Contents

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 05:09, 5 February 2013

EMr_KnG (talk · contribs) is very obviously a "man on a mission", i. e. falsifying Wikipedia articles by trying to "Turkify" everything. He does not have much knowledge of history, has no relevant or reliable sources to present, in fact, he does not even know English but - judging based on his writings - is most likely using some kind of an online translator. Right now, he is putting the (Anatolian) Turkish name of various historical people directly in the first line of the respective article, even though the Turkish language has absoloutely nothing to do with them. On his user page, he claims that various historical people or societies were Turks, even though scholars (and obvious historical and archaelogical evidence) say something different. Admin attention is needed. He has been asked by me and others to stop this, on his own talk page and on my talk page, as well as various other talk-pages. --Lysozym (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This pretty much sums it up, I'm sorry to say. I've been hoping he'll take the hint but he is now quite time-consuming. Advice and help would be welcome. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than dropping the block bomb on them, as they seem to be a relatively new user having only started last year and only editing sporadically, it might be worth dropping by to the Turkish WikiProject to see if anyone there is bilingual in Turkish and english to explain to them what they need to do here.Blackmane (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Adding the Turkish translations of non-Turk-related individuals might be appropriate on say ... a Turkish Wikipedia, but not here. Give him some guidance first, I'd hate to give an "attention-getting" block yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking for a block. I would welcome any kind of help. And if this user learns and agrees to contribute in an appropriate manner, he should have all freedom to improve Wikipedia. Currently, however, he is doing exactly the opposite. --Lysozym (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did I do? I present source. And also my claim adverse does not say anything on the page. Therefore taken back to why you do not understand what I write. EMr KnG (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your editing is that you're adding a lot of unverified information, particularly with respect to adding Turkic to subjects related to the Mughal empire. It looks like you are trying to attribute the Mughal empire to a Turkic ancestry. Without going into the content, you have been reverted each time because you made these changes without an adequate reliable source. Your systematic pursuit in doing so lends a distinctly nationalistic flavour to your editing (which is not meant to be insulting but merely a description). If you can bring up reliable sources, then there is certainly room for discussion on the talk page as to how it would be included into the article. The only sources you have been using are all written in Turkish. Although non-english sources are allowed, they're generally only used if no other sources can be found. Nonetheless, I think we need to find a turkish speaker to make the details clearer. Blackmane (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His contribs seem to suggest that. Although, EMr seems to move from one article to another doing no more than one addition but if it is reverted they don't revert the revert more than once but merely moves onto another figure and repeats. They're not aggressively revert warring about it, so my AGF meter is still on the middle-high level and reckon that this could be turned around with help from native speakers who can help EMr get with the program as it were. However, if they're pushing some nationalistic agenda then my meter is going to go red pretty quick. Blackmane (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is only problem Mughal? Do not have a problem when alterations are related to Hunnic etc. Also How can the reliability of the source determined? EMr KnG (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf? "I present source. And also my claim adverse does not say anything on the page. Therefore taken back to why you do not understand what I write. " is not even remotely English. The problem, I think, is that EMr KnG is editing on the en.wikipedia, and not on the tr.wikipedia. Competence of some sort is required, I'm sorry to say, and EMr KnG by his inability to even comprehend the issues has me concerned this disruptive pattern will continue. I suggest an indef block until and unless their English improves to the point that an admin is convinced they A) understand the problems with their editing and B) pledge not to add non-English words, names and phrasing to this Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua 18:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nobody else has apparently done so, I've left a note at WT:TURKEY asking for assistance from a Turkish speaker.[1] Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for anyone else, but my personal opinion is that if a translator is needed to comprehend basic instructions on the English Wikipedia, that editor should not be on the Enlgish Wikipedia. Of course, if you are looking for a translator to make sure that message is conveyed, you may have a point, and I concede that ensuring clarity in this may save time and trouble. KillerChihuahua 19:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd certainly support a block on the WP:COMPETENCE issue, being in complete agreement with KC; if you can't write in coherent, clear English, you shouldn't be making edits on the English Wikipedia. Ravenswing 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most/Majority (or all) of his/her edits are problematic and disruptive. Just verify his/her contributions page. Some of them:

• 1. Changed ethnicity or language (sourced contents) to Turk/Turkic/Turkish several times. See diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4,diff 5, diff 6.
• 2. content blanking and removal of sources plus POV-pushing. See diff 7, diff 8, diff 9 (just see what he/she removed and what added), diff 10 (plus edit summary).
• 3. Added unreliable and unscientific sources. diff 11, diff 12, diff 13, diff 14.
• 4. Added words in irrelevant language (Turkish). Those articles are not related to Turkish language or Turkish people. Turkic does not mean Turkish. Turkish is a Turkic language, but using of Turkish in any Turkic-related or Turkic-unrelated article is clearly wrong and false and may lead to further disruptive and unconstructive/false edits. diff 15, diff 16, diff 17, diff 18,diff 19, diff 20, diff 21, diff 22, diff 23, diff 24, Also some of above diffs have this problem too.
• 5. Does not attend to other users and their edit summaries, just reverts and edit war (see user contributions page). Read 1, 2, 3, 4.
• 6. Check user page User:EMr KnG and compare it with user edits. His/Her user page shows what he/she does. I know user pages are personal and we must consider contributions, but in this case that's related to his/her works.
• 7. Only interested in "Turkify the articles".
• 8. As mentioned by the other users the "English language" is very important. We can't call a translator every time. This is the English Wikipedia.

My summary about this user edits/contributions/behavior is WP:NOTHERE. Zheek (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped that some words from someone bilingual in english and turkish (thanks to Thryduulf for notifying them, I got pulled away before getting round to it then forgot to do so) would make them realise that they're not really suitable to edit here and they could back out gracefully without being booted out as it were. Be that as it may, I wouldn't oppose a competence block. Blackmane (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I. I warned him in September saying "Please stop changing articles so that they read 'Turkish' instead of something else. This edit changed sourced text. Others have just deleted text with no justification given in edit summaries. Editors who do this persistently usually end up blocked". I don't see any basic changes in his edits. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most practical step may be an indef block. It is hard to see a bright side in any of the material given above. He lacks the language ability needed to contribute here, he can't edit neutrally and he won't follow our sourcing rules. If he is blocked here, he still has an account on the Turkish Wikipedia he can use. EdJohnston (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by these comments on his talk page (or rather the translation I get from Google's translator), he does neither understand nor accept that he is wrong and that his edits are not helpful. I let the others judge for themselves. Regards. --Lysozym (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AWP:CIR indef block is called for here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. The user apears to be on a mission to "Turkify" historical, ethnic, and individual pages, so appears to be a Single Purpose account, relentlessly pushing an extreme POV from dubious and unreliable sources. The users page appears to be an explicit mission statement, including the rather bizarre Ataturk "quote" (I dont personally accept it as accurate in terms of the interpretation the editor gives it). There appears to be no attempt to compromise with other editors in any meaningful sense. On top of all this, the editors English abilities appear non- existent, and communicates in English via a translator, judging from the mangled syntax. So we do not have the ability to communicate meaningfully with the editor, losing all the subtle nuances essential for dialogue of this nature. A bleak picture. However the Turkish WP account would still be functioning, even if the editor is blocked, so our Turkish colleagues may be able to improve the editors attitude and turn the editor into a positive WP contributor. Irondome (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion. Can we not persuade the editor to voluntarily refrain from editing Eng WP pages until the editors linguistic and WP-related skills inprove. ( A whole gamut of issues, but its not impossible). If the editor would reject that, then a block on WP Eng would be the only option. If a native Turkish-speaking Ed could relay these conditions on the Editors talk page, maybe we would at least have a basis for dialogue. Also I would suggest offering the option of a mentor from our Turkish WP colleagues. If the editor is amenable to these ideas, then theres hope. Irondome (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, a number of Turkish speaking editors have engaged EMr_KnG on their talk page and educating them on what's required to edit on ENWP. As a gesture of good faith, perhaps this could be closed while this engagement is ongoing without a Sword of Damocles hanging over them? Blackmane (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fry1989's unblock conditions state that he must not comment on individual editors. "contradicting yourself", "you're blind", "you imply ... a dishonest stretch", "your question is completely facetious", [DrKiernan's comments are] "the most preposterous thing I have ever seen" and an admission that he holds me in contempt are all essentially comments on an editor. Instead of trying to wriggle out of his civility restrictions by saying these are comments on arguments rather than people,[2] shouldn't he be making an effort to avoid any comment that can be construed or misread as a breach? If these are not breaches, may I suggest an extension of the remaining unblock condition for a further 6 months? I am not aware of any breaches of the two expired unblock conditions (on edit summaries and reverts) and so assume that these conditions have been met. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Clear break of the civility restriction, and then flat-out lying when confronted with it. Re-block and extend WP:OFFER (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur.  Sandstein  13:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree (sigh). The first diff says a source is contradicting you. The second one is subjective and certainly battleground mentality but I think it falls short of a personal attack. "You must think Emma Stone is hot, unless your blind." It's more of a "how could you miss that" rather than "your an idiot." Third one, I think you're being dishonest by using ellipsis instead of the comma. It changes the context completely. Four diff, he is talking about your question and not you. Fifth diff, same opinion as fourth. Last diff, big whoop. I hold several people in contempt.

