Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive893

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

Noticeboard archives


User:Francis Schonken is edit warring[edit]

Like the WP:MOS, WP:AT and its guidelines are under Arbcom sanctions

Today user:Francis Schonken reverted a long standing redirect on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). History of the redirect and restoration:

  • 14:27, 30 October 2009‎ Kotniski (redirecting to merged guideline where all this is covered, per talk)
  • 22:00, 9 November 2009‎ Francis Schonken (there was no consensus for this)
  • 08:20, 10 November 2009‎ Kotniski (undo - consensus was certainly reached on this (see multiple naming convention talk archives))
  • 23:53, 16 February 2012‎ Jc37 (restore for illustrative purposes)
  • 02:40, 13 April 2012‎ Born2cycle (Restore as redirect per consensus reached years ago about avoiding duplicate guidelines - see edit summaries in history)
  • 10:36, 1 July 2014‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 487105621 by Born2cycle (talk) apparently new discussions emerged where this may be useful, see WT:NC#What should decide titles? initiated by Born2cycle)
  • 19:15, 1 July 2014‎ PBS (Rv to last version by B2C. Reverting a change that is two years old without a new talk page consensus is not appropriate. Gain a consensus at talk WP:AT before making such a change)
  • 08:21, 21 July 2015‎ Francis Schonken (Undid revision 615193695 by PBS (talk) per discussion at WT:AT#Using a . to distinguish an article)

I initiated an Rfc on WP:AT over this issue at 09:03, 21 July 2015 and then at 09:05, 21 July 2015‎ reverted Francis Schonken's edit to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) 08:21, 21 July 2015‎. with the comment: "Undid revision 672396442 by Francis Schonken (talk) I have started an RfC on WP:AT see RfC: Possible restoration of guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)"

So far so normal, but since then:

Edit warring like this is a clear breach of the sanctions, and altering the heading of the RfC is at best an alteration without checking the consensus first and at worst an act of bad faith (it is particularly disruptive to start to make edits to other editors edits on talk pages when the talk page is about disputed content by the two editors).

Outcome: I want the last two edits by Francis Schonken (to the guideline and to the RfC) reverted. So that the RfC a clear a possible to attract as many editors as possible; and the RfC to run it course, so that it can see what the consensus is BEFORE changes to the guideline are made.

-- PBS (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no comment as yet on the sanctions as I'll need to read up on that, but just as an initial note, I never did understand why that page was turned into a redirect. Yes, the basic info was merged to what is now a rather lengthy page, but having WP:PRECISION as a clarification on the policy should be fine, I would think. If someone can be bold 2 years ago, someone should be able to be bold today. WP:CCC, after all. - jc37 11:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The merits of whether the guideline is restored can be discussed in the RfC. This is about user behaviour. It is not bold revert of an edit made two years ago, because for less than 2 months over the last five years the page in question has been a redirect. As can be seen from the history of the page only one other editor apart from Francis Schonken (SF) had trevert redirect four times. All but the last time (which I have bought here) reverted by other editors. The point is that FS was bold earlier today, so I initiated an RfC about the issue and then I reverted the Bold edit. Instead of following WP:BRD FS has been bold and then reverted a revert that is not following BRD and giving the Arbcom Arbcom sanctions this is not acceptable behaviour. -- PBS (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
As an aside, we should really have better clearer policy on the "all or nothing" of turning a page completely into a redirect. Each of such pages should be discussed on their own merits.
That aside, I see that you've started a discussion on the talk page there. There's apparently no WP:BLP concern here, so we should be able to leave the page at "the wrong version" for now. I'd like to hear from all involved that they'll stop revert warring and discuss on the talk page. I think it is fair to say at this point, that if it continues, sanction by a neutral admin may be likely (I'm of course recusing myself from such action as I'll likely be joining in the discussion : ) - jc37 15:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
"I never did understand why that page was turned into a redirect". Jc37, the point of such redirects is to avoid duplication, and, more importantly, eventual disparity and conflict between two (or more) statements about the same policy or guideline topic. Having one place that explains our policy/guidelines regarding precision in titles is better than having two places. Just like a person with two watches never knows exactly what time it is, editors of a wiki with two precision guidelines never know exactly what the precision guideline is. --В²C 16:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
That's actually really not true. We can have twenty pages on a policy. That's immaterial. Policy isn't reflective of what words happen to be on a page. It's reflective of common practice and consensus. If multiple pages are in disparate states of upkeep - sofixit : ) - jc37 03:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The policy to let the current edit stand without regard to which revision is stable encourages contra-consensus edits because those preferring a version not favored by consensus have a 50/50 chance of getting their contra-consensus version locked. I second PBS' request to have this change reverted back to the stable version (the redirect) pending the outcome of this RFC. --В²C 01:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See what I said immediately above. And further, this isn't a battleground. the point isn't to push some "side" to "win". There is no deadline. and consensus can change. If there's an issue about 2 pages with conflicting policies, then we discuss it, we don't revert war. See the rules on protection, for example. As long as we don't have a BLP issue (or outright vandalism) the version shouldn't matter - discuss, then the wiki gets an even better version through consensus. - jc37 03:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I read what you said immediately above. That's what I was responding to. I disagree. I disagree that the version shouldn't matter. It does matter. This is the point I tried to make which you ignored, so I'll state it more clearly: Haphazardly leaving the non-stable version about 50% of the time encourages edit-warring (because the contra-consensus-holder has a 50/50 chance of getting his version locked); consistently reverting back to the stable version discourages edit-warring. I suppose in some fantastic realm where everyone is objective and mature it wouldn't matter, but that's not reality for human behavior. --В²C 05:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Jc37 in the case of the MOS and WP:AT Arbcom disagrees with you, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Good faith and disruption. Francis Schonken's reverts are disruptive, for obvious reasons. -- PBS (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of the arbcom case, it's worth a re-reading, as is WP:BOOMERANG. It takes more than one person to revert back-n-forth...
My focus, especially since I'd like to presume good faith on all sides especially since I'm looking at several long term editors here (who I presume can be "objective and mature"), is let's drop the stick, and get out of the BATTLEGROUND mentality, and resolve the issue by discussion. There's a discussion there, one I chose to join as well. I don't think that the fundamental issues here are as dire as can't be resolved. - jc37 09:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
There are two separate issues. Here we are dealing with Francis Schonken's behavior and what, if anything, to do about it. There we're dealing with a manifestation of the underlying issue (the squabble about the redirect) and will hopefully get to the underlying issue (whatever Frances believes is important on the original page that he believes is obscured by it being a redirect and not being reflected on the main policy page). You keep saying participants should get out of the BATTLEGROUND mentality, but you support an admin behavior that encourages BATTLEGROUND mentality. That's the point you keep avoiding here. If administrators like you consistently reverted to the stable version in squabbles like this one, then that would discourage BATTLEGROUND mentality. Lock-down intervention that randomly leaves whatever version is there, means the non-stable version is retained about half the time. That kind of intervention, the kind you advocate and presumably practice, rewards the very BATTLEGROUND mentality and edit-warring you say you're trying to discourage. Do you not see that, or are you not serious about discouraging BATTLEGROUND mentality? Or am I missing something?

