet Command because I hoped that doing so might help repair some of this damage between he and Aussie. I stand by the apology and still hope that it helps. I absolutely do not see eye-to-eye with Lisa on this matter, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
You are right: "Almost immediately" is struck out. I meant to write something along the lines of having happened relatively early in the timeline of the whole incident. Sorry. Codename Lisa (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Early in the incident" is still somewhat misleading. There are two parts to the "incident" and his apology wasn't until the very end of the first part, after which there were 22 days of peace before he started again. --AussieLegend () 08:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The correct phrase is "almost immediately after spotting the thread". I was absent for 9 days (no edits on 9th through 16th) and when I came back I tended to my watchlist from top to bottom, so yes, naturally I didn't see it before I made some (25?) edits. Although I don't know about Australian English, here, "Whatever..." is an interjection of dismissal which I used to dismiss my old "scatterbrained" comment. Of course, striking out that comment was an emergency action. I needed time to re-study everything and measure exactly what to write. (One forgets a lot in 9 days.) It took 32 minutes.
"Early in the incident" is also correct: "Early" is relative; CL has illustrated four stages. It occurred on stage 1 out of 4, so yes, it was early. Fleet Command (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"Spotting the thread"? What, you didn't realise the thread existed, even after you'd been posting in it? Why couldn't you have apologised before you disappeared, or not have posted the insult at all? It's all well and good that you eventually apologised, but you shouldn't have been uncivil in the first place, and you know that. You then went and undid the effect that you apology may have had with this post. You've just made it worse by acknowledging here that working through your watchlist was more important than apologising.
"striking out that comment was an emergency action" - If it had really been an emergency you would have done it before going through your watchlist. You knew that you'd been uncivil before you absented yourself. You didn't need a watchlist to tell you that and after striking out your edit with "whatever" you went off and made 5 other edits before returning. You're clearly making excuses here but they're transparent. --AussieLegend () 13:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Disclaimers: 1) Personal involvement with AussieLegend and 2) I only skimmed through (way too much to bother reading thoroughly) this and Talk:List of The Big Bang Theory characters and List of The Big Bang Theory characters revision history and their talk pages' histories.
That said, skimming through this AussieLegend seems to just confirm my first impressions of him: If he can't convince someone with the first few instant reverts, which he is convinced he is correct in doing (which may or may not be true), he will then start "explaining" – often quite convincingly. If somebody reads through what he wrote and manages to finds "errors" and it gets pointed out where in his initial revert reasoning he might be wrong, he will not admit it, but keep on digging deeper into the hole, or if possible, find other policy violations (which may or may not be correct) and dig another second hole. Repeat these steps for as long as necessary.
My impression of FleetCommand is that he maybe seems to get a bit too heated (maybe) too fast, and sometimes too blunt and direct choice of words for the other person's taste. But when he cools down he can admit if he actually did something wrong. But if it doesn't get pointed out he did wrong, he will also stubbornly continue until convinced otherwise.
Make the discussion long enough and the other part usually just can't be bothered any more and gives up. Except if they both are equally stubborn. Just my short biased opinion based after briefly looking/skimming through. -Hekseuret (talk) 11:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It's true, I do try to explain. That's part of the process but, try as I might, sometimes the other person just doesn't want to listen. --AussieLegend () 12:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I wish I could say you don't listen too, but it wouldn't be entirely true. You just straight out ignore what others say if you have it in your mind it is incorrect. -Hekseuret (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring by FleetCommand at WP:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28

This link stated, "...(3) as per WP:TPO notice of change is needed)".  FC reverted without inserting a WP:TPO comment, while the objection shown in the edit summary could have been handled via the talk page.  The revert, while not 3RR edit-warring, was the out-of-control aggressive behavior restricted by WP:Edit warringUnscintillating (talk) 12:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And that close has subsequently been undone.[51] --AussieLegend () 13:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Wrong forum. Closure is already discussed in WP:ANB. Edit warring must be discussed in WP:AN3. No one is supposed to edit a closed discussion. Doing this compromises the integrity of closure and makes the closing person look like a complete fool. Also digging dirt on other people only makes the dirt digger look bad. WP:NOTBATTLE, so cut it out. (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This all goes to presenting an overall picture of the editor's behaviour. You can't draw lines and say "talk about this bit here, that bit over there and that bit over there". All of the different aspects overlap. If we were to go to each specific forum to address each specific aspect, we'd be accused of gaming the system. --AussieLegend () 10:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The point by the IP was that you don't edit closed/archived discussions. If you disagree about a closure you find other ways to bring up your disagreement. -Hekseuret (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The point by the IP was that you don't edit closed/archived discussions. If you disagree about a closure you find other ways to bring up your disagreement. -Hekseuret (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Closed discussions are routinely edited, so your knowledge or lack thereof is consistent
Which is exactly the point of my post, Fleet Command should not have used editor warring
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talkcontribs) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@@FleetCommand:: Don't feed divas. Use WP:DR. (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Note that an editor has removed a template, diff, without leaving a notice of the change in the discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The edit comment for the removal argues that the above post by "is not arguing in favor of either of the participants".  By inspection, the above comment has told Aussie Legend to "cut it out".  The above comment further advocates that administrators are required to disregard evidence of Fleet Command's edit warring because this forum is not WP:3RR.  I submit that this comment is partial, not impartial; therefore the edit comment by Codename Lisa, claiming the neutrality of, is not verified. and Codename Lisa are partial.  Administrators have been provided evidence of edit warring.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Lia Olguța Vasilescu should not be deleted![edit]