  All that said, he's displaying a battleground mentality that is clearly against the spirit of the unblock conditions and I'd support a block.--v/r - TP 13:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about lying (simply pointing out a fact here), I have never actually called anybody "blind" (read the link), or any sort of attack that has been interpreted as such. I already acknowledged to another user how my words could be seen in that manner of being attacks, but that was not my intent. Yes I commented on other users, but in the context of replying to their replies in what is a very difficult and heated discussion. Anyhow, I'm not gonna keep fighting an uphill battle, do as you wish. Block me for a while, don't block me for a while, make me stay away from certain things, it doesn't matter at this point cause I give up. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:DGAF to ANI approach, eh? You'd be better off just apologizing and offering to try harder. I already made your arguments for you.--v/r - TP 14:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not the DGAF approach, it's a capitulation because I've tried very hard to follow my restrictions, and while yes I break them some times it's not intentional. I'm sorry, is that what you want to hear? That I'm sorry for insulting people when that wasn't my intent? I have a flair for hyperbole, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to attack everyone at sight. Yes I'm sorry that I broke the spirit of my restrictions, and I said block me or don't, cause it's hardly my choice, but I have no interest in fighting this AN/I because there's no point. I made a mistake and should have been more restrained, what happens because of that is my fault. Fry1989 ^eh? 15:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you acknowledge (which you just did), redact, and try to stifle the hyperbole a bit (I do it too, so don't think you're alone) then I think we can shake hands and move on. Can't we, Dr Kiernan?--v/r - TP 15:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But I do think it wise to extend the remaining unblock condition for a further period because the other two unblock conditions appear to have worked, and so I feel it likely that the third condition might work if it is given more time. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was heavily involved in the unblock conditions. Fry1989 has significant control problems, as he himself acknowledges here and has acknowledged in the past. His latest comments may or may not be a breach of civility, but they do more than violate the "spirit" of the civility condition. As Dr.Kiernan pointed out in the beginining, they breach the second bullet point of the civility condition, "commenting on individual editors". I agree with Dr.Kiernan that the remaining block condition should be extended; that certainly beats an indefinite block, which is what a violation of the condition provides.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That seems fair and reasonable.--v/r - TP 15:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, yes. However, Fry cannot expect this to happen again. This is not a 3-strikes situation. Reset the 6 months. The NEXT one is it; period. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, Bwilkins, but a lot of discussion and effort went into these condtions by User:Amatulic (the lion's share), Fry, me, and by Dr.Kiernan, who, as I recall, was the most aggrieved by some of Fry's conduct. As Dr.Kiernan says above, progress has been made, and the principal goal should be to foster improvement. My sense - then and now - is that Fry is an honest person who sincerely wants to improve his conduct. Strictly speaking, a lapse should result in an indefinite block, but if being a bit more flexible resolves the problem and retains a useful editor, I think we should be open to that. I'm waiting to hear what Fry has to say.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're arguing the same point here ... aren't we? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think so, but if you do, I'm good. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, was I asked a direct question? I'm doing a training thing today so I'm in and out. Now this is obviously not the only reason I'm here today, I have troubles with other users at time too, but DrKiernan is the elephant in my situation. He and I are like cats and dogs, and I've made it no secret I don't want to be involved with him, and I've put in every effort recently to avoid it. I don't watch his talk page and I don't edit things he's active on. He however followed me on to that discussion uninvited by myself or the others involved. He has also followed me around on other things I'm involved with, and on Commons. I suggested some time ago an interaction ban between the two of us and that was called premature. Now is any of this an excuse for things I have said? Absolutely not, but it is the reality that he and I can not work together collegially, and I hold resentment about it because every time we do interact, our butting heads blows up and then I have to deal with this. It's happened three times, and I'm as tired of it as anybody else. This is not an attempt to skew the issue and change the subject, it is a part of this problem that we don't get along, and I've put in all my effort to avoid him. Can he say the same? I said what I said, it was wrong, it broke the spirit of my restrictions, I take accountability for it, but it never would have gotten that far if he and I didn't fight every time we encounter each other. Fry1989 ^eh? 18:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, Fry, I don't think your comments are helpful. I haven't looked at the recent history, so I can't comment on DrKiernan's involvement, but what you call following you around may simply be that some of your interests intersect, and there's no reason that DrKiernan should not be able to express their opinion on a particular topic if they do it in a reasonable manner. More important, if you know that you have problems interacting with DrKiernan, then you should either pay more attention when you do so you don't violate your unblock conditions or you should walk away from it if you can't behave. Despite your disclaimer, I think you're looking at this a bit backwards.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re TParis, unless I'm missing something, personal attacks don't come in to it. The unblock conditions say they must not comment on individual editor except in appropriate noticeboards. It doesn't say anything about personal attacks. I presume this condition, while harsh, was imposed because the community or whoever no longer trusts them to comment on editors and/or to avoid disputes oer what sort of comments on editors are acceptable. In other words, if any of these are comments on editors, it doesn't matter if they →are positive, innocous, borderline personal attacks or clear cut personal attacks they're clearly a violation. Now if the comments are genuinely positive and didn't cause any offene to the editors cncerned, it would be foolish to block them. But if and editor does disagree with comments on them, it would seem we have a problem. I haven't looked at the comments so can't say whether the comments are bad. Nil Einne (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My summary of the diffs is that they were not talking about Dr. K but about their comments; with the exception of diff 2 maybe. However, what I see is discussion. Unless you consider "your source contradicts you" to be about a person and not the source then I don't think the letter of the sanction is violated. Which is why I said the spirit of it was. Context helps with the diffs provided, and in the case of the third diff, an ellipsis is used instead of a comma which doesn't make sense to me other than to change the context. The comma takes less characters and is actually in the diff. It splits the sentence. If you disagree, that's fine, it's just my take and my take has seemed to lead us down the path to deescalation.--v/r - TP 23:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(@Bbb23) Unhelpful? Maybe, and it wouldn't be the first time my outlook has been wrong, but I am simply stating how I feel. If there's one indisputable fact here, it's that he and I don't play nice together. You can blame the reasons for that on one of us or both, but it remains a fact. I have said before many times that I want him to "leave me alone" (infact I have quite loudly exclaimed it on my talk page), I asked for an interaction ban (that was not even given consideration), and I've put in my due effort to avoid him. But somehow, DrKiernan seems to quite frequently "drop by" on pages I'm involved with where he has had absolutely no previous involvement and was not invited by anybody. Recently it has been happening on Commons as well, where DrKiernan is rarely active. You'll forgive me if I doubt the serendipity of it. I accept what I said and that it was inappropriate, but unless you have had as frequent and negative of interactions with a signle user as I have had with DrKiernan, please don't be so quick to reject the notion as me overreacting. As for the suggestion that I should unilaterally "move on" if he comes into something I'm involved in, surely you understand the implications of that, giving him to power to just impose himself on anything I'm working on forcing me to leave. I don't like that suggestion, and I don't think any other user who feels like their being followed around would like it either. Fry1989 ^eh? 22:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fry, in my view and in the view of some others (perhaps not TP), you have violated the civility conditions of your unblock. Some of the diffs DrKiernan set forth are weaker than others, but there's enough there to constitute more than one violation. Thus, even if you could demonstrate that DrKiernan is hounding you (that's essentially what you're claiming), it wouldn't do you a bit of good if we hold you to your conditions. As TP said (implied?) earlier, you should be focused on finding a way to continue editing here. Shifting the focus to DrKiernan won't help you. If you feel so strongly that DrKiernan is hounding you, then separately you should be asking for some sort of sanctions, an interaction ban or whatever you believe is appropriate. Now is not the time to be doing that unless you are simply so frustrated that you don't care, but most of us know that allowing present frustration to interfere with our long-term desire to edit here is generally self-defeating. Venting may provide some satisfaction, but it's transient and yet you're stuck with it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't really know the background of Fry1989's restrictions on editing, but what I have witnessed at talk:union badge of Norway and Sweden strikes me as obviously disruptive behavior. Fry has been debating rather ferociously about an article title which is based primarily on personal opinion, not what sources actually say. I can't say I've seen outright personal attacks, but there's plenty of civility gray zones, and above all a tendency of completely disregarding other editor's arguments in favor of home-brewed theories and interpretations. You can see the result for yourself at the article talkpage, but the latest of Fry's edits is very indicative of highly belligerent form of interaction.