And please don't conflate presuming objectivity and maturity with assuming good faith. People acting in good faith can be very biased and immature, and are all the time. In the real world as well as on Wikipedia. Surely you realize that too? --В²C 16:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"If administrators like you consistently reverted to the stable version in squabbles like this one, then that would discourage BATTLEGROUND mentality. " - That's an example of the "mentality" that I mean. Who cares? Why is it important to you which version it is at? Is it to prevent someone from "getting their way"?
Setting that aside, I've restored deleted pages while a discussion was ongoing, to allow for ease of discussion. reverting from redirect for a page under discussion doesn't sound beyond the pale.
The problem isn't that it was restored from redirect. the problem is the (over time) edit warring that occurred. looking over WP:AT, I see some repeat names reverting/restoring.
And if it continued occurring, I have little doubt that other admins might just enact those sanctions. But it's stopped. And discussion appears to be going on. BRD seems to be in effect just fine at the moment. And blocking is to be preventative not punitive. If you're looking for someone to be punished for the edit warring that doesn't appear to be currently occurring, I would be surprised if you find it here. But don't think that others aren't watching this discussion. Hence why I keep saying: there is a discussion going on now. let's drop the stick and let's move on. - jc37 16:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
To see reversion to the stable version as a punishment is, to me, exhibiting battleground mentality. It's not a punishment. It's a consequence. Well, it would be a consequence, that would discourage battleground mentality and edit warring, if admins consistently restored the stable version whenever there is a squabble. Then everyone would know it's just not worth it, so you might as well go straight to the discussion, which is what we all want, right? But if we reward those who favor non-consensus positions by locking down the non-stable version sometimes, you're encouraging them to engage in battleground mentality and edit warring because it might pay off. Once their version is locked-down, they can stretch the discussion out almost indefinitely. There should be no need for sanctions. No punishment. Just a policy to revert to the stable version while discussion continues. Done. --В²C 19:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
In my limited experience with him, this user is reasonable in discussions. However, the behaviour described above (trying to install his preferred language without discussion, and while edit-warring rather than discussing) is behaviour he's engaged in before; at WP:MOS he made a bold change while an RFC on the subject was ongoing, I undid it (as IMO there was not support for it and the RFC was ongoing), he re-instated (and I undid and he reinstated; trout me for carrying on like that) until I decided to let his change stand while I started a VPP subthread. After I started writing that thread (and unbeknownst to me until I posted, though our edits apparently went through at the same time), another editor undid his change and confirmed that "actually consensus at the talk page comes before these changes are restored". Consensus (albeit only of the tiny handful of editors who participated in the subthread, including me) was subsequently reached to make some changes. -sche (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • At WP:AT I made changes to examples of commonname people on principles that Francis Schonken had supported here and here and changes that s/he had personally suggested here. In each case these changes were reverted. It honestly seemed to me to be both incredibly petty and pointy.
I too have seen occasional positive inputs from Francis Schonken yet, while I very rarely see him/her at WP:AT, it seems to me that s/he wants to bureaucratically and obstructively own wp:at. I think that some form of intervention should be taken for this to stop. GregKaye 21:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editor refusing to accept consensus[edit]

This is the Adminstrators' Noticeboard/Incidents - users need to be clear what they are asking for here. I see two issues and neither of them are for this forum. 1) If the issue is about Edit Warring, please make a correct, separate case for it and cite diffs. 2) If the dispute concerns style, MoS is the place to discuss it and if a stronger consensus is required, launch a proper RfC to attract a broader particiption from the community.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2015 (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.

Several months ago, I was involved in an editing dispute with Synthwave.94 on Happy (Pharrell Williams song) regarding how to list US charts. It is standard practice in song articles to list the main US chart, the Billboard Hot 100, before any secondary charts. Synthwave.94 holds a different viewpoint that all charts should be listed in alphabetical order, which means that charts such as Adult Top 40, Adult Contemporary, and Alternative Songs would be listed before the Hot 100. The two of us, and other editors, discussed this at the article talk page before reviving an older discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Record charts#Chart order, where nearly all editors besides Synthwave agreed that the primary chart should come first, with secondary charts listed in alphabetical order after that.

Despite the overwhelming preference to list the primary chart before any secondary ones, Synthwave has continued to war over this. At the "Happy" article, he has reverted my changes to reflect this consensus on multiple occasions over the past few months. Initially he reverted me on the basis that the discussion was still ongoing. Recently, with the discussion untouched for over a month and editors' preference quite clear, I reinstated the change only to be reverted again. Additionally, Synthwave has been changing examples on Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Record charts to reflect his/her preferred ordering, against consensus.

I warned Synthwave on his/her talk page recently that I would bring the matter here if their tendentious, disruptive editing continued. They refused to acknowledge the problem and tried shifting the blame on me. Not too long after, I corrected the chart ordering on Rehab (Amy Winehouse song) to reflect consensus, and Synthwave reverted with a blatantly misleading edit summary that did not state all of his/her changes.

Synthwave is an editor with quite a history of edit warring, disruption, and IDHT behavior over the past two years. I'm not sure what sort of action needs to take place, but this is obviously a recurring problem with the arrangement of record charts only being a small part of it. Chase (talk | contributions) 01:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

You ought to strike the comment about Synthwave.94 being disruptive, etc. The user has not been blocked for seven months. I find Synthwave.94 to be an invaluable fighter of vandalism. I would like to see that this disagreement is evaluated on its own merit (or demerits) rather than bringing in a truckload of old laundry. Binksternet (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
"Not blocked for seven months" is damning with very faint praise indeed. An editor's history (or alleged history) is generally relevant in assessing allegations of improper behavior, as opposed to content disputes. DES (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Chasewc91, you don't know nothing about me and most of what you're saying is misrepresentative of the editor I am, so please stop saying incorrect statements about me. As Binksternet pointed out, I'm mainly a vandal fighter. I don't even understand why you judge on 5-6 edits only. I've already told you the problem linked to chart order associated with charts components, but you never listened to me and you continue messing around with alphabetical order in charts. Calling me a disruptive editor exaggerated and clearly inappropriate in all ways, especially because you are the one who started the edit war. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
As the article's talk page shows, I engaged with you in discussion about this. I pinged several other editors who work on music articles and virtually everyone who commented agreed with me. You then continued to edit against this consensus, and that is the problem. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not striking anything. The block log shows multiple blocks for edit warring and that is the issue I am currently having with Synthwave. Edit warring against consensus. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • On the whole, Synthwave.94 does seem like a good level-headed editor, however, I don't think it's uncalled for that Chasewc91 is labeling them as disruptive. Failure to accept consensus and to continue making changes against the communities opinion is disruptive, and the fact that Synthwave.94 continues to edit in their preferences over two discussions (1,2) where clear consensus was national over genre chart, is frustrating. Even still, the user continues to claim they weren't listened to "but you never listened to me and you continue messing around". Move on, and accept that "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you." Azealia911 talk 08:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm uninvolved in this particular content dispute, but have had contact with Synthwave.94 on another issue (here here) and he had difficulty hearing the community consensus on an issue. While WP:CITEVAR is not the same as the order of charts, there is an MOS section on the chart issue and it should be followed. @Binksternet:, part of the reason that he wasn't blocked in seven months is that for three of those months, he was in fact blocked with talk page access revoked. That block just expired on March 22, so he's just about to hit his fourth month of not being blocked. I'm not sure what should be done, he does do good work where he's not against a consensus of editors, perhaps a break from editing music articles? GregJackP Boomer! 15:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Synthwave.94 seemed quick to accuse Flyer22 of owning in the links you provided, interestingly enough, the last edit to Michael Jackson, the topic of the links you gave, was Synthwave.94 blankly reverting an edit which simply placed spaces between bullet points in lists throughout the article. Pot calling the kettle black anyone? Just interesting. Azealia911 talk 19:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Chasewc91 Thanks for pinging me. I do agree with Synthwave.94 that a flat list should only ever be sorted using one rule (eg. alphabetical OR by category but not both) I suggested various acceptable alternatives here. I'm less interested in whether or not a user is disruptive than optimal presentation of information. Consensus is not the be all and end all; mistakes can be made by a majority. My own reaction to being at odds with the consensus opinion is to make my point and then stop watching the pages, because it is too frustrating. I can't condemn another for choosing to fight on, however. These lists are incorrect as they stand. Btljs (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you or Synthwave.94 find the listing to be incorrect, you must acknowledge that there is a problem when the community determines otherwise and s/he continues to edit war. This is not the venue for you to state whether or not you believe the consensus to be the best editorial choice. Chase (talk | contributions) 02:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I think context is everything actually. You and others above have sought context in the user's timeline of edits; I find it more appropriate to look at the actual edit which is occurring rather than trying to pigeon hole a user as a 'trouble maker'. In this case there is 'a problem when the community determines otherwise and s/he continues to edit war' for the community but not really for the audience/end user. The articles are not rendered less informative by these edits (whether or not we disagree about minor differences in clarity) so the problem is one of behind the scenes administration. I think it would be harsh in the extreme to sanction somebody for this. Why don't you just leave the edits as they stand and, if you are right about the community, then somebody else will change them sooner or later? Btljs (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Because "consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." It's one of the core aspects of this project, and "the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided." I believe Synthwave.94 should be sanctioned as he has been blocked several times in the past for edit warring and/or disregarding consensus and here we are again. Someone is clearly not getting the memo. Chase (talk | contributions) 23:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This has gone on long enough and admins are obviously not interested and neither am I. Take the sqabble someplace else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2015 (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 threats by RobertGeraldLorge[edit]

User indef blocked for legal threats by Chillum. And biographical article in question WP:SNOW deleted at AfD. So this seems all wrapped up... (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:42, 23 July 2015 (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.