It is well sourced and a fact from Lia Olguța Vasilescu appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 11 October 2014. It is against the spirit of wikipedia to remove a fine article like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osugiba (talkcontribs) 14:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that: ...DYKs have been deleted before (see Chihiro number)?Epicgenius (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok then, let that argument go. But it is a well-sourced uncontroversial article. Osugiba (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Created by a sock - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi. Deleted. Dougweller (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And then deleted, and then recreated. See the new thread I'm about to post below. -- Hoary (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

New editor making usual edits to political party categories. Sock?[edit]

New editor Huge456 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who's first edit was to change an infobox photo, has been adding entertainers to political party categories if the entertainer has ever even mentioned support for the party, and even if they have since disavowed that support. Examples: at Gary Numan's bio and Tracey Emin's bio. Huge456 justifies these edits by referencing inclusion criteria that they added to the category itself here ("Past and present members or supporters of the Conservative Party (UK)"). In the case of Gary Numan; he has specifically disavowed support for the Conservative Party ("...there was a Scottish newspaper that ran a big feature that had me down as Conservative, which was an absolute bloody lie."), making Huge456's three insertions WP:BLP violations. I have tried to explain to Huge456 why this is a problem.

The editor seems WP:PRECOCIOUS, and engages in edit warring and other conduct reminiscent of user Goredog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked by Callanecc for similar behavior. Notice also the bracket bot warning on both user's talk pages, and the swapping of infobox images. I don't have time now to investigate this thoroughly, but I wanted to see if anyone else thinks Huge456 might be a sock of a previous user. Thank you. - MrX 14:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The category clearly states that it is there for current and former supporters of the various parties, however I think it is a joke that you are trying to claim that I might be a sock because I am adding categories to articles, as any user can evidently see that you were the one who first started edit warring by reverting my editions. You say that because bracket bot has mentioned that I accidentally did not add a bracket to certain edits that means I'm a sock? I have just taken a look at various other editors talk pages and so far 5 of them have bracket bot mentioning that they have not added brackets, does this mean they are socks as well, no it does not! Swapping info box images, you mean I added a more recent and up to date image of someone however people disagreed with it because you could not see the face clear enough, does that make someone a sock puppet also, once again it does not! I can see that you are being quite petty be accusing me of various things, when all I have done is add a category to Gary Numan and you didn't agree. To claim i'm a sock because bracket bot has written on my talk page, as he has done with countless other users, is both ridiculous and absurd. I am honestly quite shocked by your behaviour and others who read your accusations will undoubtedly view your accusations as absurd. Huge456 (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The category name is Conservative Party (UK) people, which strongly suggests a link to the party itself, not merely a political support for conservative (small c) principles. The description was only extended to include "or supporters" by your edit.
The scope of this category needs to be clarified. I see a clear value to "party people" meaning a declared connection with the party. There could also be scope for "conservative supporters", although this is both different (likely a parent category) and also hard to validate per WP:BLP. It should have defined conditions set out clearly beforehand, as per the comments at talk:.
I don't much care whether "conservative supporters" is created or not, but it should not replace the separately notable "party people" category.
As to the issue at Tracey Emin and Gary Numan then we have to meet BLP first and foremost. There is a source at Emin that says she claims to have voted Conservative (and claims no more than that). That is not adequate alone to include here in either of these categories: it could equally be said of millions of UK voters and probably thousands of notable UK BLP subjects. I don't believe a category framed to be quite so wide would have any encyclopedic value. A category of "Famous household names who voted Conservative" would also fail WP:SYNTH.
We have sourcing to say "Emin voted Conservative". It may be true that Emin is a prominent supporter of conservative politics, but we would have to additionally source that. To say that she is "Conservative party people" we'd have to both show a connection (not merely support) to that level and also sourcing of this to meet WP:BLP. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that this edit by the user shows a worrying wp:POV trait, by a user who also seems to shun wp:RSs and wp:ESs (except when he's giving his/her point of view). Also, it's dubious behaviour to remove warnings from one's own user talk page. Trafford09 (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Your last sentence is contrary to policy and I suggest you strike it. WP:REMOVED: "Policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of material from a user page is normally taken to mean that the user has read and is aware of its contents. There is no need to keep them on display and usually users should not be forced to do so." --Obsidi (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I take your point, Obsidi, but I think my point is still worth keeping, as it may help others detect if Huge456's MO is similar to others'. S/he could have left the warnings or archived them but - counter to WP's preferred course - simply deleted them. I was careful not to say that this is scorned, as I knew the policy to which you rightly refer. The user might have used the warning to argue his/her case, in constructive & AGF-inducing spirit, but chose otherwise. Trafford09 (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Users are free to delete anything they want to from their talk pages, provided they don't selectively delete and hence distort the picture; or if they've filed an unblock request that was rejected, it has to stay on their page until the block is done. The "preferred" way is nothing more than a recommendation. The user talk page history effectively serves as an archive. If you're looking for similar MO's, don't put too much weight on deletion instead of archiving, as many users do it that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hero456 seems interested in UK politics, Goredog in US. Although the technique has similarities, I think two distinct targets for their efforts like this would be unusual in a sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor repeatedly removing well-sourced genres from Duran Duran[edit]

IP blocked by Ricky81682 -- Euryalus (talk) 09:27, 21 October 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.