[3] Peter ^Isotalo 23:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on the validity of my points by calling them "home-brewed theories" (alongside other names I've had to endure) like I'm some conspiracy crackpot is why I'm here in the first place, and I greatly resent your use of the term. Instead of people being willing to discuss my sources and points, they accused me of making things up, and saying that "this word was never use now or ever!" even though I have a very clear sources saying the opposite. It is the shear frustration from being ganged up on like that which causes my ferocity. You don't have to condone the way I carry on my arguments on that page (something I have not attempted to do here in my own defence), but don't pretend I do it just because that's "how I am". It takes a lot to cause me to be so angry and negative. There's plenty of examples of me carrying on arguments in a civil, even cheerful, manner. I have the ability to be very pleasant, polite, and helpful, but when people start accusing me of lying and making things up, that's when my effort to be friendly goes out the door. As for my last edit you linked, no where is there a rule I have to agree with someone. That was completely civil, I said "you can think what you want, but I'm gonna think what I want". Tell me how that is belligerent to "agree to disagree", which is essentially what I said? Fry1989 ^eh? 23:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fry, I am very close to getting you a slap on the wrist and a gentle shove to be on your way instead of an indefinite block. For Pete's sake, don't screw it up.--v/r - TP 00:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it clear I have no interest in continuing on that page any longer. I said that they can think what they want, and I'll stick to what I think, essentially "agree to disagree", and I've stated on my talk page that I will no longer be engaging on that article's talk page. But calling my sources and points "home-brewed theories" was out of order. Decide what you want to do about me, and I'll accept and deal with it accordingly, but if you're worried of me screwing it up by continuing to an unreceptive crowd, you'll be happy to know that will not take place. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Restrictions are put into place to improve Wikipedia, not be tripwire sanctions used in content disputes. As TP has already elucidated, the diffs presented are very ticky tacky to be indeffing an editor over. Looking at the history, it appears Fry was editing the article and talk page long before DrK, and DrK raised the restriction two weeks ago on the talk page and yet continued to engage Fry. The issue isn't really Fry's incivility but their tendentious editing, but as there was no support for his position all that was required was to let them have the last word, but since DrK was "fed up" instead a motley collection of diffs has been presented to indef Fry over not very much. Let's just agree it's time for Fry to move on from that issue and be done with this. NE Ent 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I agree with the above. The dispute seemed mostly on topic, and appears to have burnt itself out, somewhat. I apologise if I am interjecting inappropriately. Irondome (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite agree. The dispute was technically on topic, but it also involved Fry being "angry and negative" about people simply disagreeing. I'm not pushing for a indefinite ban, but I consider the behavior surrounding union badge of Norway and Sweden disruptive enough to deserve a warning.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. A more severe sanction would appear counterproductive, and would demotivate an otherwise productive editor with a good editorial history on a relatively specialised topic. Irondome (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure where we are. We almost got to a point of agreeing that there would be no block but there would be a 6-month extension of the civility condition(s). However, Fry did not voluntarily agree to that, and it's not clear to me there's a consensus for it. I believe there was a consensus that Fry violated the unblock conditions (DrK, me, BWilkins, Sandstein, TP (spirit)), but not necessarily a consensus as to the remedy. I believe the only editor who disagrees is NE. The two editors who commented after NE follow up on his characterization of Fry's behavior as "tendentious editing", but although they appear to agree that a block is unwarranted (one wants a warning, one doesn't), they do not really address the issue of the violation. I should point out that a consensus isn't required to block Fry, but given the lengthy discussion, I'm not sure that any admin wants to take that step without a consensus. I know I don't at this juncture, although I am not happy with some of Fry's responses.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry if I didnt make myself clear. I meant I agreed with the mildest sanction available, if that is the consensus. Irondome (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feelings lean toward the lowest possible sanction that ensures this does not happen again. Fry says he has a "flair for hyperbole" and that needs to be controlled by him (as I said to him, I deal with it too, personally). If a block is the lowest remedy, then so be it, I'll support it if that's the case. If an extension of the conditions and a stern warning and commitment to control himself, that would be preference. I trust you, as you have all of the history behind you, to make a good decision. I'm not sure how involved you are, but if your only involvement is the previous block then I'm fine with you taking action.--v/r - TP 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, and to make my side clear, I'll reiterate that I accept I have broken the spirit of my restrictions before their expiration, and that it wasn't acceptable. My intent and the way things can be seen by others are two separate things, and I need to hold a tighter tongue. As for a remedy, I have no objection to an extension of the restrictions I agreed to, because outside of this incident they have assisted me greatly. If a temporary block is decided on, I'll deal with it, and if not I'll be thankful. Fry1989 ^eh? 19:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The unblock conditions, while well-intentioned, have turned out, in practice, to be problematic; I've suggested modifications on their talk page. NE Ent 20:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read, understand, and have no objection. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Before Fry's latest posts and NE's suggested revisions, I proposed a resolution at Fry's talk page. We now have two discussions going on, one there and one here. Based on Fry's response above after TP's post, I believe that we could have finished this as it pretty much did everything I asked him to do on his talk page. However, partly based on my bias for simplicity and partly because I don't agree with NE's suggested revisions (at this point I'm not going to go into why), I have advised Fry (on his talk page) that I prefer NOT to implement any of them.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with NE's suggestions. My primary concern is that in the course of discussion with another user, two way communication requires the use of 2nd person language and I am concerned that such use is considered "talking about someone." As long as we're clear that talking to someone and talking about someone's comments is not the same as talking about someone, then I think we can continue with the current wording.--v/r - TP 21:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm waiting to close this, I thought I'd respond to your comment, with which I agree, with a simplistic example of a hypothetical Fry communication: Acceptable: "I don't agree with John Doe's changes to the article because the source is unreliable." Unacceptable: "John Doe's changes to the article are dumb because the source is unreliable."--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The second one is the gray area that concerns me. It's saying the changes are dumb. I might be over-analyzing and the 2nd one certainly violates the spirit of the rule, but I'd say the existing rules cover "John Doe is dumb because the source is unreliable."--v/r - TP 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I intentionally phrased the unaccceptable example the way I did (as opposed to "John Doe is dumb", which I think is clear-cut) for two reasons. First, I wanted to err on the side of avoiding problems for Fry in the future. The unacceptable example is gray, and I didn't want to get into an endless battle later on wikilawyering such a phrase to death. Second, I think editors generally should avoid the second example. It's true that you're not calling the editor dumb, you're calling their actions dumb, and one can be smart and still do something dumb, but saying something someone does is dumb is often a politically correct proxy for calling them dumb. Moreover, it's simply not necessary. There's no reason why everyone can't convey their point using the acceptable example.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's fine with me, but let's make sure that Fry understands that's what is intended then.--v/r - TP 02:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed. I'm fairly certain Fry is paying attention to all the comments, but depending on the outcome, which is now less clear, we can make sure he understands. --Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • InJohn Doe's changes to the article are dumb John Doe's is a possessive determiner modifying the noun "changes"; thus the crux of the sentence is changes are dumb which is assuredly not referring to another contributor. Which just goes to show how, agreements that seem reasonable when agreed to often, in practice, become difficult to implement when the penalty is so all or nothing. NE Ent 03:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Remedy. I've revised the unblock conditions, the effect of which is to extend the civility conditions an additional 6 months from their current expiration date. I'll leave this thread open in case someone notices a mistake. I've also asked Fry to look at them. Assuming there's no error, this discusion will be closed (with thanks for everyone's help).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies - I'm overseas and have limited time to access Wikipedia. As one of the authors of the civility restrictions, I agree that their interpretation (while seeming clear at the time) have become problematic. I believe that further exploration of clarifying the restrictions should be explored as NE Ent has done. The restrictions weren't intended as a hair-trigger re-block mechanism. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, I'd still like to close this incident with the revised conditions. They don't involve a block, and they put to rest this incident and this thread. In addition, there's no reason why the conditions can't be revised again based on NE's suggestions - or anyone else's - to make them clearer and/or fairer. That said, based on your comment, I'm not closing this now. I want to see if there's agreement on closing first. I will be going off-wiki soon, so I probably won't be around until late afternoon tomorrow (American Pacific time). It seems dubious to me that there will be agreeement to close this before I go off-wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NickCochrane appears to have a serious COI issue with promoting old-school film over digital photography. Despite several editors reverting his biased edits, he carries on making them, either removing whole swathes of text from articles, or adding in biased comments.