RobertGeraldLorge, an SPA, has been edit warring his own article. Now he is starting to make legal threats. He and his various sock/meatpuppets ([1], [2], [3]) have already been warned about conflict of interest, edit warring, original research, copyright violations, advertising, and vandalism, and he has been reported to the conflict of interest noticeboard, all to no avail. (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is the legal threat, because I don't see one in the section you linked. —Farix (t | c) 12:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It's way down at the bottom of the section: "FYI: I have copied your numerous repeated unauthorized actions and IP address and date and time stamped them in the event I need to take legal action. ... I am, Sincerely, Attorney Robert Gerald RobertGeraldLorge" (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a pretty clear legal threat, of the "I'll sue if this doesn't go the way I think it should" variety. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The OP sums up the disruption pretty clearly - COI & POV editing, edit warring, copyvios; I'd add poor or inappropriate sourcing to the list of problems. The account is new, and assuming (probably against the weight of evidence) that this user is new to Wikipedia, I've tried to begin discussion of these issues on their Talk page. The editor appears to / claims to be the subject of the article, and while that creates an obvious COI, it also helps explain the editor's frustration, and - mm, persistence. I'd like to see if he engages, or persists in the problem editing. If the former, we can see where it goes; and if latter, then I think the account needs to be blocked. (I can't say whether the legal threat, indirect as it was, trumps all of the foregoing, and leave that to the admins.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
As noted on the editor's talk page, the very same boilerplate content he is trying to insert now was first inserted in the article seven years ago. It was reverted and reinserted numerous times in the intervening seven years. I'm not confident that "seeing where it goes" will produce a change in this editor's behavior, and I do think that the legal threat trumps everything he has done to date. (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for making an unambiguous legal threat. We don't warn for legal threats, we don't "see where it goes". We block until such threats are retracted and investigate if there is anything serious to the claims. The comment was clearly meant to have a chilling effect that would bias our neutral point of view. In addition to our neutral point of view our editors should not be subject to intimidation.

I recommend that some look me made into the users claim that "false biased and politically slanted and irrelevant information" is in their biography. Chillum 14:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this guy is who he says he is, and he is a lawyer. I would love to see an unbiased review of both the content and the edits on this article. How do we accomplish that? (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
A review is probably unnecessary given the way Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Gerald Lorge is going. But a quick comparison of the changes he wanted to make with the article's state previous to that and after he was reverted indicate that there is nothing in the current state or the "pre-User:RobertGeraldLorge" state that could possibly be construed as what he terms "libelous false information and politically slanted". Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Going by the dif of what the user was restoring, there does not appear to be substantial problems. While the results of the election he lost could have been phrased better (I have updated it to indicate that the winner got 67%, rather than "almost 70%", and to include how much the subject got), deleting the statement that he lost was not appropriate. There is a disagreement with a statement that he is a "certified master beekeeper" (as opposed to having a masters degree in beekeeping), where it is possible that the information is inaccurate but it is sourced and would seem not to be an egregious or destructive error to make. The bulk of what the user has restored is material sourced inappropriately to the subject's own campaign website. The article is currently at AfD and seems headed for deletion anyway. (Speculating on his law training is neither appropriate nor necessary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Nat, what's currently in the article about Lorge's beekeeping is correct. I checked the University of Florida Beekeeping extension program, from which he graduated. "Certified Master Beekeeper" is a "rank" in that program. Their website says that it is "comparable to the completion of a Master's degree from a university" [4]. However, the recipient is not awarded an MA degree from the University of Florida. Lorge's campaign material has morphed this into saying he has received a "Master [sic] Degree" [5]. So, as far as I can see, there is nothing in the current article that is "false", let alone "libelous" or "defamatory". Voceditenore (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
All of which is moot now. The article has just been deleted per a snowball AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Excellent point about the AfD, it seems unlikely to survive. I also appreciate the analysis of the user's edits compared to what they were claiming. Thanks for the due diligence. Chillum 16:15, 22 July 2015 (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.

Disruptive editing during an AfD[edit]

User in question indef blocked as a confirmed Sock of Sanjoy64 (SPI casepage: here) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:40, 24 July 2015 (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.

User:KatyRat with less < 50 edits to Wikipedia started an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora (2nd nomination) in his/her third edit. During the course of the AfD KatyRat has engaged in disruptive editing three times. The first two times warnings were given, with the third I am asking for a moderator to look at the case. The edits include:

Thank you for any help. -- GreenC 13:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This editor knows way too much for a new account. How to strike comments, starting an AFD, knowing to refer to the closer as "closing admin", pinging other editors. The smell of birds is very strong. Blackmane (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Any new account that is jumping straight into creating AfD for their first edit is obviously experienced here, this is clearly not a new person. Per our sock puppet policy "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project", specifically the Wikipedia project space which AfD is in. I would like other admins opinion on the appropriateness of this account. Unless KatyRat explains exactly how they are not in violation of our sock puppetry policy I am leaning towards a block. Chillum 16:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
The accounts that are making an attempt to disrupt the discussion are as follows: SCMite (Created on 22 July 2015 at 15:41) , User055 (Created on 22 July 2015 at 10:34) with one edits on AFD. Moreover the recreation of the article was without any WP:DRV and by a SPA Blackstallion55. Green_Cardamom warned me only once on the AFD and not twice. Pinging other editors is not wrong I suppose, and most importantly the reason to ping the editors who voted Delete on earlier discussion (through which the article was deleted) could best analyze the difference and analyze. Moreover, the AFD was running abandoned since last 8 days so pinging was the best way to conclude the discussion. I would still request to remove the votes by those accounts mentioned above by cross-checking with their contributions. Thank you. KatyRat (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Moreover the account of Blackstallion55 became active today (last activity 28th February 2015, evidence here to revert my edit on the page of Trishneet Arora, hiatus! KatyRat (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Although the magnitude of keep of votes are more on the AFD discussion [3 of 5 Keep Votes by SPA], I believe the article still needs more coverage and most importantly in national sections per WP:RSN to confirm the reality of content on the article or at-most be rewritten with a complete neutral point of view. The article still sounds as a Advert to me (my opinion, your may be different). And I believe that the closing administrator could best deal with the AFD with a common sense than magnitude of votes. Thank You! KatyRat (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
And also the page was salted due to repeated recreation which can be seen here KatyRat (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest immediate block for KatyRat as sock and/or block evading account. Knowledge of Wikipedia back office is far too developed for this performance - and then opening an SPI case on them all with CU request. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur. Rlendog (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I also concur as a non admin, and suggest that an admin close the AfD as no consensus due to procedural disruption. KatyRat's sock accusations do not appear to be without merit, and her reprehensible conduct have rendered the discussion FUBAR. John from Idegon (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thre is no rfeason to close the AfD, serious editors are makign reasoned comments apart from this disruption. If I had to close it as it stands, it would be as keep. DES (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The evidence that KatyRat is a sock is strengthened by their obvious knowledge of what SPA's, RSN and DRV are. (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • User that commented above are having only two contributions (first contribution on this discussion) that too related with WP:SOCK policy and that too created today with an in-depth knowledge of policies such as SPA, RSN, DRV. Surprised, why there is a need for an editor to post as an IP (suspicious!) Looks like there is an attempt to WP:CANVAS by these IPs  It looks like a duck to me KatyRat (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Let me point out that the above IP is me. I had reopened a tab in my browser and while it looked like I was still logged in, I was in fact logged out. Applying WP:TROUT to myself. Blackmane (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I very much doubt that anyone is going to assist you filing a SPI until you give an adequate explanation for your own behaviour. It is self-evident that you are not new to Wikipedia. Why have you created a new account? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2015 (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.

Obvious sock building an attack article on a blocked editor[edit]

Article deleted by Cactuswriter. Jkpilsudski is warned that any attempts to recreate the article as it was will attract an indefinite block. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 23 July 2015 (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.