Duran Duran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Over the last six months or so, the Anon has repeatedly removed well sourced genres from Duran Duran and been reverted by at least five editors including me. There are no fewer than four cites for Duran Duran being new wave in the infobox. The talk:Duran Duran page is full of discussion on Duran Duran being new wave with numerous sources citing such. There are currently 144 mentions of new wave on the talk page.

Anon states (here Duran Duran have never been the Americentric new wave. Many sources prove this beyond all doubt. Please do not change this. Personal agendas should not be given space to distort proven facts. Thank you for your attention. (formatted / sentence case). S/he seems unwilling to accept sources that contradicts personal belief. Anon has not supplied more than one cite quoting a band member as saying they are not new wave. S/he has added somewhat to talk:Duran Duran, and has removed legitamate talk appearantly in contradiciton with beleifs Removed trash talk What part of 'removed trash talk' did you not understand?

Some of the removals in reverse order: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The IP's edits have taken place over the last six months and has been blocked for edit warring once.

I personally don't care what Duran Duran's genre is and couldn't ID a Duran Duran song to save my life. I would like the genre warring (reduced considerably since the addition of the cites) to be reduced or stop. Would it be possible to get resolution on this matter? Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for six months. It would have been faster for you to use Template:Uw-vandalism3 and Template:Uw-vandalism4 and report it to WP:AIV I think. I'll keep a watch on the article but I don't think semiprotection is warranted at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 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.

Repeated recreation[edit]

Hi. Exploter has been created and speedied twice. Can we put a block on it or do we need to wait for the third time? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do anything yet. Since both creations have been by the same editor, we can simply block him if he continues recreating it, and at any rate we normally don't salt a page with just two creations. I've left a personalised note for the editor, trying to explain why continued creation is a bad idea. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Offering cures to Ebola at the Ref Desk[edit]

Users User:Wnt and User:Aspro have decided that we should be offering links to unreferenced cures to Ebola at the reference desk, and have reverted hatting of such material. This is not only in violation of WP:RS it's in violation of Wikipedia:General Disclaimer. The material should be deleted, and the editors admonished, if not blocked for obvious violations of WP policy. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Cures? More like comments on the observance of good hygiene practices. The question of references on WP articles vs Ref Desk has come up before. The sun will rise tomorrow- do I need to add a reference to that? Yet μηδείς (who until very recently, has added some very good contribution) recently added Nitrous oxide works largely as an asphyxiant, and regularly kills those such as dentists who abuse it. Google laughing gas death. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC) [52]. I would have thought that that needed a reference, as I myself have had more than one tooth extraction with nitrous oxide and that is not how it works. Oxygen is given with nitrous oxide to prevent hypoxia. Is the pot calling all the other kettles black? This editors appear to have changed of late and wants everybody to dance to thier tune.--Aspro (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
My response to this is at [53]. My sources are in my original comment as linked in the unhatting above. To claim that I "violated WP:RS", let alone the General Disclaimer (!) seems very peculiar. The purpose of this discussion should be to encourage people to think about the question and try to bring relevant sources and concepts to bear on it, and I think I've done so. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Here are a few thousand Google hits on Nitrous Oxide suffocation: [54]. Here are zero hits on curing Ebola with fossils: [0]. This unreferenced and unreferenceable bee ess needs to be hatted, and I suggest an admin do so. Wikipedia:General Disclaimer μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The OP on that question asked about some quack remedy for ebola. We don't need Wikipedia's ref desk being cited as a potential source for such misinformation. The question had been answered, namely that there is no remedy proven so far, except treating the symptoms and letting the immune system take over. There was nothing else to say about it, and no reason to keep it open. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Medeis has built a nice straw man here. The word "cure" only appears where Bugs says there isn't one. Wnt was just generally offering related scientific findings, without making any claims of cures. Aspro's response was mostly about disinfectants and information access, and made in response to questions about bleach. There's clearly no false "cure" for Ebola being offered there. Aspro's repsonse did seem slightly WP:SOAPy to me by bringing up the cost of cruise missiles, though I see that as a very minor issue that doesn't need investigation (I also happen to agree with the sentiment re:missiles, so that might bias my interpretation of how serious the potential SOAP issue is :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The information at issue here, while somewhat speculative, was appropriate and well-cited. No "cures" were offered or promised. There was no reason to hat the thread. The stated reason for hatting, "medical something", proves that there was no reason to hat the thread. We have a well-defined and well-applied prohibition against offering medical advice. We have no prohibition against discussing medical information. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It would be interesting enough to know if I created this strawman--please do a checkuser on me--I mean it--but, can we please otherwise have an opinion by at least three uninvolved admins?
Is offering treatments for Ebola an appropriate function of the ref desk that doesn't violate Wikipedia:General disclaimer? "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area."
Is there nothing one can't just make up there as fact? μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Medeis: When I reverted your edit I urged you to discuss at the talk page, where this sort of thing has been done to death in the past. There are general refdesk guidelines, and there is a specific "Kainaw's criterion" that has generally served as the point of compromise. The gist of this is that there's a difference between diagnosing or recommending specific treatment for an individual person, and discussing the general state of biological knowledge. If we discuss whether garlic could protect against Ebola, or whether salt could cause cancer, or whether red meat could cause heart disease, or whether poke berries are poisonous, or whether coffee protects against diabetes, these things are not advice for an individual person, but general state of knowledge questions. Referring generally to the disclaimer for the entire site only adds confusion, since it suggests people looking for specific advice to go elsewhere but does not demand it. It should be very clear that the statement about financial advice does not prohibit readers from looking up the difference between a Roth and a traditional IRA, for example... even if using what our article says is potentially problematic. Wnt (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I have to support Wnt and Aspro here. The question asked fell clearly on the 'acceptable' side of "Kainaw's criterion" which has been the consensus bright-line criterion that must be crossed in order for a Ref Desk question to be considered to be a request for medical advice. Medeis' has a long history of hatting threads for seemingly personal reasons, using "justifications" that are more imaginary than any kind of Ref Desk policy - nearly everyone on the ref desk would love to see the back of this disruptive editor who has been the subject of many, many complaints in the past. Medeis' rants frequently stay beyond acceptable limits - most recently: [55]. SteveBaker (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Medeis, you made a straw man out of my accusation that you made a straw man! You should get some points for that. That is, you misrepresented my claim that you were misrepresenting Wnt and Aspros contributions, by linking to hoax, not straw man - they are rather different things. I apologize if my usage was unclear, and perhaps I should have linked in my original comment. I certainly don't think you are making any hoax, just that the text responses in question do not offer "cures" for Ebola. To claim that they are is a misrepresentation of a position, aka a "straw man." But sure, we should here from disinterested/uninvolved admins, I too will be curious to see their input. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ownership issues on Joan Smalls[edit]