• POV-pushing edits/AfD diffs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Film look

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmlook

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

(there are lots more)

• POV-pushing major deletions (without consensus)

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

He is currently under a SPI at present with another user who does exactly the same things (this SPI is on hold pending further investigation). See here.

Due to the constant POV-pushing, I feel that Nick should be permanently topic-banned from editing anything to do with digital photography and digital video, even if the SPI ends up taking a lenient action against him. If you want me to present more diffs here, then I will - there are dozens and dozens of them. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are not POV edits, they are all sourced with reliable sources. NickCochrane (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh really? "You are violating NPOV if you think VIDEO can be matched to look like FILM" is not a POV-pushing edit summary in itself? Let alone the fact that particular edit [13] itself did not contain a single source, regardless of reliableness. Several people have pointed out that your sources are not reliable, due to them being insufficiently independent, or, often, being blogs. Regardless OF the sourcing, your edits are constantly anti-digital and heavily pro-film, adding in mentions to film's "strengths" that are totally irrelevant to the article in question. Frequently. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not "Anti-digital" edits, they are balanced conclusions from actual sources. If something is higher quality, than it is. End of statement. It's not opinion, it's fact. NickCochrane (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Except, it's not neutral, balanced or even approaching that. You're adding mentions to standard film to articles where it has absolutely no place whatsoever - like at High Frame Rate. That's POV pushing, and inexcusable. Your sources exist, yes, but not one has been a reliable one. They're all connected to film-making companies (e.g. your Kodak sources), blogs, forum posts or some tabloidy things. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. And you know full well I'm not the only editor who has questioned your COI and/or edits - Oakshade, Edokter, etc. Also, I've detected a change you made to try and get Film look deleted. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, I DID NOT move the name to get it deleted. I moved it to the more common name and then on second thought nominated the article. Give it a rest, every edit I do you think I'm doing something wrong. What's next? I created an article today about a photographer - is that some CONSPIRACY? Jeez, I can't get a break from over-zealous editors like you and Oakshade this week. NickCochrane (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps you did, perhaps you didn't move it for that reason. You "can't get a break" because we keep finding edits that are borderline vandalism, and show your COI very strongly. The only place your "film is better than digital mkay" type ideas have any place is in the talk page for the article about Digital versus film photography. NOT in an article about High Frame Rate, because that has precisely 3 shades of cow manure to do with film's "better quality". Lukeno94 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - Perhaps this is better suited for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Oakshade (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC) On second thought, this is as much a incident reporting as NPOV, so it should remain here.--Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with the Lukeno94. One of the fundamental tenants of this or any encyclopedia is writing in a neutral point of view. That's why Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is a strict policy. In particular WP:NPOV states in bold "Avoid stating opinionsasfacts".

As digital video has become extremely of high quality and continues to evolve, there's now strong contention as to what format is "superior." "Superior" is in quotes because it's a subjective opinion. For example, some viewers like the extreme sharpness of high-res video and some prefer the old exposure rendering of film. But digital video has become so advanced, it's become a multi-billion dollar industry with many major studios choosing to shoot on digital video rather than film, like the films The Avengers (2012 film), Zero Dark Thirty and Hugo (film).

But what user:NickCochrane is doing is simply "film is superior to video" POV edits, like in the High Frame Rate article. [14] And his "references" have all been opinionated blogs, several year old articles from when video was only developing or even, I'm not making this up, Kodak, a company that SELLS FILM STOCK.[15] It's very easy to find "references" that say video is superior to film. Here are a few after a quick search [16][17][18]

It's okay for NickCochrane to have a "film is better than video" opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. I'm personally neutral on the topic. Once again per our policy of WP:NPOV: Avoid stating opinionsasfacts"

It should also be noted that there's a Sockpuppet case regarding NickCochrane Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickCochrane where, after two Checkusers conducted, the consensus is that NickCochrane is either using sockpuppets or meatpuppets (a block is likely to occur), so we don't exactly know who we're dealing with here. --Oakshade (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)--Oakshade (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Oakshade, you're much more eloquent/better at putting the point across than I am! Lukeno94 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick is still re-adding biased information into articles: He reverts my edit here[19], and is then re-reverted by Algr here.[20] Lukeno94 (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bit of a problem with the attitude of User:Gareth Griffith-Jones. Since I came across him about a week ago, I've sensed nothing but aggression and even a hint of bullying. The edit summary on this revision is evidence of that, in my opinion. He has also been quite aggressive towards me when I attempted to make changes he didn't like on the recent Six Nations Championship articles. I made this same point to Gareth earlier today, but he just deleted the message from his talk page; this is, of course, his wont, but I feel that it would have helped his position if he'd shown at least a little remorse for his conduct. Because of that lack of remorse, it seemed appropriate to bring the issue here, since any further attempts at direct communication would no doubt have been met with the same silence as just now. – PeeJay 19:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note As expected, the notice of this report was deleted within a minute of me posting it on his talk page. Clearly there is an attitude problem here and a lack of respect for Wikipedia and its users. – PeeJay 19:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this. You are involved in a content dispute over at Talk:2012 Six Nations Championship. Gareth has attempted to support a compromise in that discussion while you and others have not. Although that doesn't lend any validity to either position, your attempt at starting this incident report confuses the content issue with one of conduct. I looked at your diffs and your interaction with the reported user and find nothing out of the ordinary. In other words, the conduct of the user is well within the normal range. As a result, I recommend the closure of this thread. Viriditas (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The other user has not really attempted to provide any reason for their position on the issues in question, making compromise irrelevant. They have simply dismissed the status quo using a variant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and in my opinion they have been overly aggressive about it. The actual issues at hand are irrelevant, it is the conduct of other users that needs addressing. – PeeJay 21:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an outsider to this conflict and the involved personalities, let me tell you what I see: an inflexible position on your end, combined with an attempt to harass your opponent on his talk page and then using that harassment to justify a conduct report on ANI. There's nothing for anyone to do here. You should instead focus on resolving the dispute on the article talk page. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's perfectly alright for him to remove the notice from his talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Wikipedia policies governing how long someone is supposed to wait before removing notices or missives from other editors from their user pages. There are likewise no Wikipedia policies requiring that an editor show remorse to you for his sins, real or imagined, and there are sure as hell no policies justifying you bringing him to ANI solely on the strength of him failing to do so. Would you care to spell out just what Wikipedia policies you claim he is breaking? Ravenswing 08:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, anyone who states "The actual issues at hand are irrelevant, it is the conduct of other users that needs addressing." is the one with the attitude problem. The actual issues at hand are the only reason anyone should be here doing anything. From the looks of things it appears you don't want to compromise, don't want to be particularly civil yourself and are hoping that you can ignore any real discussion and then get the other user in trouble to get him out of the way so you can do what you want to do on the article. The best way to prove to us that you are acting with the best interest of the project in mind instead of petty personal desires is to start talking about the actual issues at hand. DreamGuy (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to ask the community's indulgence to raise an issue here that could arguably also be posted to BLPN: Under what circumstances do we, and do we not, name convicted child abuse perpetrators? More specifically, suppose ...

1. A sexual abuse scandal with an attempted cover-up arises in a particular religious community;
2. All of the perpetrators are convicted, albeit in separate cases;
3. All perpetrators have some kind of "official" status or role in the affected community;
4. No perpetrator is independently notable, i.e. per BLP1E none merits an individual biography article.
5. We do have an article about the scandal itself.

The question then, is: In the article about the scandal, do we name each of the perpetrators convicted of sexually abusing a child?

This question arises in the context of changes beginning 28 January 2013 to our article on Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community. Two near-to-Brooklyn IP's repeatedly removed all information about one of the perpetrators, a bar mitzvah tutor and licensed social worker named Yona Weinberg. When those repeated removals were reverted by multiple established editors, myself included, a just-created account showed up on the article's talk page asserting unreferenced claims (apparently based on personal knowledge of the case) that Weinberg was wrongly convicted.

Three editors seemed to agree on talk to let the IP's removal stand, and even seemed amenable to removing the names of *all* perpetrators from the article. I don't have strong feelings about any of this, but my impression is that BLP1E applies only to biographies, and that the "ruling" policy in instances like this one is WP:PERP, which says, in part: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person."

I also think we should be consistent in whether we name perps or not across similar articles, and would like to hear what the community has to say about that. For comparison purposes, here are some roughly similar articles that do explicitly name individual persons:

• Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Boston
• Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Cincinnati
• Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Philadelphia
• West Texas State School
• Horace Mann School

Btw, I posted here rather than at BLPN because I was hoping for broader input re both our explicit policy about naming perpetrators in such cases, and about what most editors who don't necessarily hang out at BLPN would informally prefer in that regard. --OhioStandard (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I happened to be reading Enron Scandal today and it names a bunch of living people there too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if you want a broader discussion either try VPP or advertise it in apporpriate places like WP:CENT rather then here. Nil Einne (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , Nil Einne; I hadn't known of Wikipedia:Centralized discussion, and will use that resource in the future. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they're namedinreliable sources as being convicted, and it's listed in the narritive as opposed to a "hall of shame" list, then they shouldn't be removed. Wikipedia is not censored. If it's a list appended to the article though of "people convicted", then it's probably WP:UNDUE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can add onto that is to remember WP:UNDUE; with something sensitive like this, we must be careful not to include irrelevant or less-relevant information. As long as an incident belongs in an article, names that appear in reliable sources should appear in the article. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. BLP doesn't enjoin us to avoid saying things which disparage a subject; it just enjoins us from doing so without ironclad, reliable sources. Ravenswing 08:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the above examples, it should be noted that in many cases the people named weren't convicted. In at least one case they were never charged, and in another we named someone as having had allegations made against him when later he was cleared of all charges, without mentioning that he was cleared. I think it is important to distinguish between appropriate naming of people who have been convicted, people who have been charged but not yet convicted, charged but the charges were dropped or cleared, and allegations without charges. - Bilby (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. Based on your comments I'll go ahead and restore the deleted content to the Brooklyn abuse article, since it meets the criteria you've specified here.