User:Jkpilsudski is a new editor whose only actions so far have been to create a retaliatory article on a blocked editor. That it is retaliatory can clearly be seen by their userpage: "As i am creating an article on a banned wikipedian who has threatened to out others, i ask that my anonymity and privacy be respected." This both implies that the article is a punishment, and that they are hiding another on wiki identity. Can someone please block them? Brustopher (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Suggest 'Indef Block I am not sure if this a a sock though that seems highly likely. But it is a gross violation of WP guidelines and policy by someone who knows what they are doing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How is the article an attack or retaliatory? everything is well-sourced. If you want it deleted, use wp:afd. i am concerned that he would out me not matter how neutral the article is. --Jkpilsudski (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • if there is a real problem with the *contents* of the article, I will accept all the help I can. --Jkpilsudski (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    The "biography" was just a mass of disparate sources cobbled together for the seemingly single purpose of attacking a living person. That person is a local politician who, on their own accord, would not be notable to Wikipedia. The article clearly fails WP:BLP and WP:SYNTH. I have deleted it as an unsourced attack page. CactusWriter (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2015 (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.

Need a redirect removed.[edit]

Redirect page deleted by Swarm under G6, and article moved over from Draft space. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 14:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I need this redirect removed to make room for an AfC article Draft:Bwog to be moved into the mainspace. To be honest, this is probably the wrong avenue, but after my due diligence and looking for a way to get this resolved I couldn't find another place to ask for help on this. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Sulfurboy. Probably the quickest way to get done what you want done is a {{db-move}} template tag. However, I'm not sure if it qualifies as a "non-controversial move" when it involves bringing articles over from "Draft space". I'm sure someone will be along to clarify that... --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:49, 22 July 2015 (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.

Refusal to engage in discussion about incivility[edit]

Closing this. The remark that started all this--well, we can't take any action over such things. We're all grown ups here, or we should be. The removal talk page edits (the three different notifications) was perfectly within policy and the succession of comments placed is more likely to be considered uncivil than the comment. Let's move on: certainly there are realer things to deal with. Drmies (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently was subjected to uncivil comments by an editor. I have asked the editor concerned on their Talk page to explain their behaviour 3 times, however, they have simply deleted them without comment about their edits. What course of action should I follow now?DrChrissy (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: Any chance you can provide some diffs showing this? Thanks. --IJBall (contribstalk) 00:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
First, this is not a matter for admins. Next, there is no requirement that an editor must respond to any questions placed on their talk page. Your best bet is to move on and start editing article again. MarnetteD|Talk 00:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that per WP:REMOVED you should not restore the comment again as it is not an exception to the three-revert rule. MarnetteD|Talk 00:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
User:MarnetteD I did not restore the comment. I sent a completely new message 3 times - but thanks for the heads-up.DrChrissy (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:IJBall I think the following contain all the necessary diffs. Because these name the editor, I will inform them of this thread.
My original posting to the editor[6]
Reversion#1 [7]
Reversion#2 [8]
Reversion#3 [9]
DrChrissy (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I believe what was meant was diffs of the uncivil comments, not of their reversion of your postings to their talk page. Which, as has been mention, a user may remove and not respond to if they so choose. --Ebyabe talk - Border Town ‖ 02:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The supposedly "uncivil" remark took place in the James Randi section just a bit above this. DrChrissy stopped by to make a remark, and I commented:

C'mon, Dr. Chrissy, anyone familiar with your history knows that's not why you're here. [10]

Since DrChrissy believes that remark to be "uncivil", I'd like him to explain here exactly why it's uncivil. What is it about "[A]nyone familiar with your history knows that's not why you're here." breaks WP:CIVIL, bearing in mind that civility and AGF are not the same thing. BMK (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── You're doing this all wrong. You need to put my name in the section title, then you'll get Alansohn, Lugnuts, Richard Arthur North (1958- ), and, if you're lucky, The Rambling Man, to come by and tell everyone what an incredible jerk I am and how I should have been banned years ago. BMK (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on my experiences with you, I do, unfortunately, consider you as a jerk. I once told you one time to keep an uncivil comment on the down low, and I asked you if that comment was necessary. You said that user deserved it. And this was on ANI. Then there was that archive of a discussion here. You posted on my talk page about it. Then you realized that you made a mistake but didn't bother to say a little sorry. However, based on my experiences, you don't deserve a block. Callmemirela {Talk} 02:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
OMG, you called me a jerk!! I demand an instant block for incivility. IMMEDIATELY, I say.
BTW, I'm quite old enough to make my own decisions, thank you very much, good or bad, and then live with the consequences. I've been doing it for 60 years and I guess I'll keep doing it until the Alzheimer's finally kicks in for good. On the other hand, there are a fair number of editors on Wikipedia who I respect enormously, and whose advice I am happy to receive and give full consideration to. BMK (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Generally, we don't "do" anything about incivility besides offer a reminder about the civility policy. Any editor, myself included, can become irritated and thus "uncivil" at anything, really, and there's no reason or common practice to punish them for that. It's important, but as long as overall an editor is willing to reign themselves in enough to focus on the task at hand, there's no need for action. If an editor demonstrates a problematic behavioral pattern of incivility, then it's time for a wider discussion about it, which usually results in a consensus to reinforce the community's opinion that such behavior is unacceptable (i.e. give them a warning). It's only after one to several of such warnings will we start to consider anything more drastic. Overall though, "civility enforcement" isn't something that's even done unless the problem is chronic and severe. You haven't even reeally explained what the problem is so I'm not sure what you're wanting. Swarm we ♥ our hive 05:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Swarm. The original reply by DMK to my posting (re-stated above in bold by DMK) was totally a comment on me as an editor and not on my posting which was making a valid point. DMK stated that my motivations for being at the article were other than to make my legitimate comment, and that my related editing history was in some way "negative"; it was clearly intended to provide misleading information about me. Drive-by personal attacks such as these are extremely disruptive to Discussions, harmful to individual editors and therefore harmful to the project as a whole. In my opinion, these are becoming more frequent and more damaging. Regarding the deletion of my comments by BMK from their Talk page - I tried to engage in Discussion with the user about his incivility. I believe this is a prerequisite to raising any objection on a dispute noticeboard. Clearly, BMK did not wish to explain his actions and feels he can make drive-by personal attacks such as these with impunity. @User:Swarm you asked what I wanted. I thought carefully about this thread before my original posting and I stand by my OP - I am simply seeking advice as what to do next. If the community tells me to "go away and forget it", then I will do that, but the community needs to realise that it is then condoning such drive-by personal attacks and incivility.DrChrissy (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
What you have so far failed to do so with yet is providence evidence of the uncivil comments. Please do so. Explaining the situation without diffs of what happened (not the posts on BMK's talk page, THE ISSUE) is not what we've been asking for. Just realized it was posted on top. Please remember this DrChrissy instead of letting others do the job for you, Callmemirela {Talk} 13:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
@User talk:Callmemirela Initially, I did not provide diffs as I was being careful not to name the editor - I was hoping for a generic answer to my question. Once an editor/admin asked for the diffs, I provided these. What have I done wrong?DrChrissy (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
If the incivility is obvious and ongoing, then the community will always unite against it, but if we're dealing with subtler, "drive-by personal attacks" we normally won't make a big deal out of it at all and besides noting the incident for later there's really nothing that can be done but to move forward and forget it. A lot of times this absolutely does inadvertently condone bad behavior by uncivil editors, and a lot of people think we should be harsher when it comes to "civility enforcement", but this is the way the status quo has come to be. Swarm we ♥ our hive 16:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
User:DrChrissy says that they did not provide diffs because they did not want to name the editor. In other words, they were asking an abstract question. This noticeboard is not really intended for abstract questions. Those are better asked at the Help Desk. However, even at the Help Desk, some of us are wary of responding to abstract or hypothetical questions, because sometimes such a question is a slightly biased description of what really happened, and is intended to get a policy statement in order to wikilawyer a response. The purpose of posting to this noticeboard is to request admin action, such as a block, and admin action cannot be taken against unnamed users. I suggest that this post be closed as an incomplete questionh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I apologise - I had not realised this noticeboard was only for requesting action. I thought it was also for help and support.DrChrissy (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No, there's nothing like that on Wikipedia for content builders. This is an entertainment page for admins and their entourages. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Epipelagic, your remark is unhelpful and insulting. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so it wasn't just me. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Epipelagic: It's meant to be a noticeboard for incidents that require administrator attention. It's not meant for things like academic policy questions. There's plenty of other places to ask questions and get answers: Help Desk - Village Pump - WP:HELP (where you can search for all guides on incivility) - The Teahouse - Template:Helpme - IRC Help Channel, and, utilizing the search function will help you find an exhaustive guide on dealing with incivility, Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with other editors/Handling incivility and personal attacks. ANI can be a shitshow but it's absurd to act like there's no other resources available to editors. Swarm we ♥ our hive 20:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
C'mon, this is the 13th AN/I report that DrChrissy has filed in their 4 years of editing here, so the idea that she wasn't aware of the purpose of this board rather stretches credulity, especially since most of those filings were to report "personal attacks" of one sort or another. (They've also filed 11 Teahouse questions, 3 RSN reports, 1 ORN report, and 1 AN report complaining about the closing of one of their AN/I reports, so the idea that she is unaware of the purposes of the various boards doesn't really hold water. Counts can be verified here.) BMK (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2015 (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.