There seems to be some (semi) long-term ownership issues at the Joan Smalls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article that likely won't be remedied through traditional avenues. Also, the participants are various IPs and the one user involved, Friendlypete2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), has not edited under that account since July 2014. I edited the article last night in a vain attempt to bring it up to standards. It was full of fan puffery, a questionable source (wordpress), style issues galore and other minor issues. My edit was reverted as vandalism by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) today. I reverted back and, while leaving a note on the talk page, my edit was reverted as vandalism again by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). After looking through the article history, I decided to bring the issue here as it seems various IPs and Friendlypete2014 have been reverting nearly all changes made to the article by anyone (diffs below).

I'll notify the IPs and the one user involved but considering the amount of IPs and the fact that FriendlyPete2014 hasn't edited in quite some time, I have not left them a personalized note about ownership, style guides, what vandalism actually is, blah. Seems pointless really because I don't think the D in BRD is gonna work in this situation as they're determined to keep the article their way. I think some long term semi-protection might force the participants to go to talk or, at the very least, give others a chance to bring the article up to standards for more than a day. Pinkadelica 13:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done some more clean-up and things have since gone quiet. I will add this article to my watch-list and will monitor. Note FriendlyPete2014 has also been repeatedly uploading non-free images to place in the article, so we need to watch for that as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Diannaa. Pinkadelica 15:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and shenanigans at Molly Ringwald and related articles[edit]

Since early this summer, there have been on-and-off efforts to add peacock phrases and promotional content to Molly Ringwald, associated articles, and a few other actress articles, like Heather Langenkamp and Amy Weiss. A few examples are edits like these: [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] (The last one is a giveaway that something screwy is going on -- the film's budget is changed to a fabricated low level so the article can claim that the film was a commercial success rather than a money-loser).

There are a batch of accounts involved, with similar behavior patterns -- aside from the promotional tendencies, none have a user page, all rarely if ever use edit summaries, and at least two use screen names matching up to Ringwald characters. But until this weekend, there wasn't quite enough evidence to conclude that we weren't dealing with a cluster of like-minded fans. But in the last few days several of the accounts have been uploading obviously nonfree images for (obviously inappropriate) use in BLPs, and two of the accounts have been using the same defective NFCC rationale -- see File:Molly Ringwald in For Keeps.jpg, uploaded by User:Clairestandish, and File:MollyRingwaldBetsysWedding.jpg, uploaded by User:Darcyelliot. Further evidence of coordination between accounts: once the Clairestandish account had been warned to discontinue the misuse of nonfree images, that account stopped -- but User:AintNoOther promptly resumed the campaign, uplolading File:Ringwald on the cover of Time.jpg and adding a nonfree movie poster to the Ringwald BLP [61]. In addition, User:IAmUnbroken has added nonfree images just uploaded by these accounts to the Ringwald BLP (eg, [62]).