Btw, I notice that the Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Cincinnati example I listed above has been deleted, in effect, by being turned into a redirecttoRoman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, an article that includes just two sentences about the abuse. The redirect also causes a link to the former "abuse" article embedded within the article about the Archdiocese itself to behave in a "circular" or "self-referencing" manner. Since the original abuse article appeared to be well-referenced, I've asked the editor who performed the redirect to revert that, and to address whatever concerns he still might have by either editing the abuse article for NPOV, or by nominating it for deletion through the usual process. --OhioStandard (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone lend a hand at Chris Lee (referee)? I'm at 3RR now and there's an editor who insists that a huge chunk of content be added in violation of WP:UNDUE. – Connormah (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has Pending Changes applied. If so, why are the other editors' edits being accepted, as they're clearly not autoconfirmed? Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The only edits that were being accepted were those that reverted those changes made by that newly registered user. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "I know your policy. Here's mine: no more money to Wikipedia from me, my family, and extended family if you continue to censor this! How much money do you think it is? Check the records, and check your yellow journalisim editing at the door!" rather interesting edit summary from User:Michelle Ginrew there... Lukeno94 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A primary reason why those type of pages are under pending changes is this sort of thing happens occasionally every single year: a referee makes a controversial call during a game, and generally fans of the team that lost that match come in and vandalise/BLP violate that referee's Wikipedia article (I don't know for sure if this newly registered user was one of those angry fans, but it is safe to assume that it was not a fan of the team that benefited from that call). Now if this was a controversial call that has a lasting historical impact, like leading to a rule change or affects a playoff/tournament/championship contest, where there are long lasting reliable sources, then that content generally stays. But if it is a case like this, a call in one out of many regular season games, where it is usually forgotten once the season ends, it is almost always eventually removed on grounds of WP:RECENTISM. I doubt that "drive by" user, like all the others before, will stick around after the season. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Anybody who pulls the "shut up or I take my money" card should be immedately blocked as being WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that WP:NLT? I tend to agree, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a legal threat. Neither is it block worthy. If they want to "vote" with their pocket book, that is their business. All we should do is shrug our shoulders, watch the article and go about our business.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a legal threat, more like a lame sort of bluff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's blackmail, and anybody who thinks blackmail is an acceptable tactic in any walk of life is somebody who should not be editing here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worded like blackmail, in a way. Not demanding money, but instead saying he won't be contributing more money. The catch is, we don't know if the guy has ever actually contributed even one cent to the foundation. That's why I call it a bluff. The user needs to be watched, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"unjustified threats to...cause loss to another unless a demand is met" sums it up pretty nicely. Either way it falls under the category of "general tomfoolery that doesn't belong 'round these parts". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless WMF has logged the potential donation, then there is no loss, because it was never a gain in the first place. This "threat" is along the lines of "keep my edit or I'll call all of you doody-heads". Nothing to worry about.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like this article has been attracting vandalism for years, having looked at the edit history. Maybe a permanent semi-protect to comply with BLP is necessary. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the individual actually notable? Afd? NE Ent 17:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support an AfD. GiantSnowman 17:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A redirect to List of NHL on-ice officials would be easier and better. Lee is well known amongst NHL fans, and, well, the general opinion of him is a BLP violation, thus the vandalism. Resolute 17:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad calls are unfortunately a dime a dozen (consider the brutal "no-goal-interference" during the Ottawa-Montreal hockey game yesterday). That the ref sucks (even repeatedly) is WP:ONEEVENT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Afd'd. NE Ent 18:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Michael Milken (one of the big-name financial crooks of the 1980s), we have some paid editing by LarryWeisenberg (talk · contribs). This editor writes "My name is Larry Weisenberg, and I am a representative for Michael Milken." His edits generally try to de-emphasize Mr. Milken's criminal record (he did Federal prison time, and now he's out). The current issue started when an anon put "ex-con" in the lede paragraph, and it was removed at『Revision as of 17:35, 23 December 2012 LarryWeisenberg (Removing derisive term that brings negative POV to the article.)』[21]. I suggested using "convicted criminal" instead. Weisenberg didn't like that. So that's out, but I put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox (which is just a bio infobox, not a criminal infobox). Weisenberg didn't like that either. The general trend of these edits seems to be to keep any mention of the criminal history out of the snippet Google displays on searches, and to add various minor items that make Milken look good.

WP:NOPAY would seem to apply. --John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this guy to dictate how the article should look? Seems like owning to me by the way he disagrees with you. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You "put his Federal prisoner number in the infobox"? Why would you do that? That is not appropriate for a biography, even if a person were to be notable for being a criminal. I think there's more than one issue here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His federal prison number isn't of any use outside the federal prison system. Britmax (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed federal prisoner number, put back "convicted criminal", which is what he's notable for. --John Nagle (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many many people have been convicted of crimes at various times in their lives. If those convictions are relevant to that person's notability, we include them in their article. Milken's convictions clearly are relevant and are discussed in the body of the article. Putting things like Federal prisoner number or convictions in the infobox are inappropriate, violate our WP:NPOV policy, and suggest that you are editing with an agenda. Whatever crime a person has been convicted of, please try to remain neutral when editing their biography. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little unfair to have "convicted criminal" be the very first way an article defines him. That doesn't actually tell us what he did for a living. Strangesad (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I've fixed it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any user who admits to being a paid editor should have some setting changed on their account to prohibit editing articles from then on. We need to force these people to only use the talk pages. DreamGuy (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That might make sense if there was a policy that said "paid editing is not allowed". There isn't. And there never will be, now that paid editors and PR professionals have established a firm foothold, thanks to the concerted efforts of some Wikipedians. And more and more people seem to be leveraging their status on Wikipedia into paid "consulting" work. The writing has been on the wall for years, but in the last 18 months things have taken a major turn for the worse. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no way "convicted criminal" should appear in the infobox as what a person is known for, it's rude, skirts our BLP policy, and if the guy is best known for being a criminal, the article speaks for itself. Second, I am becoming increasingly concerned at the actions of admins who believe that paid editing should be banned, and act towards non-admins as if paid editing was banned. That is substituting personal judgment for the community's, as the community has not seen fit to ban paid or COI editing. That is a problem as an admin acts as part of the enforcement arm of the community, to the extent there is one.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they did see fit to do so we would have to ban a few of the Foundation employees as well as the Dear Leader himself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should be more concerned about the type of editors who insist on tagging every living person ever convicted of a crime as an "ex-con" or "criminal" in the first sentence of their bio than someone making a dime off removing that kind of material.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What Milken is notable for is his participation in the junk bonds scandal. He should be describe neutrally, and his conviction, sentencing and jail time should also be in the lead with equal dryness.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no great sympathy for Miliken, and cringe whenever he makes his annual trips to broadcast booths during baseball season to plug his foundation (which I see as primarily an attempt to rehabilitate his name), but he was notable before the junk bond scandal for basically having invented the junk bond market, and then for the conviction and incredibly large amount of money he had to pay in connection with it. All of that is proper to be in the lede, as long as it is, as lgr says above, neutrally described. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with BMK. Milken is a more complicated personality than merely a convicted criminal. However, all this is best discussed on the talk page of the article rather than here. My suggestion is that we let LarryWeisenberg know that, as someone with a clear conflict of interest, he should confine himself to making suggestions, as specific as he prefers, on the talk page rather than editing the article directly. That should take care of the COI. --regentspark (comment) 23:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, very few people come here to edit by making suggestions on talk pages. While it isn't an unreasonable suggestion, it may not be reasonable to expect that someone will so confine himself. It's also not an offense against our "rules"; we cannot require him not to edit directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while I agree that very few people come here only to make suggestions on talk pages, paid editors do have a COI and our wp:coi guideline actively discourages direct editing by editors with a conflict of interest. A useful guideline IMO because it makes paid editing and COI editing less combative. --regentspark (comment) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Others have already pointed this out, but let's make sure there is no confusion about it. Milkin isn't notable for being a convicted criminal. He was very involved with junk bonds, but it is highly misleading to say he was part of the junk bonk scandal. The article should not avoid saying he was convicted, but it should be balanced, with discussion of his contributions as well.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Miliken was very much involved in the junkl bond scandal, and did serve time and paid a humongous fine for it. It's hardly a trvial part of his biography and needs to be dealt with, but in a neutral manner. Leaving it out does not serve the interests of our readers and makes the encycylopedia that much less valuable. The question is not whether it should be in, but how much WP:WEIGHT it should be given. Labelling him a "convicted criminal" in the infobox is too much, but the lede should include it, as it was a significant event both in his life and in the history of stocks and bonds trading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "behaviorial guideline" that says paid editing is prohibited, WP:NOPAY. What is the status of WP:NOPAY from an enforcement point of view? Are editors blocked for that? I'd thought they were; we had a big flap over this a few months ago on another topic. --John Nagle (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPAY does not say that paid editing is prohibited. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a guideline. It is not actionable. People can be pointed to it, but admins who block or warn for it are off base.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The junk bonk scandal? That would be interesting...! Britmax (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to throw another voice of agreement in here - the criminal conviction is a secondary feature of the thing he was notable for, and defining him primarily as a criminal is definitely showing a slant! We have a lot of articles that tend to creep this way over time (see eg/ the discussion on Talk:Robert Tappan Morris); I wonder if there's any efficient way we could start digging out some of these long-running BLP issues? Andrew Gray (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't get me started. This was an outrageous edit for someone supposedly interested in compromise, and if it's indicative of John Nagle's typical attitude towards BLPs then he shouldn't be editing anywhere near them. Couple that with an apparently large misunderstanding of what precisely our rules on COI and paid editing are (I note a trouting from Dear Leader over this wholesale reverting of sourced content, for instance, because of the identity of the responsible editor) and we have a problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is about self-promotion and whitewashing. We have here a convicted criminal, one responsible for "the biggest fraud case in the history of the securities industry"[22] who pays someone to edit Wikipedia to make themselves look good. There's no question about this; the editor involved admits it. Does Wikipedia want to support such efforts? John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't an "either with us or against us" situation just because you say so. Over the years a huge amount of drama has been caused by people taking an ostensibly good idea (a particularly relevant example is pushing back against the promotion of pseudoscience) and going at it so single-mindedly that they cause more trouble than they prevent. Here, you're editing a BLP to skew it egregiously towards the opinion you want the reader to form of the subject (that he is a career criminal, above and beyond any other detail of his life) and that is most certainly something that bears further investigation regardless of any alleged problematic editing on behalf of the editor you initially reported. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few months back, Wikipedia seemed to be taken a much harder line on paid editing. Wikimedia UK chair Roger Bamkin lost his job for paid editing.[23] What changed? Is paid editing OK now? --John Nagle (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest someone close this, as this article now has more eyes and it appears no acmin action will ooccur as a result of this report.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend administrative action against Lugnuts. After what I believe was a fair effort on my part to ask this editor to use edit summaries and not engage in vandalism, the editor engaged in quite obvious incivility.