Attack page?[edit]

Deleted. Unsourced attack pages in userspace are not exempt from G10. Sam Walton (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2015 (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.

Does this come under the scope of an attack page? This users other contributions are far from helpful too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree (with the deleted comment here) and I deleted the page. It is still a text on a (presumably, real) living person with comprometizing info not supported by any sources. However, if there is consensus that the text can be on Wikipedia, any admin is obviously welcome to restore it even without notifying me.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:50, 23 July 2015 (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.


(non-admin closure) This is really rather childish. If you have evidence of a history of behavioural issues then revert my close and present it. Otherwise, stop it, grow up and move on. Blackmane (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2015 (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.

User really needs to be considered for a permanent ban. Has a history of being uncivil and edit warring and has been reported here numerous times. Just left this on my talk page (then removed it like it made a difference at that point).--Yankees10 08:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this user. User:Yankees10 repeatedly reverts quality edits to pages with giving explanations. The stat of being a member of the 300 save club was added by myself to all members off the club. This user took it upon himself to revert all edits without giving an explanation. This user also seems to stalk most edits I make due to some quarrel between the two of us about a year ago, which in my opinion is very childish. This user seems to think himself above others and able to own all pages he sees fit due to some Wiki awards he's received, and action needs to be taken or else his childish acts will surely continue.Taffe316 (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Except I did give you a reasoning. I just didn't put it in every single revert.--Yankees10 08:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This was extremely inappropriate but is hardly justification for a permanent ban; where is the rest of the "history of being uncivil"? Sam Walton (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
He has nothing, he just wants me gone due to some quarrel we had about a year ago, as mentioned before. He doesn't like that I'm a fellow Wiki: Project Baseball member, he doesn't like that I'm a strong contributer to numerous baseball articles, and as example of this he takes it upon himself to undermine numerous edits I make in an attempt to rattle me, and he gets away with this because he's a "highly respected" editor. The immediate action on his talk page I took was wrong and I apologize, but at least I know that. If you want to put a block on me than fine, but I'm not the only bad guy here. Taffe316 (talk) 08:52, 23 July 2015 (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.

An editor is offering a 'donation' in order to get a Draft: accepted[edit]

Discussion has been moved here. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I do not wish, yet, to make this formal and name the editor. I will do so if requested and given a rationale for doing so, so they have not been notified (yet) of this discussion. What I wish to know, please, is how and if we fire a real warning shot across their bows for this type of rather juvenile behaviour.

I recognise that it is often an expression of exasperation, along the lines of "How do I get my awful piece of COI junk accepted? Must I make a donation to Wikipedia in order to do so?" but I also see this as a highly offensive behaviour. It offends me as an editor because it implies that my editorial judgement at WP:AFC (where I review reasonably actively) can be bought, and it offends me as a Wikipedian because it implies that Wikipedia can be bought.

This means I do not feel disposed to treat this lightly.

We do not treat legal threats lightly, even throwaway ones, and I wonder if we ought to treat offers of corruption, even throwaway ones, the same way.

I felt raising it here rather than on a policy forum would be a great place to start, principally because, if the advice is that this 'is an incident' then I wish to report it. I'm happy to be advised to migrate this question to a different forum provided I am told which forum to migrate it to. Fiddle Faddle 10:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Filing a report withotu specifics is worthless. WHo, what article, provide a diff - otherwise this report is useless. BMK (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, ok, if that is what you feel should happen.
I am about to notify the editor concerned in the next few moments. I had hoped for a general answer to a general question. Fiddle Faddle 11:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 Done Notified. Fiddle Faddle 12:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think it's an innocent enough question, to which the answer is no. They haven't offered to pay anyone in particular to accept their article, which I would treat more seriously, they just asked if a donation to the foundation is required. Sam Walton (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I see it as a simple question. born out of frustration, but not an innocent one. They have implied that a consideration might pass to Wikipedia in exchange for th publication of their pet article. Taken further this moves Wikipedia as a whole into the realms of plying for hire. This editor is an example of a number of such seemingly innocent questions. Fiddle Faddle 12:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps innocent wasn't quite the right word. What I mean to say is, the solution to this situation is to say no, explain how things work here, and move on. What administrator action are you looking for? Sam Walton (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I am looking for advice and guidance, in part for the editor community (rather than just me) when faced with this silliness, perhaps formalised in guideline, and in part advice for this and other editors, perhaps formalised as some form of potentially gentle warning template. As you see from my opening, I was not keen on hauling this particular editor over the coals. While I recognise that admins are really only janitors, I also feel that some of the better policy/guideline proposals come after consideration by our loyal team of janitors. I may, of course, have started this entire discussion in the wrong forum. Fiddle Faddle 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The Village Pump might be a better venue. Sam Walton (talk) 12:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll take it there happily. I suggest in that case, unless anyone else jumps in on the next short while, this discussion be closed with no stain attaching to the editor concerned. Fiddle Faddle 12:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 Done Now open for discussion at the Village Pump where all contributions are welcome for and against the formulation of a policy/guideline/process. Fiddle Faddle 12:44, 23 July 2015 (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.

LGBT rights in ... the European Union vs. Europe[edit]

Sdino indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plarem.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2015 (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.

Two tables on opinion polls were removed from the article about LGBT rights in the European Union because they included several countries that are not member states of the EU.
User:Sdino reinserted those tables. Their argument was that "a majority of countries in the table are in the EU". I reminded them of the fact that the article is called LGBT rights in the European Union, and not LGBT rights in European countries, the majority of which is in the EU. [11]
User:Sdino reinserted the tables again and called removing them "vandalism". User left a note on my talkpage, telling me not to remove content from LGBT rights in Europe even though I have never removed anything from that article. I removed user's tables from the article about LGBT rights in the European Union only.
I again reminded the user that their tables include several countries that are not member states of the EU [12] User again left a note for me, calling my editing "disruptive"; and threatening to have me blocked. User again added tables to the article, that still include non-EU member state.
There is an article about LGBT rights in Europe, covering all European countries - those inside the EU and those outside the EU - and that's where user's tables belong to. User doesn't seem to care though.
User:Sdino is long known for their disturbing edits. The article on LGBT rights in Croatia even needed to be protected just a few days ago because of them. (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
As I have said on WP:RPP#LGBT rights in the European Union, IP176 is arrogant, unwilling to co-operate with others. Furthermore, I think he thinks he owns the article, and reverts lots of referenced content, instead of reducing it to only the relevant content. Also, he uses different IP addresses, so to stop the disruptive edits, I asked for page protection. IP176 did not go onto the talk page to discuss the issue. Diffs of the unconstructive edits:
Sdino (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
They're not laws, they're opinion polls. I put in a template for ease of editing, and it had 3 or 4 non-EU countries, which caused IP176 to go overboard. – Sdino (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
If it were me, and for the sake of clarity, I would separate the EU nations from the non-EU nations. That way they could be compared with each other. Alternatively, re-post with only the EU nations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I did that, but I must have omitted some country by accident, because IP reverted it yet again. – Sdino (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Is there info in the EU-only article that's not in the all-Europe article? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
On the talk page I could only repeat what i wrote in the edit summaries. Norway, Russia, Switzerland and Ukraine are not member states of the EU. So they have no place in an article on something "EU". To have Brazil, India, South Africa included would make as much sense. (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
As long as they are separated in the table, I don't see the problem. It's more informative to the readers to compare how EU and non-EU nations in Europe respectively view the issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a separate article about LGBT rights in Europe, which includes all European countries - EU and non-EU. (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
So what's the point of having the EU-only article? The EU article is 5 years newer than the Europe article. Why is it needed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I get the impression the EU article was started to talk about EU wide law more than legislation territory by territory which should be pointed at the in Europe page. SPACKlick (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The nation by nation ("state by state") table was posted in the first edition of the article in 2011. The Europe article separates EU from non-EU. I don't see why the EU-only article is needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It seems that the EU article is largely redundant to the Europe article and can be merged there, avoiding these disputes. Rlendog (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The simplest thing would be to look for any info in the EU that's not in the all-Europe, then copy it, remove the back-reference to the EU-only, then change the EU-only to a redirect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The very existence of an EU-only article is no bad thing. The EU itself forms part of the political landscape of Europe. It enacts legislation that is binding on its own institutions (and its member states). The EU's competence regarding LGBT-related policies is very limited, still the EU has some influence. An article "LGBT rights in the EU" should exist along the lines of "LGBT rights in country-this-and-that" articles. It is very true though that the article in its current form is not very informative on actual EU legislation. It focuses too much on member states' laws. But that's something that should be discussed on the relevant talk page(s). Those LGBT articles are edited by many users and those users are usually good at finding consensus. (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Anyway... It wasn't my intention to have a discussion on whether certain articles should cease to exist. It was about User:Sdino's behaviour.
Sdino, a (self-declared) homophobe, does many disturbing edits to LGBT-related articles. They get involved in edit wars regularly. They act fast threatening to report users for "disruptive edits", or actually do report users, just because those users don't agree with them. On the other hand Sdino feels harassed when someone else is considering to report them for their disturbing edits.
As said somewhere above ... Just a few days ago the article on LGBT rights in Croatia got even protected because of the user's behaviour. In that article, too, the user insisted on having a particular image (a pie chart) included. The user is very selective about the information on their opinion poll tables. They prefer to list or highlight only those polls that show little support for LGBT rights; the user prefers biased, highly-POV language etc.
Please take a look at this thread, which led to the protection of the article on Croatia. (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That's a pretty serious charge. Where does the user declare himself a homophobe? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I could't find a statement like that. Could somebody please point me to it? BMK (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2015 (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.