The accounts involved that I've spotted are:

There may be more.

User:GB fan and User:Dismas have also noted irregularities at the Ringwald article, and have discussed an SPI, looking primarily at the misuse of nonfree images [63]. I think there's certainly enough evidence for a checkuser to act on, and quite likely for a few expeditious blocks. Whoever's behind this (whether one user or several) has become more active lately, and the problems, especially with nonfree images, are spreading to more articles. See, for example, the recent history of Lori Hallier and Tuesday Knight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: If this is a request for a sockpuppet investigation, WP:SPI is the place - NickGibson3900 Talk 08:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive creation of AFDs (again)[edit]

Frequent visitors here may recall that User:MayVenn created several disruptive AFDs because they disliked an editor who had contributed to the articles in question. Well now we have a "brand new" account, created just a few days ago, doing something similar. That user is User:Geoffreyofmonmouth and the user who is being targeted by their AFDs appears to be User:MJT21, as was first noted by User:Andy Dingley. I, like Andy, think something is suspicious here, but I'm not sure what. I am requesting admin input regarding whether this is just a coincidence, or a blockable offense, or something in between. Sockpuppetry seems to be the most obvious explanation. Jinkinson talk to me 01:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this is probably more about Bedford Modern School than about one editor's work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Geoffreyofmonmouth and user:Bristolbottom have similar contributions, both making afd nominations of articles created by MJT21. Reasons for nomination are almost identical; MayVenn is targeting a different user and the style does not match. (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I know, the style does not match, it's clear that MayVenn is not the same user as Geoffrey or Bristolbottom. Sorry if you got the (incorrect) impression that I thought that. Jinkinson talk to me 22:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of RfC close/revert at Neil deGrasse Tyson[edit]

This discussion is done, with thanks to Aprock for their good-faith effort and to Future Perfect at Sunrise for their diligence. This is ANI; the real problem, if there is one (see the last comment by Carrite, for instance), must be handled elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 21 October 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.