No edit summaries[24]
Initial vandalism[25]
Obvious incivility[26], [27]

I'm asking for administrative action in the form of a final warning or even a block. Any one of these behaviors in isolation wouldn't be enough, but editors operating in good faith shouldn't have to contend with this level of malicious antagonism. Chicken Wing (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and you'll be notifying him of this report as required? Plus, you approached him a mere hour ago, were you going to wait for him to reply? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notified him originally on my talk page where he (or she) had edited, and then to make sure it was seen, posted it in both places. So, yes I did, though you may have posted here before I had time to post both notices. The user has replied, with incivility, to every comment I have made. You can look at the edit Lugnuts has made below, and the user's antagonistic tone becomes pretty obvious. Chicken Wing (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus wept. I'm not using edit summaries. Get over it. Move on. I try to talk to this user, but he/she keeps blanking my edits. Doesn't help, does it? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:VAND - "Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings". So where is the presitant vandalism? Looks like Chicken Nuggets has shot himself in the foot. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you a fair warning for vandalism. I didn't report you to administrators only for vandalism. Nor were you reported only for failure to use edit summaries as your previous comment implied. You're being reported for a wide range of misbehavior. And even then, I am not strenuously pushing for a block. Even a final warning from an administrator would do. It seems reasonable that if an editor cleans up your mess (an act of vandalism in this case), having to endure incivility would be insult to injury. I should point out also that the poor behavior continues in your above post for everyone to see. Chicken Wing (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"a wide range of misbehavior" - Go on, expand on that one. You're the lawyer afterall. I'm dying to hear this. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to use edit summaries, vandalism, incivility, and gaming the system. As I mentioned, any one of these in isolation probably wouldn't be a big deal if it happened once, but this was repeated acts, and you continue to engage in incivility and efforts to game the system even after being posted here. You were given chances to let this go, and you chose to make it worse. Just the attitude you have displayed in this section alone should also make it clear that you are not willing to tone it down. Chicken Wing (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In and of itself, failure to use edit summaries is not something we block about. It is, however, usually a sign that the individual is WP:NOTHERE or at least not willing to abide by community standards. A sniper was killed by a sniper - although ironic, it's incredibly insensitive to insert a wikilink to irony on their article, or even state that you're "laughing about it" - it's a loss of human life, and any human being with a shred of decency does not defile that. It's as bad as the church that pickets military funerals. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, not to draw this out, but you've never laughed at a dead celebrity joke? Ever? In any case, the ironic edit was removed in double-quick time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a block-worthy offence, but, seriously - have some class, please. If you'd like to make others laugh, go to one of the comedy clubs in your area. Keep the jokes out of mainspace articles. m.o.p 11:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per the sources, the sniper was shot dead at point blank range not sniped. There may be some irony here, but not that much so really the joke is even sillier. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this main space edit and the comment about the sniper in incredibly bad taste? Probably. Has Lugnuts abused you in any way shape or form Chicken Wing, apart from a couple of light-hearted remarks? I don't think so. Lugnuts not using edit summaries is not really something you should be that bothered about - certainly not to take it to this level. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lukeno94, I apologize in advance for singling you out. I don't know you. I have no reason to think you are anything other than a good Wikipedia editor and a decent person off this site. But your edit annoyed me, and in a way I suppose it's what I expected when I posted the original ANI comment.

The main space edit wasn't just in bad taste, it was vandalism. Yes, Lugnuts was abusive, and no, comments about death on someone's talk page are generally not considered light-hearted. Your third edit falsifies what has happened here, as Lugnuts wasn't brought to ANI for not using edit summaries. In fact, I even stated in my original post that none of the edits taken in isolation are enough to be here.

This is what I expected though. Every single act the user has engaged in that I brought up has been downplayed, and in your comment and in the first comment by BWilkins, I am actually the one facing questioning instead of the offender. Now, it's obvious to me that Lugnuts is an abusive editor, but it appears we're all willing to play dumb about it. So let me add some more evidence, and let me state, this isn't necessarily all the evidence. This is just what I found after looking for the obvious:

[28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]

There's also this likely sock edit:[34]

I asked for a block or even just a final warning in my original post. That's still all I'm asking for. Just an admin to tell Lugnuts this kind of behavior can't be tolerated on Wikipedia, and you'll be blocked if it continues.

I don't know though. Reading through this, it would appear maybe this kind of behavior is tolerated. Chicken Wing (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry, I've not taken offence at you your comments, I shall respond to them. I do not believe I condoned Lugnuts' edits that are directly referring to the sniper's death. The "light-hearted remarks" refers to his pun on your name, and the "don't let the door hit you" comment. The issue with the edit summary thing is that you're the one who brought the information about it here, and you're the one who cited it in things that Lugnuts should be punished for. I would not consider Lugnuts to have been abusive - crass, yes, but abusive, no, and certainly not to you. I'd leave the socking remarks out unless you intend to take him to a SPI. "Jesus wept" isn't really a bad edit summary; "fuck off and die" IS, however. I couldn't really care less about the missing edit summaries, but it seems that Lugnuts is indeed capable of being very aggressive if something doesn't go his way. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aggressive? Maybe. But I wouldn't shoot you in the face about it. I guess deadpan humour isn't everyone's cup of tea. The sock claim is laughable. I look forward to Wings' proof behind this and his stalking of my edits. I guess there's not a lot to do in Texas. Well, maybe join the NRA. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the deadpan humor; it's the deadpan humor in the article. The sock claim isn't laughable; it's an IP address that's made one edit, and that one edit was a profane defense of your use of your user space. I'm not about to defend "stalking" your edits, but I am admittedly mildly interested at this point in seeing if an admin acts like that's not a transparently bad faith effort to twist my legitimate use of your edit history. Your arguments here are weak and your attitude overtly contentious. Fortunately, it appears the entirety of foul edit history is going to be referred to as "failure to use edit summaries", etc. and dismissed. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As others have indicated, there is nothing AN/I-worthy here. Bundling failure to use edit summaries in with the editor's comment that he thinks them a waste of time (etc.) does not rise to the level of block-worthy behavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "etc." do you mean vandalism, gaming the system, repeated insults, telling people to fuck off and die, calling them twats, calling an admin a coward and spineless, and so forth? Come on. I feel like I should be blocked for just repeating those things. I'm going to start using this line of reasoning from now on. "What, O.J. is being brought to trial for owning a glove, thinks it doesn't fit, etc.?" "What, people don't like Ray Lewis because he got blood on his white suit, threw it away, etc.?" Sweet Sassy Molassy. Chicken Wing (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments refer to 3 of your 4 diffs, which focus on failure to use edit summaries and on discussion in regards to that choice. AN/I is for admin action, such as blocks, and looking at the diffs you present I don't see them as rising to that level.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That just isn't true. I really don't understand what is going on here. I originally posted four links. One deals completely with edit summaries. One is vandalism, and two are incivility. Later I posted seven more, none of which dealt with lack of edit summaries. That's 11 links, only one of which is failure to use edit summaries. 3 of 4? I mean, I'm not mad at you. I'm really not. I'm trying to make this work, but I feel like I'm in a parallel universe. Right now, an admin is having to remove comments made by Lugnuts from this very discussion (!) because they were too childish, and yet you're questioning me with terribly incorrect facts. Chicken Wing (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like I'm the only admin who's posted here who believes that Lugnuts should be blocked for their behavior. I believe the block was justified based on the OP's original comments. Taken in combination, they justify a block, even though the lack of edit summaries and the incivility diffs would not by themselves justify a block. However, the irony addition to the article is blockable all by itself. Wikipedia article space is not an editor's toy to make a political point or, worse, to make a "joke" (all agree that the "joke" is in incredibly poor taste). Beyond that, though, Lugnuts's behavior here has only made a block more justifiable as they refuse to acknowledge any problem and continue to behave in an immature and disruptive manner. (The edit summary insult diffs (twat, etc.) are pretty old and don't do much except maybe show a pattern of behavior. I find it interesting, though, that Lugnuts uses edit summaries to attack when reverting but not to explain their own edits.)--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No you're not the only one, Bbb23. This was just crass and almost looks like Lugnuts is seeing how far he can go in thumbing his nose before a block is enacted. Go ahead and briefly block for pure disruption, though it's probably what he wants so he can call "foul". Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've blocked them for 36 hours for disruptive editing and pointed to this arbitration principle, which, without getting into specifics, sums up the situation relatively concisely.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts seems to have a clear history of gaming the system by using as much abusive language as possible while still managing to escape unscathed. The user has been blocked twice for edit warring, but the user's history is also filled with etiquette complaints and other avenues for conflict resolution on Wikipedia, but most have resulted in no action. In some cases, Lugnuts has badgered users until they've left the project. Here are more abusive diffs in case this discussion has to be referred to in the future [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], and [42]