Haggen Food & Pharmacy article issues[edit]

NAC: Editor indeffed by User:JamesBWatson for conflict of interest and username violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC) - Actually, for persistent disruptive editing, username policy violation, and blatant vandalism. I never mentioned conflict of interest, and it is not at all clear to me whether there is a conflict of interest. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2015 (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.

Whoa – this looks like a mess. Someone with an account created today – HaggenFood&Pharmacy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – and who may have a conflict of interest (duh!), has taken to creating a new article Haggen Food & Home Improvement, copy-and-pasting the contents of the original Haggen Food & Pharmacy article to the new article, and then converting Haggen Food & Pharmacy into a redirect. Needless to say, there are all kinds of problems with this. Then, to top it off, they edited my Userpage without permission: diff.

Could a kindly Admin please unwind this mess, by restoring Haggen Food & Pharmacy (so that the edit histories match the article), and possibly either speedily delete Haggen Food & Home Improvement or convert it to a redirect? Also, could the appropriate actions be taken with the COI user account? Thank you in advance... --IJBall (contribstalk) 15:10, 23 July 2015 (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.

Disruptive SPA[edit]

NAC: User indeffed by User:Chillum. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2015 (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.

A RfC on Kosovo has generated a large number of newly minted SPAs weighing-in on it. A request for closure was recently posted. This seems to have inspired the creation of more SPAs, one of whom, Spicemoods has taken to editing my comments in Talk (e.g. [13], etc.) by selectively deleting words so as to make my comments appear nonsensical (or at least more so than usual), as well as inserting sexual exclamations like "touch me yes yes" into the middle of articles (e.g. [14], etc.) or creating the article "Ian Thompson Sucks Dicks" which appears to be an accusation (and/or congratulation, depending on your viewpoint) directed toward Ian Thomson. While Spicemoods could be blocked, the problem may persist pending a closure of the RfC which seems to be the genesis of issues. LavaBaron (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The user had graduated to making an attack page which I deleted per G10. I have blocked the user indef for disruptive editing as they have few helpful contributions and are acting like a vandal. Chillum 20:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

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

User:RB NRK needs talk page block[edit]

User indef blocked for being a SPAM/advertising-only account by SuperMarioMan, and then Talk page access revoked by Yunshui. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribstalk) 17:42, 24 July 2015 (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.

User:RB NRK has persisted in using his talk page for personal promotional purposes following an indefinite block, while not communicating with anybody. It's time to block him from editing his talk page —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I already did, a few minutes ago. Didn't you get the memo? Face-smile.svg Yunshui  12:08, 24 July 2015 (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.


Alakzi was initially blocked but eventually given WP:ROPE and unblocked and warned by Ceradon. AlexTheWhovian was also given warnings by Ceradon and myself.—Bagumba (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2015 (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.

Reporting Alakzi for taking disruptive and vandalistic action to remove parameters instead of fixing them, going against ongoing discussions and against lack of consensus at Template_talk:Infobox television season. Alex|The|Whovian 13:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

More specifically, the user in question is removing custom colouring from table headers as they believe that the contrast is not AAA compliant as described in MOS:Access. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
And Alakzi is not wrong; many of the color combinations used in the TV series infoboxes are color-contrast non-compliant. Some of them are difficult for me to read, depending on the angle of my laptop screen, and I have near 20-20 corrected vision when I'm wearing my eyeglasses. This is effectively a content dispute over compliance with the color-contrast guidelines, and it is probably going to require some compromise by all parties in order to get it resolved, and eliminate the worst examples of non-compliant color combinations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Expanding upon this, given the initial report was rather basic: The user in question raised the topic of AA/AAA compliance when it came to colour contrast in infoboxes and episode tables of television series. He requests that other editors take out the actions of editing the articles to make the colours more compliant, refusing to do so himself, and given that the discussion at the infobox talk page didn't go as fast as he'd liked, he decided to take action by removing the contrast-offending parameters completely. He refuses to compromise, only if he gets things his way. Alex|The|Whovian 13:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
While the editor may not be wrong in some areas, this doesn't give him the right to suddenly remove valid parameters in hundreds of articles without concluding the discussion or gaining consensus first, and demanding that other editors do the work which he deems required to be done. Alex|The|Whovian 13:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
... demanding that other editors do the work which he deems required to be done. This is patently false. I have done all the work that needed to be done. You made the demand that I replace violating, arbitrary colours with conformant, arbitrary colours, which I refused. Alakzi (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── No, Alex, it does not give Alakzi the right to unilaterally remove the color parameters from the TV series infobox template, but WikiProject TV editors need to get off the dime and start proposing some viable solutions. There are numerous egregious examples of color-contrast non-compliant infoboxes. Let's take this back to the talk page, where it needs to be resolved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend reading the talk page in question. Many viable solutions have been proposed, and this is what we got. Our apologies that we have busy lives and cannot be on Wikipedia 24/7 to implement everything. Alex|The|Whovian 14:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I have read most of it, Alex, and I am familiar with the principal cast of characters. There's no need to apologize for being a volunteer. I'll talk to you more on the discussion page. See you there. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • To provide some background for this, since it's not going to be obvious to an outside observer as to what has been going on, here is some history. About a week ago Alakzi decided that he didn't like the colour combinations being used at some television season articles, so he set about removing not just the colour data, but the parameters as well, from infoboxes at several articles.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21] When that was going too slowly, he decided to instead remove the parameters completely from {{Infobox television season}}, without any prior discussion.[22] He was reverted by AlexTheWhovian, but restored the changes.[23] I then reverted and directed him to discuss, both in my edit summary,[24] and on his talk page,[25] but he reverted me as well.[26] The discussion on his talk page did not go well and he was eventually warned by MSGJ,[27] who then protected the template. Protection was later upgraded from "templateeditor" (Alakzi, the main combatant, has the templateeditor permission) to "full" by Mr. Stradivarius, who has been watching the discussion in progress at Template_talk:Infobox television season. We have been working toward modifying the template so as to best comply with WP:COLOR to prevent future problems, and to develop a strategy to eliminate current problems outside the infobox area of affected articles but the discussion is not progressing fast enough for Alakzi, who appears to have given up on discussion. (this is his last edit.) He has decided to instead take it upon himself to start editing all of the articles removing the parameters entirely and so far has done this at 276 articles. His removals have been arbitrary and quite disruptive.[28] Other editors are happy to collaborate on this and there is no excuse for Alakzi's actions. As a result his access to AWB has been revoked,[29][30] but I'm not sure that will stop him. --AussieLegend () 14:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You continue to unapologetically misrepresent my position, presumably so as to mask the absurdity of your own position. "Alakzi decided that he didn't like the colour combinations being used at some television season articles"? Do you have no integrity? Alakzi (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but was I wrong? Do you actually like the colour combinations used? --AussieLegend () 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
        • You do have no integrity. Alakzi (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
          • In fairness, Aussie, WP:TV does have 100s of text-background color-contrast problems in the infoboxes for TV series; it's not simply a matter of Alakzi "does not like the color combinations"; you know this. And rhetorically trying to make it sound as if there is not a guideline-based reason is misrepresenting the situation -- otherwise there would not be a need to address the current problems, and prevent future problems, as you mention above. Let's try to get this back on track, shall we? There are real problems here which needs to be addressed, and beating up Alakzi, while good sport, does nothing to resolve them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
            • I don't deny that there are colour contrast problems. In fact I welcome discussion aimed at resolving the issues. My own personal opinion is currently that we probably shouldn't bother with colour in the infobox, so I sort of support Alakzi, but his attitude to resolution of the problem is unnacceptable. He chose to make significant changes without any discussion, has edit-warred, abused AWB and is now even challenging admins to block him.[31] It's not a case of getting this back on track. Everyone except Alakzi is still on track and has never been off. Alakzi has gone rogue and needs to be reigned in so that other editors can continue to work without disruption. --AussieLegend () 15:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Should the rest of Alakzi's (?) edits be reverted or leave as it is? I understand their reasons, but this is disruptive since they haven't seek consensus. It doesn't matter if it takes 100 days to make it happen. That is how Wikipedia works: compromise. Not this disruptive editing. Callmemirela {Talk}