Last night, after spending a couple of hours reviewing the discussion at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson I closed an WP:RFC at Neil deGrasse Tyson. The RfC had been open for 28 days, and the conversation regarding that specific RfC had died out roughly two weeks ago with the last contribution to the RfC being on October 5th. The RfC specifically requested that only WP:DUE weight be considered in the closing, and I closed based on that policy and WP:BLP writing: "Closing this as do not include on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, so without excellent sourcing - which establishes the weight of this incident in the context of Dr. Tyson's life and career - the default of non-inclusion applies." The closure was reverted by a !voter in this edit with the summary: "there is no need to close a still active RFC, particularly the way this editor did so." I suspect that the reverting editer may have been referring to one of the four other non-RfC proposals on the talk page: Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#terse_NPOV_proposal, Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Alternative_proposal, Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#alternative_text, and Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#alternative_text_2 -- none of which appear to be gaining consensus. Could someone please review the close/revert/etc? aprock (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This closure occurred at a time in which there was consensus that "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC." It was specifically requested by me before the closure, that we let an uninvolved administrator preform the closure given how many people had commented on this and the contentious and unclear nature of if we had a consensus or not. No one else had objected to that request as the time of the closure. I still hope that when the full 30 days is complete that it is closed by an uninvolved administrator. --Obsidi (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Please link to this claimed consensus: "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The request for an uninvolved administrator to close the RFC was made before closure here. At the time of closure, no other editor had objected to that request. --Obsidi (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I specifically spent time reviewing WP:CLOSE before closing this to make sure I was adhering to policy. Unfortunately, your specific request was lost in the WP:WALL of text. In the future, if you wish to make a request for closure, the best place to do that is at WP:ANRFC. aprock (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't ready yet to request a closure (as I wanted to wait the full 30 days), but I did want to make sure that whenever it was done, it was done by an uninvolved administrator. The request was on its own bullet point at the end of the RfC, not mixed into a wall of text (I don't understand the link to WP:WALL which is about walled gardens). --Obsidi (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the appropriate wiki essay is WP:WALLS. aprock (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Huh? There was consensus that "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC"? This is the first I've ever heard of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This editor is not an administrator. This RfC is unusual in it's weight and is high visibility inside and outside the encyclopedia. Closure by a respected administrator is indicated, not an unremarkable average editor. In addition, his rationale for closure is practically non-existant, consisting basically of citing "BPP", "Contentious", citing a couple policies and then saying no. That's the limit of his rationale. We have been debating this issue heatedly for about a month, and to have it closed with two quick terse sentences, without citing examples and rationale using the actual case at hand as discussed is insulting to the amount of time and effort invested in debating this issue. Furthermore, this editor closed the RfC with BLP rationale. This has implications towards it's includablity throughout the encyclopedia. BLP was not the subject of the RfC. WEIGHT and UNDUE were the issues stated in the RfC. To let this RfC stand would be a travesty. Marteau (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec)I suggest that where a closure is likely to be contentious per se, that it is wise to have an admin do the closing. I demur that any substantive BLP concerns were involved once Tyson specifically admitted to the misuse of a quote, (or proper use of a misquote?) Deprecating the !votes weight which relied on there being any doubt as to the events would seem proper here. Once the doubt was removed from the table, the claims cease to be contentious. I would also suggest the !votes based on there being a "conspiracy" to make the charges should be deprecated per common sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge: Please read WP:CLOSE which states However, requests for closure may be made to an uninvolved administrator for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear. Then look at the edit by @Obsidi: Given the contentious nature of this RfC, I am asking that only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC when the time period is up? Frankly, I think the wording needs to be tightened, can anyone ask for this at any time, but I do not see any objection, or anything at WP:CLOSE to justify ignoring the request. Do you? What should Obsidi have done differently, put it in red text?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You bet. I couldn't agree more. This was an extremely poor choice as a WP:NAC given the contentiousness. Msnicki (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That close was very short to be the result of a "couple hours" of review. That said, the main problem with it is that the text of the close itself cites no such research, only alluding to ephemeral "BLP concerns" that have not, as yet, been elucidated. And given the fact that Dr. Tyson himself has now addressed this incident in a very public way, such "concerns" are now moot. Any close (admin or not) should weigh the arguments, not just count noses, so-to-speak. This close seems like little more than counting and seeing that there were roughly equal numbers of each, without weighing the merit of the arguments. LHMask me a question 17:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:RfC#Ending RfCs clearly states than an RfC can be closed by any editor. Criticizing the closer for not being an admin is basically an ad hominem attack. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Criticizing the closer for being an "unremarkable average editor" isn't just a personal attack, it's also pretty uncollegial and, really, revolting, esp. since the person making that claim managed to rack up around one-fifth of the article edits that the closer collected. Their 177 edits on the NdGT talk page suggest they have a big dog in this fight. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Its possible LHM considers himself an "unremarkable average editor" as well. --Obsidi (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This is possible, but that's not uncollegial. Calling someone else "unremarkable average" is. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I did not use that phrase, but I would not be offended if someone used it in regards to me. LHMask me a question 17:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am the unremarkable, average editor who said it and I stand by it as a proper categorization of the closer. Perhaps someone could enlighten me about what makes him remarkable beyond his entry into this affair. Marteau (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I will admit to being uncollegial for I feel the close was a disgrace and reckless and my language reflected that. I will, however, strive to use less contentious verbiage in the future. Marteau (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Considering that Jimbo weighed in on this discussion with an opinion the opposite of that of the closing person, perhaps an admin with impeccable credentials should have closed this RFC. This solution is not ideal. Kelly hi! 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Already getting attention by the people who highlighted the controversy to begin with.[64] Kelly hi! 17:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, we should be mindful of any off-Wiki canvassing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is Jimbo's opinion more important that any other editor? It isn't. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want uninvolved admin eyes on this thing, I can have a look over it; if I find something seriously faulty with the non-admin closure, I might re-open it. However, it is my understanding of policy that closing RfCs is not automatically a privileged domain of admins, and if the closure was otherwise properly done, the non-admin status of the closer as such won't invalidate it. Fut.Perf. 17:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Fut.Perf.. Sure, if a close is contentious, admin endorsement may count for something, though the presence of the admin-abuse crowd has a tendency to render that point moot as well. In addition, that something "was specifically requested by me before the closure" is neither here nor there. Anyone can specifically request anything, but it doesn't always mean anything. In this case, it means nothing. For the record, I don't think I know the closer from Adam, but if they say they spent a few hours reviewing the case, I trust their ability to summarize it in a sentence or two. It's called AGF. Besides, not getting what you want out of the close is hardly a good enough reason to argue it should be overturned, and Jimbo's opinion is just that, an opinion, worth no more than yours or mine--that is, if argued with equal strength. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fut.Perf., thanks for agreeing to wade into this contentious issue. Just a head's up - the RFC has already been re-opened although I'm not sufficiently conversant with RFC closure process to know whether a non-admin re-opening the closure is proper. I'm sure we'll sort it all out eventually. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I have posted my review of the closure at the RfC [65]. It boils down to an endorsement of Aprock's close. Fut.Perf. 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm astounded that a non-admin would decide to close this. But the problem may be in the RfC guidance, which doesn't even hint that it would be best for admins to close such a contentious issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree with Sphilbrick. Permissible according to policy, but poor judgement. Contentious issues should be closed by admins only because a sysop has, generally, community consensus about their understanding of policy.--v/r - TP 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I started a discussion Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Guidance_on_who_can_close --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(ec) ::::This view doesn't conform to the language at WP:CLOSE or the related policy WP:DELETE. If the language there is out of date it should be updated to reflect a new community consensus. Reviewing the talk pages for WP:CLOSE and WP:DELETE, I don't see a lot of discussion of editor vs. admin. Thanks for starting the conversation about closing. aprock (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
See below.--v/r - TP 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
"Astounded" is a very odd reaction - nonadmin closes regularly come to this board and AN, and over and over again - we get back the same result - nothing is done to restrict it any further than it already is (for delete) primarily because there is an apparent belief that admin is no big deal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the point is that we cannot write hard rules into this. It has to be a judgement call. And we believe aprock made a bad judgement call.--v/r - TP 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we could write hard and fast rules, but we have not done so, even though it's an issue that arises again and again. As for Aprock's judgment, the response again and again has been not to look at the User's status but at the substance of the decision -- here the editor and the admin confirm the same judgment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my astonishment.