Lugnuts also denied this IP address edit was a sock.[43] But compare the insult there to the insult used by Lugnuts here.[44] Bad stuff. Chicken Wing (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK Chicken Wing, that's enough: Lugnuts is blocked. If you want (more) blood, you should try a different avenue. FWIW, I agree with Bbb's block and would not oppose a closer look at Lugnuts's editing behavior in a different forum (it's not an ANI matter). Drmies (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. And beware of making assumptions, as the IP could be a copycat. Either way, using an IP potentially exposes the IP vandal's possible location, which is not very smart of him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see there are some admins still willing to enforce a modicum of standards. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the block for vandalism.--v/r - TP 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reasonable block, Lugnuts was pretty obviously trolling. Perhaps he should consider using Encyclopedia Dramatica as an outlet in similar situations. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Abhidevananda has written a lengthy section in Talk:Progressive utilization theory#RFCs or just another attack suggesting that my opening of an Rfc on that talk page was done in bad faith. My preference is to have an administrator close that thread (as it is not entirely relevant to the article) and suggest a more appropriate forum to Abhidevananda in which his or her grievances toward me can be addressed. (I guess a review with brief comment on whether or not things seem to be in order with the Rfc would be welcome, too.) Thanks! Location (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC) edited 19:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest Wikipedia:Mediation. Anyway, the issue here in brief: for last 2 months so we are trying to solve content dispute. Few users think the article is full of primary sources and is more a manifesto than an encyclopedic entry, other group of editors think these sources are required in this article.
The article has been fully protected twice, first time for 1 week, second time for 1 month. We are trying to reach a consensus before 18 February (that day 1 month full protection will end). Changing header to just "Progressive utilization theory --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Titodutta, I opened this thread in regards to Abhidevananda's allegations of bad faith editing and canvassing on my part. The content dispute is a separate issue that can be addressed there or in a different forum or ANI thread. Location (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civil pov-pushing, editwarring, misuse of sources, and lengthy talkpage diatribes should be called out for what they are. I would invite uninvolved editors to look at the recent history of the article and decide for themselves whether it's better to have Abhidevananda's version, or the version supported by a bunch of uninvolved editors who commented following the last NPOV noticeboard thread... since the wrong version is protected this time, nothing need change at the end of protection until some other editor is bold enough to try removing unsourced or fringey content, which will be immediately followed by a revert. bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Abhidevananda and their 2 allies at the article are acting in good faith, do not understand how Wikipedia works, and sincerely feel persecuted. They are also defending a version which (unbeknownst to them) in violation of a range of Wikipedia policies and guidelines and a 100 miles away from being an encyclopedic article. They have also managed to stop efforts to fix the article. What is needed is for a few more people to tell Abhidevananda this, and then to unlock the article while a few more persons familiar with wikipedia guidelines and policies and enclyclopedic articles visit there for a few weeks and help fix it. North8000 (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two WP:FT/N discussions on PROUT and its creator here and here. Almost every article related to Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar is stuffed full of primary-sourced material, with notability problems left and right; and this template evinces an intent to create two or three times more articles than already exist. At the moment the major evidence for Sarkar's notability is the Ananda Marga organization, which has had some political involvement, and a PROUT economist at SMU who made a prediction which got him on the NYT bestseller list and the earned him an Ignobel. Bringing this balloon back to earth is heavily inhibited by a group of crusading SPAs who don't really seem to have a grip on what this project is about. It would be useful to have one of these people working from secondary sources (because the proliferation of Sarkar works tends to mask everything else) but if they can't learn to play by the rules, we are going to have to cut drastically. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would be grateful if you could review SPECIFICO's activities on WP. His short record is already abysmal. He has already been warned by numerous editors, and blocked for edit warring. This has not modified his stance, much to the contrary. He has been following-me through my edits, reverting good-faith contributions, and refused to participate in the discussions I proposed. I have tried to politely ask him to cease and desist (here and here). I have the strong impression he is using WP to push his point of view. Your intervention would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Alfy32 (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to provide more evidence (diffs) of a specific problem. This isn't a forum to "review" another editor's behavior generally. Also, if you know enough to come to ANI, then you should also know you must notify SPECIFICO as the instructions clearly state at the top of this page; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This ANI is not well taken. Bringing up the start-off editing history, and calling it "abysmal", only re-hashes a learning experience and improperly characterizes the case at present. Alfy32 has a very short history of editing, and implying that SPECIFICO is wikihounding is ill-founded. I've observed that SPECIFICO has responded well to various criticisms, and his edits (for the most part) stand on their own two feet. Please close this ANI immediately. – S. Rich (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Gravitycollapse (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#We_need_to_update_relevant_pages_to_gender_neutral_pronouns.

Will someone please throw a bucket of water over this before it even starts. N-bomb dropped already. Godwins' law armed and waiting.

Also, is socking in evidence yet? This sort of mule-headed single-position edit-warring is usually socked from one of the regulars, but I just can't think who it might be? TobiasConradi? Apteva? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the "N-bomb" instead of the intended word, nigger, is an offense to straightforwardness. You're getting away with saying words without suffering the consequences of their observation. I am not attempting to rouse protest by my usage of the term. I am trying to prove a point. As can already be observed, my systematic editing has ceased and I am now only participating in the discussion.

Bucket of water has been thrown and the fire is out. Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have aroused protest by your use of the term. (And by your preemptory manner of address). So, it would be good to modify all that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly advise you to drop the issue before you do something you really regret. You won't achieve anything, so it's just a waste of everyone's time. Give it up. —Rutebega (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice is duly noted. However, I will not volunteer to censor my posts because my argument ruffles feathers. As I've already stated, my actions are not meant to generate protest. Quite the opposite actually. Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People choose to be offended by things all the time. That does not mean we at Wikipedia are responsible for changing that which you have chosen to find offensive. So far you seem to be trying to swim up a waterfall with this little crusade. I trust statements like " I will be continuously altering these pages as it is on my project list. I will be monitoring these alterations for any attempts to revert them back. It might be wise to let this one go." are not indicative of your future editing habits? Resolute 03:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One would expect my actual future habits to be proper indicators of my future habits. Hence, if you choose to generalize my agenda, you should at the very least consider the posts I've actually made since then. -Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were made based on my perception that specific users were reverting my posts arbitrarily. You will notice that as a number of users protested, I halted my editing and started a discussion. My original intent to edit was made under the assumption that altering to gender neutral pronouns was both logically correct and non-controversial. Obviously that is not the case. Gravitycollapse (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perfectly straightforward and non-controversial -- which is why you felt it necessary to include the edit summaries "This is a permanent change. Please do not alter my edits. I will be monitoring" and "Reconverting back to gender neutral pronouns. Please do not change this. Thank you". So no, you were perfectly aware of what you were doing and attempting to impose your changes by fiat. --Calton | Talk 03:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, can we all try to remain a little more civil, less sarcastic, and a little nicer here? The user in question (Gravitycollapse) is in fact in discussion, and has not made any edits changing the wordage in a while. As long as the user continues to discuss instead of editing (barring any consensus for the change in question), I feel no action is necessary. gwickwire^talk_edits 03:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's perfectly clear that Gravitycollapse has changed his position since he made those edits, so it's probably best not to badger him about them. There's no obvious evidence of sockpuppetry, and Gc shows many signs of a newbie editor. He is no longer edit warring, and apparently doesn't intend to repeat this behavior. Oh, and if you're bothered by his use of the word nigger: while it was insensitive and unproductive, Wikipedia isn't censored, and it was by no means a personal attack. I think if Gravitycollapse can a. accept consensus and b. understand pertinent policies and guidelines moving forward, then there's nothing else to be done. —Rutebega (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Closing this down, as discussion seems to be going forward, and this doesn't look like anyone needs a block. --Jayron32 04:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are these appropriate? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 10:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they break any rules. Userboxes are often used to espouse personal beliefs, and this doesn't seem disruptive or anything. What makes them inappropriate? m.o.p 10:28, 4 February 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Not inappropriate. This is apparently a young editor.[45] Adam Cuerdon has not informed them about this discussion and they have not edited since June 2012. Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