My belief in the sense of Wikipedia's "consensus" has vanished. I have seen too many times that consensus arrived at something tat makes no sense (example: according to consensus, Wagner wrote all his stage works in German with one exception, The Flying Dutchman. This argument is a matter of accessibility, right? We should pursue accessibility, whether consensus wants it or not. We don't vote if a building can have a ramp for the handicapped, or do we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC) 15:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course we would have to discuss that and decide by consensus, accessibility can be pursued and achieved in many ways, and sometimes it may not be the best choice to pursue it if it means that information is lost. In this case however I dont think there are any good arguments for not choosing the most accesible solution.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Alakzi's colour-removals all deserve reverting!, Whether colours should or shouldn't be in articles should be discussed at an RFC and he's been here long enough to know that, This is quite honestly disruptive editing at it's best!, Seeing as I don't have a brilliant track record when it comes to edit warring I won't mass-revert but I suggest someone does!. –Davey2010Talk 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I've covered it all. I'll double check later. Callmemirela {Talk} 15:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a real issue of very poor combinations of foreground and background colour in many articles that use Template:Infobox television season. At present, editors are free to choose any set of colours that take their fancy, with no regard to the problems caused to visitors with impaired vision, either in acuity or in colour-blindness. This issue is not negotiable. The Foundation makes it clear that no Wikimedia project may discriminate against users with disabilities, and that its policy "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies". With over 1,000 articles potentially affected, the solution suggested by AlexTheWhovian and AussieLegend is for Alakzi to go through each one individually and replace poor colour combinations with accessible ones. The solution implemented by Alakzi is to take the choice of colour out of the template. This whole fracas is a result of AlexTheWhovian and AussieLegend stonewalling the improvements, safe in the knowledge that the task of policing those 1,000+ articles is a huge task for a single editor. The solution is clear: the template should not have the ability to change colours unless it can be shown that there is a mechanism in place to ensure that the colours chosen meet high standards of accessibility. Alakzi's changes to the template should remain unless the non-compliant colour combinations are corrected first. If editors want to have their own custom hues for television seasons, they are going to have to show that they respect the problems of disability that bad choices will produce.
In the meantime, this malicious report needs to be seen for what it is. --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is a solution. --Izno (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Alakzi was blocked by Ceradon for personal attacks for a duration of 24 hours. Callmemirela {Talk} 16:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

For those interested in actually dealing with inaccessible pages, I just discovered the Accessibility WikiProject. I, for one, am joining. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about how much of the discussion about this issue has centered on various matters of who behaved worse about what and who was impolite to whom. Considering the nature of the problem, there are two possible solution classes:

  • Inappropriate color combinations left in the template:
  • Pro: Editors can work at their own pace to replace accessibility-violating colors with acceptable ones of their choosing.
  • Con: Some of our readers can't read some of our content for indeterminate amounts of time.
  • Inappropriate color combinations removed from the template:
  • Pro: The affected subset of our readers can now read the content, even if editors replacing colors work slowly.
  • Con: Readers will have to see infoboxes whose color schemes do not match the preferences of the TV editors.

In other words, the first solution is more convenient for the editors doing the cleanup, and the second is more convenient to the readers interested in our content. The editors' reactions are more salient to us; the affected readers are not represented on an internal noticeboard. A lot of the activity here has failed to appreciate the asymmetrical nature of the issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I found it hard to get a handle on the events that transpired here, so have compiled a timeline for reference:

  1. 1:25 18 July 2015 (UTC) Alakzi raised an issue with Template:Infobox television season being invoked with non-accessible colors parameters, and made a bold edit to remove usage of colors in the template itself.
  2. 2:22 AlexTheWhovian reverted, and started a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_television_season#Colour.
  3. 19:32 AlexTheWhovian warned by admin MSGJ: "Your recent actions on Alakzi's user and talk page have not been constructive, and seem to amount to "baiting" ... Further disruption will result in a block." [32]
  4. 19:35 MSGJ protects template citing "edit warring" after further reverts by Alakzi (3), AussieLegend, and AlexTheWhovian
  5. 13:39 20 July Consensus reached at Template_talk:Infobox_television_season#Protected_edit_request_on_20_July_2015 to add a tracking category, Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination, to identify specific transclusions of the template that are calculated to have accessibility issues per WP:COLOR.[33]
  6. 12:27, 24 July Alakzi starts a thread at User_talk:Alakzi#Pathetic with "It's now been a week and 1,038 articles remain inaccessible. Congratulations to all of the spineless and thoughtless barnstar hoarders who have made this possible. If this is not resolved by tomorrow noon, I'll run AWB to remove all violating colour combinations."[34]
  7. 12:36 AlexTheWhovian responds on the page with "We're not your slaves. Do it yourself. Any removals of parameters will be swiftly reverted", which Alakzi reverts from their talk page.[35].
  8. 12:45–13:13, 24 July 2015 Alakzi uses AWB to modify various article with edit summary "rm WP:ACCESS violating colour combination using AWB"
  9. 13:00 AlexTheWhovian reports Alakzi for "disruptive and vandalistic action" at WP:AIV[36]. Eventually closed there at 13:36 per WP:NOTVANDALISM[37]
  10. 13:03 In a bit of WP:FORUMSHOP, AlexTheWhovian reports Alakzi again for "disruptive and vandalistic action", now on this current ANI thread [38]
  11. 13:12, 24 July 2015‎ On User talk:Alakzi, Alakzi asks AlexTheWhovian to "Do stop commenting here" [39], which is a user's perrogative per WP:NOBAN
  12. AlexTheWhovian continues posting on Alakzi's page: [40][41][42]
  13. 14:07, 24 July 2015 Admin Ceradon revokes Alakzi's AWB rights, explaining: "However, I fear that you will continue to make controversial changes while the matter is being discussed. To be clear, I have no prejudice against this being re-granted when this issue is resolved." [43]
  14. 14:50, 24 July 2015 Alakzi responds to Ceradon: "These are not controversial changes to anybody with some sense"[44]
  15. 14:51, 24 July 2015 Summarizing past events, AussieLegend writes in this ANI thread that Alakzi "didn't like the colour combinations being used"[45]
  16. 14:59, 24 July 2015 Alakzi responds that AussieLegend "unapologetically misrepresent my position", and asks "Do you have no integrity?" [46]
  17. AussieLegend responds "Do you actually like the colour combinations used?"[47]
  18. Alaksi responds "You do have no integrity."[48]
  19. 15:25 Alakzi challenges Ceradon: "Get off your high horse, or block me."[49]
  20. 15:25 Alakzi challenges Ceradon: "It is up to people like you to make a stand, but you continue to fail the community and the encyclopedia."[50]
  21. 15:56, 24 July 2015 Alakzi is blocked by Ceradon for personal attacks and disruptive editing

Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bagumba for your timeline. Really does help to wrap your head around this whole thing. Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 02:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In truth, I believe AussieLegend summed up the solution to this dispute quite laconically: "The solution is to fix the colours in articles where inappropriate colours are used, not to delete the parameters entirely." I'm inclined to agree that simply removing the parameter from all these pages doesn't fix the problem, as MOS:ACCESS does not disallow the use of colors in infoboxes. However, I believe that we can all agree that we need to satisfy our readers -- all of them, of course, and those with visual impairments none the less -- and that, as it stands, the colors that exist in certain articles are a bit over the top, and difficult to read. Now, while I do agree that we have a problem, I do not believe Alakzi's solution -- simply removing the parameters -- fixes it, and it, to me, leans toward disruption. But this is not something Alakzi seems to realize. He doesn't get the point so much so that he jumped on AWB and made sweeping changes to a smorgasbord of articles, and doesn't seem to think his edits are controversial, which defies logic, because the very definition of controversial is that it gives cause to argument or debate (i.e. what we are doing right now). Alakzi has been warned that "a super-quick resolution of this dispute" is not workable (Further, I want to quote more of Mr. Stradivarius' sentiment in the same diff: "Yes, we need to make this site accessible. But we also can't afford to alienate our editors. By doing this through discussion and consensus we can have our cake and eat it as well - there's no reason that accessibility needs to come at the expense of editor retention." This is not something that Alakzi understands, or even seems to care about.) A few comments after, Alakzi was told: "There is no rush to fix what has not been seen as a major problem up to now. Meta discussions are not leading us to a solution." But what I find really disgusting is that he chose to use AWB as a weapon to force the changes he wanted on a large amount of pages. (see his contributions for evidence of that) And his use (abuse, in my opinion) of the template editor user right and edit warring to make controversial changes to a template, and got the template fully protected. That was Pigsonthewing's doing, not Alakzi's.

I could go on and on about Alakzi's behavior, intransigence and refusal to get the point, but, this is not to say that others do not share some blame. AlexTheWhovian engaged in an edit war to remove a quote about him on Alakzi's user page (now deleted), and when he was told to stop, he refused. This edit is quite disruptive, and an unnecessary escalation, if you were to ask me. And this was deeply troubling to me. But I would caution any user to pay keen attention to narrative that editors here are trying to force. That a white knight is sweeping to slay the wicked inaccessibility-mongers and valiantly save our readers, and the encyclopaedia from itself? No, to fairy-taleish for my blood. In truth, Alakzi could have ended the edit war by simply removing the quote. Simple as that. And I come away with the impressing that Alakzi's intransigence towards AussieLegend's and AlexTheWhovian's suggestions were just as provoking and annoying to them as AlexTheWhovian's actions towards Alazki were provoking and anoying to Alakzi. An below, RexxS add fuel to the fire: Alakzi's edits discussed above are an attempt to bring many instances of inaccessible colour combinations into compliance with WCAG 2.0 AAA standards, our accessibility policy, and the Foundation Non discrimination policy... Yes, but there is nothing wrong with having colors in infoboxes, so his solution to simply remove the parameter, rather than change -- you know -- the color that is causing the problem in the first place seems a bit extreme. prohibits discrimination against users on grounds of disability. Oh my! You're vilifying your opponents. They did not consciously discriminate against editors with disabilities. This is also extreme.

Now, to dispute resolution. First some findings of fact (point out to me if I am wrong anywhere): (1) The matter of contention is whether the colors used in infoboxes would hinder the readibility and accessibility of our content for visually-impaired editors. (2a) Alakzi chose to, as a resolution to this matter, remove the parameters controlling the colors in infoboxes from a large amount of pages. (2b) AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend and several others did not like this resolution. (3a) Some editors, as a resolution to the conflict, wanted to seek consensus for the changes. (3b) Alakzi disagreed, saying that consensus would take too long and the changes fall within the realm of common sense. (3c) Other editors responded that the changes are not dire, and consensus can be reached before changes are made. Second: I just want to lay out a framework for what I believe might end this:

  • In the appropriate guidelines (MOS:ACCESS or wherever) editors are told something to the effect of: "While colours in infoboxes are not discouraged, colours that are difficult to read for our readers and editors who have visual impairments are. Therefore, colours in infoboxes must be compliant with the World Wide Web Consortium's (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). You can check that here. The colors chosen should also be relevant to the article in question. Further, not liking the color presented is not a reason to remove the parameter completely."

It may also be necessary that an automated program change the color to a unified scheme, not remove the parameter completely, and afterwards, individuals may come along and change the color scheme of individual articles again to make them relevant to that particular article. (for example, a nice, WCAG-compliant shade of red for an article like Clifford the Big Red Dog). Thoughts? --ceradon (talkcontribs) 02:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to make sure we are all on the same page: The template coding itself was resolved at timeline No. 5 (13:39 20 July), with the tracking category added to identify transclusions with flagged color combos. The issue now seems to be whether to 1) remove the current color in those individual flagged articles, with the option to add back accessible ones later as needed 2) have the flagged articles remain with inaccessible colors indefinitely until users address them one-by-one 3) other?—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
@Bagumba: To me, and this may be quixotic, I believe that if we can agree on a unified color scheme and have that implemented on all articles in the tracking categories, the majority of this dispute is solved. Both sides bring reasonable points, and a solution that cuts right in the middle is workable, in my opinion. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
And his use (abuse, in my opinion) of the template editor user right and edit warring to make controversial changes to a template, and got the template fully protected - Just to clarify, when Alakzi edit-warred, the template was not protected so he didn't actually abuse the template editor user right. After he first protected the template, MSGJ posted a request on the talk page stating Alakzi and others involved in the current dispute are requested not to edit the template, but to raise a request and allow another template editor or admin to gauge consensus.[51] Alakzi then edited the sandbox and noted on the talk page, I've now implemented this in the sandbox; see the final testcase in Template:Infobox television season/testcases,[52] and left it at that. He did not request that the code be implemented. It was Pigsonthewing who then added Alakzi's code to the template.[53] I reported this to MSGJ,[54] who reverted Pigsonthewing. It was Pigsonthewing who abused the template editor user right when he edit-warred, reverting MSGJ.[55] MSGJ then asked Pigsonthewing to revert or lose his template editor user right.[56] The template was fully protected after this. --AussieLegend () 03:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Stuck it from my comment, AussieLegend. Thank you for pointing that out. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 03:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
To add a little background on WCAG 2.0: the guidelines provide for three levels of compliance, "A", "AA", and "AAA". They don't have any particular fixed meaning; "A" is the lowest level of accessibility and "AAA" is the highest. Color contrast is not an issue for the "A" compliance level, but a contrast ratio (between text and background) ≥ 4.5 is required for "AA" compliance, and a ratio ≥ 7 is required for "AAA" compliance. Looking through the documentation here, we see that the "AA" minimum is set to meet typical acuity of vision in an 80-year-old, while the "AAA" minimum accommodates 20/80 vision (i.e., the maximum vision impairment likely not to use screen readers). I surveyed the contents of the infobox tracking category, and, thanks in part to Alakzi inserting automatic contrast switching code on the 18th, 98% of it meets the "AA" criterion. So it is possible that some people with reasonably severe vision impairments not quite serious enough to use screen readers are unable to make out the headings in the infoboxes and are compelled to read the article text instead; since all the information in the infobox should be present in the article, that arguably (*very* arguably) constitutes a "conforming alternative version" which "provides all of the same information and functionality in the same human language" and meets the AAA guideline anyway. Now, the argument for retaining colors is obviously equally trivial; the aesthetic benefit to doing so is not great, and there's certainly no reason it can't be done with AAA-conformant color combinations. But in terms of the big moral picture of accessibility, this is somewhere around the "tithes of mint, dill and cumin" level. (IMO, the reason it's being fought so furiously is because the issue is really serving as a proxy for the extent to which editors can bypass normal community processes by asserting technical expertise. But let discerning observers draw their own conclusions.) Choess (