Extended content
  • The underlying incident required full protection of the article, not once, but twice.
  • The site associated with the website first reporting the incident was the subject of a contentious AfD, which involved over 100 editors and generated about 30,000 words.
  • The incident spawned a stand-alone article which was deleted after a 6,000 word discussion involving 41 editors
  • The incident spawned discussions at noticeboards including Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/ RSN, another RSN and a 28,000 word discussion at BLPN
  • The attempted deletion of The Federalist (website) lead to six external articles about the attempt.
  • The incident itself was the subject of 12 external articles
  • The RFC itself has 21,000 words, and roughly 100 contributors
  • More than one participant argued the result were quite close
  • I am a fast reader, but I cannot read the over 85,000 words in a couple hours, much less do any sort of analysis. (My count doesn't include the article itself, or anything on the talk page other than the RfC, doesn't count any of the 18 external articles about Wikipedia or any of the sources used to support the claim.)

Can @Alanscottwalker: point me to some RfC closures by non-admin which are comparable?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you pinged me to respond, what is astonishing Sphilbrick is, even despite your apparent deep involvement in all aspects of the minitua this episode, as made manifest by your laundry list of all the apparently to you, important swirling miasma, you are apparently unknowledgeable about basic process. If you want a special closing regime for some RfC, you need to propose it and get some consensus for it before the close is made in the ordinary course of business. In other words, you are casting blame where it does not rightly belong -- someone just may come along and close it in the ordinary course of business, and you have apparently had a failure of judgement or foresight that you did not propose it be done otherwise, when there was much time to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I did propose it and not one objected. At the time I had reason to believe we still at a few days left until someone would close it (as the normal time period for an RfC is 30 days, which would end the RfC on Oct 22nd). What more do you want? --Obsidi (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Get some consensus for it earlier. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
How much earlier is enough? --Obsidi (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Often, it's done in the first week, but how about the second week or the third, well before now, at any rate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
So if I had done it in the 3rd week, what is to stop me from being told "well you should have done it in the second week". Or if I did it in the second week being told "well you should have done it in the first week", etc. --Obsidi (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, they can, but it is very much doubtful that that objection would succeed in my experience. But you won't know until you have an actual discussion with others on it, well before now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: You said you are casting blame where it does not rightly belong I placed the blame on the imprecise wording at WP:RfC. Do you disagree that we need to improve the wording?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, your initial comment, at least, shared some of the blame with the community for engineering it this way, but unfortunately you started off with criticizing a person for doing the community's bidding, for which "astounded" is rather over-the-top, to anyone who knows any of the history of this particular policy lacuna. It is just plain unfair to cast such blame, after-the-fact. It is entirely and solely the community's fault, it is this way (if anyone's), and if it is anyone else's fault, it is those who failed to propose and get consensus for an alternative closing regime, prior to this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
As for whether we need improved wording, well, we always need improved everything. I will advise whomever takes this on (as with most policy change issues) you should know the history and prempt the previous objections, if you would like to succeed. I can't tell if I really have an opinion one way or the other, about this, I just am aware of what the past has wrought on this issue, as are probably most informed "ordinary editors" who occasionally try to do the service of closing (but irc one of my last closings on divided opinion may have touched on The Troubles and Naming -- for goodness sake -- so what the heck, it's still in place today - I flatter myself that it is because I got it close to a facsimile of "right"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
"I did propose it and not one objected." That's called raising a flag and no one saluting. You made a comment and no one responded. Possibly no one objected because no one took it seriously. We can argue about what exactly consensus means. But, it certainly doesn’t mean not one of the scores of editors on the Talk Page paid attention one way or another. Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As Pope Julius repeated to Michalangelo: 'When you will make an end of it?” I can’t believe this discussion continues. How many bites at the apple do you want? So many articles, so little time. Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It is a really terrible idea for the precedent to exist for non-administrative closures of RFCs. It is a short step from that to the subversion of the RFC process by closure by sock accounts and POV warriors. Administrative accounts are community vetted, random passersby are not. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?[edit]

For fucks sake, I don't care if anyone wants to argue this matter until the sun goes supernova. But don't annoy the crap out of everyone else with the nonsense. No one is going to block Giano or Eric. That's only going to make a bigger mess. Maybe if someone else was threatened. But Jimbo is more than capable of handling a real or perceived legal threat. He's done it before. There is no practical and productive end to this. No admin is going to commit project suicide just because the beurocracy insists on enforcing WP:NLT mindlessly without regard for how it will blow up on the project. We're expected to use the tools judiciously and to be smart about how policies are applied. So, take it to Giano's talk page if it's really bothering anyone. Don't waste our time.--v/r - TP 22:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Giano recently posted to Jimbo Wales' talk page with a comment that, IMO, crosses a line into WP:NLT.

Giano: "In the meantime, His Majesty might like to note that Eric Corbett uses his real name here, and UK law is changing, so continued defamation and harassment of that name on this page could land some people in Brixton - no legal threat intended of course."

Does, "no legal threat intended of course" remediate the fact that Giano is implying that Jimbo Wales could be sent to prison for "defamation and harassment" of Eric Corbett? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's certainly a possibility that he could, but neither Giano nor I are making any legal threats, or indeed any kind threat at all. Jimbo has simply been reminded of UK law, the legal jurisdiction in which he lives. Eric Corbett 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
And why did he have to be reminded about that in a thread about a proposed admin pledge again? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps because he is apparently unaware of the law on harassment in the jurisdiction in which he lives? Eric Corbett 21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It had nothing to do with the topic though is what im saying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Aren't the laws of where you live irrelevant? I thought that only the laws of the server location are applicable. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Think again. Eric Corbett 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
So, given the context, we can take that as a legal threat? AnonNep (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You may take it as a simple correction to an apparent misunderstanding about legal jurisdiction. Eric Corbett 22:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
So it wasn't a legal threat but it is maybe, kinda, coulda been one, you want to make sure they know what legal jurisdiction was being referred to? Oh yeah, that makes sense. AnonNep (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I saw that and agree that it went a bit too far. Not only does it imply a legal threat but it also went off topic about Eric. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Its not a threat, unless he is making the threat of prosecution/suit himself. Our entire WP:BLP policy is essentially a similar warning. It may be inappropriate for other reasons Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Eric and Gaijin. Giano's basically saying "watch what you say, because someone else might make a legal threat". Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh come on, the topic was about an admin pledge and you felt the need to troll and place something in that was totally off topic and un-related to the discussion. If you want to launch a probe into Jimbo feel free to do so there are venues for this, what we don't need are snarky remarks in every damn thread. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It does seem to transgress the 'Perceived legal threats' in WP:NLT in 'refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion'. AnonNep (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why on earth would anyone want to probe Jimbo? I just feel that with the UK laws changing and becoming far harsher towards internet trolling that change should be mentioned on a high profile page, where Wikipedia's intelligentsia, respected admins and rulers hang out. Surely you're not suggesting that Jimbo or any of his followers are internet trolls? I'm actually quite shocked. Giano (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Again this has nothing to do with the topic you posed in if that was your intent then why didn't you just start a new topic about UK law? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
But I strongly support the idea of an administerial pledge; it could be taken in front of a flag, with one trouser leg rolled up and a hand on a iPad. Anyway, I don't need to start a new topic now, you've started it here for me. In my experience, the best conversations are always those that spur off at tangents. Giano (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It's hard to know which is more absurd: Giano's and Eric's burbling about harrassment or the OP's claim questioning whether this is a NLT. Can someone please close this and save us all from yet another dreary round. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't really claim that this was definitely a legal threat (see the question mark), and I don't think that someone seeking clarification should be characterized as absurd. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2014
  • Yes, you did. It's no use trying to backtrack now that you think you've made a fool of yourself. Giano (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not everyone agrees with you here, and she did provide a question mark at the start. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That wasn't a question mark it was weasel mark, and well you know it. Here's a tip for the future: If one is going to try and cause trouble, it's always best to play on safe ground. Giano (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I won't lower myself to your trolling and baiting, but if you thought the statement was perfectly and obviously acceptable, why did you feel the need to qualify it with a disclaimer, i.e., "no legal threat intended of course"? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    Obviously in an effort to head off at the pass a stupid thread like this one you created nevertheless. And if you have a point to make about women's participation please have the courage to do so openly rather than in an edit summary. Eric Corbett 22:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I cant think of any good that could have come out of the comment Giano made here other than a reaction which he wanted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I can't think of any good reason why this report was made by Rationalobserver. A few bad ones, but no good ones. Eric Corbett 22:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • If the comment weren't made we wouldn't be here in the first place... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The OP did indeed claim that it is a legal threat: "...with a comment that, IMO, crosses a line into WP:NLT". No question mark. In my view this is not a legal threat but a good faith warning about the possible consequences of a certain course of action. Of course it would be far preferable if the community could solve this ourselves; User:Jimbo Wales ought to desist from making unevidenced complaints and allegations on their talk page and should face a block for disruptive editing if he fails to do so voluntarily. But perhaps that is a matter for another discussion. --John (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
So you agree, John, that this warning might affect how the warned party chose to edit if they took the supposedly possible legal consquences seriously? How does WP:NLT recommend that we act on editors that try to chill others' speech in this way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly! This was not a good faith warning that was delivered out of a genuine concern for Jimbo; this was a veiled threat that if Jimbo doesn't stop talking about Eric there might be legal consequences. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
It was simply a statement of fact. Nobody was threatening anyone with anything. Eric Corbett 22:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
No, it was another comment in the war against Jimbo that implied legal action. Everyon