May someone please move this page? It was decided that it'd be moved, but was closed by a non-admin who did not move the page (I assume because it was move locked before?). Can someone please move this page:

Amy Dumas → Lita (wrestler)

Thanks. Srsrox (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Not sure if move-protection is (or was) necessary, come to think of it... Bencherlite^Talk 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RichardMills65 (talk · contribs) has been active recently in a particular pattern, removing redlinks from articles, and adding references. The references are somewhat problematic in themselves, and have been reverted by a few users. But it's the redlink removal that's the issue. Several users have posted on his page on this issue, including myself, and yet the pattern continues. Skipping from article to article, without apparent pattern, the user removes redlinks, sometimes purging an article outright, sometimes only removing a few. There's no apparent method to his approach, and people have been reverting him (and hence posting notifications on his page) for removing valid links. An excerpt from a post to his page with some examples of my concerns are here:

Here you deleted a ship link. These are valid links, given that naval ships are continued article worthy, an article will one day be written. And again here. As a Member of Parliament the subject will one day have an article, one just hasn't been written yet. Here you deleted another one, which left a mangled mess of wiki formatting, and here is another example of this. Here you delete a perfectly valid blue link for some reason. And here you actually add a couple of links that are textbook cases of WP:OVERLINKING.

A look at his contributions will show the issue some more. Sometimes he takes out the one or the few redlinks in an article, in others he takes out a single one, leaving others that if the one redlinked article he removed was non-notable, surely the others should go too. There seems to be no reasoned approach to gauging the viability of these links and making a decision as to whether they should be retained or removed, and the number of times I've caught him on articles where I know there is notability for the subject in question, just that no article is written, leads me to think he's not paying attention to this. I've notified about ship articles, and one of his next edits was to remove one from an article. He no longer engages on his talk page, I'd like further input, as now a number of editors are having to revert and notify him, for no change in his behaviour. Benea (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at all the diffs you supplied on the user's talk page, and I agree with your analysis. This has been pointed out to RichardMills often enough and it should stop. As far as I'm concerned, this is disruptive enough to warrant rollback and a block if it continues. It's a bit odd--RichardMills responded positively to earlier messages, but there's nothing in response to the many messages about redlinks. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, back in December there was significant disruption to a number of article talk pages relating to Vojvodina by a new user User:Oldhouse2012. This resulted in a report here [46] specifically about the editors behaviour at Talk:History of Vojvodina, and an ARBMAC warning was issued to User:Oldhouse2012 by User:EdJohnston here [47]. User:Oldhouse2012 then fell off the face of the earth. The disruption to the article (this time by two IPs) re-commenced in mid-January [48], [49] and [50] and User:EdJohnston protected the page on 23 January here [51]. User:Brianyoumans was subjected to some personal attacks and abuse by these IPs here [52]

On 31 January a new user User:Baća bez gaća registered, joined a number of WikiProjects that had previously been subject to the banner disruption on Talk:History of Vojvodina (a total of ten edits), waited four days then began the same disruption of the talkpage as User:Oldhouse2012. During early discussion with this new editor by User:Brianyoumans (who was involved in dealing with the disruption earlier) another new account User:Foodsupply appeared to support User:Baća bez gaća. A quick look shows that User:Foodsupply was created on 29 January and did ten edits that day. When four days had expired this new editor's first edit was to support User:Baća bez gaća at Talk:History of Vojvodina here [53].

The two new accounts appear to be either new WP:SPAs created by the disruptive IPs to continue that activity or socks/meat of User:Oldhouse2012. In particular, User:Baća bez gaća's behaviour and comments are highly reminiscent of Oldhouse2012.

Could I please get some admin attention on this? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what he said!Brianyoumans (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I hear ducks quacking. Two new registered accounts miraculously sprang up when semi was imposed, and are now making the same silly reverts. They are removing certain WikiProject banners from the talk page, apparently as a sort of nationalist turf-marking behavior. Unclear whether an SPI would have much to go on. We might have to go ahead and block new registered accounts on behavior. One option might be to open an WP:RFC on the talk page about the WikiProject banners and then block anyone who reverted before the RfC reached a conclusion. EdJohnston (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea Ed. Could we block these characters while I get the RFC up and running? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC done [54]. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I have another potential sock to add to the pile: User:AnyWay5000. Created on January 30th, the very first edit on the account was to create a WP:Kingdom of Hungary.Brianyoumans (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seven months ago, Guerrilla of the Renmin (talk · contribs) (GotR on talkpages) changed a headerinScarborough Shoal from "Claims by China and Taiwan" to "Chinese claims". I reverted this. GotR then posted in talk and made the edit again, which myself and another editor responded to, and I reverted back to "Claims by China and Taiwan" again. GotR never responded to either post, or otherwise used the talkpage after this.

On 20 January GotR made an edit to the article, with the edit summary "RV edits that could give the impression of being the same government". This "RV" included changing the header to the one they wanted. After an IP changed the header to something else, I reverted back to the stable version on 28 January. After this, GotR made another edit, with the non-descriptive edit summary "Reverted to revision 535088632 by Tarheel95. (TW)", which included the header change. On 4 February I made an edit, restoring the original header (along with the noting in the infobox of China's control of the shoal, which is a separate bit of content arose after another editor noted this control on the talkpage in a post that hasn't been contended). GotR follows this with an edit made with no edit summary, marked as a minor edit, in which they again put in their desired header. When I reverted this 'minor edit', GotR reverted this with the edit summary "Reverted 1 edit by Chipmunkdavis (talk): CMD, your behaviour is outright WP:OWNERSHIP, as I've already made enough concessions, almost enough to seem like a wuss. (TW)". In my response, I said "If you think I own the page take it elsewhere. You're trying to force in your pet title (including with a claim of reversion, after months) while claiming you're making concessions (which is at any rate irrelevant) and accusing others of ownership." Their response was to say "I shouldn't have to point the paragraph beginning with "in 1935" is more concise in my revision, yet you dastardly RV away because it is not how *you* have always liked it". (During the writing of this report, I accidentally clicked the rollback button on their last edit in the article history, which I then rolled back, which is why there are two rollbacks at the top of the article history. Apologies.)

Their last edit completely ignores the header change and accuses me of reverting away because it's not how I have always liked it, which is despite the fact that I explained my position on both the talkpage and in edit summaries, and seems rather WP:POT from someone complaining about how they've had to make concessions. In the meantime they've tried to game the system, using misleading claims of reversions and other unhelpful edit summaries to put in their preferred changes, marked edits as minor when they're clearly not (and this is in no way a new user who doesn't know our guidelines), and responded the reversion of these by accusing me of ownership. This is actually a rather mild incident in the history of a user who has previously directly called another editor "vermin" and has used their userpage to launch their own (quite long) personal attack against me. It is however a good indication that this user is still greatly emotionally invested in the kind of issues which compelled them to launch such blatant personal attacks at earlier points (which I let slide at the time, and I believe others did too, and I'm not aware of any prior reports on this user). That they say they feel like they are going to be seen "like a wuss" in this latest exchange highlights this continued emotional investment, and that they discuss giving concessions shows a rather battleground-minded mentality rather than a consensus-minded one. I'm not allowed to discuss this with the user on their talkpage, as I'm on a list of banned users (despite not having ever actually posted on their talkpage before). GotR has been entangled in this China/Taiwan from almost the beginning of their editing history (their first post on the topic included an allegation of "possibly wilfully deceitful", and as shown above it only went downhill from there), and clearly needs to be separated from it. However, they do a lot of work elsewhere, and I reckon they can be productive away from this area, which seems to push too many of their buttons. CMD (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ah, the turncoat", is it (quoting Adm. Gerard DuGalle)? Shall I display the definition of 'concession' or will you tacitly admit forthright that I have made far more of them then you ever were capable of making? Shall I point out that I have deferred to Readin's judgment on naming issues frequently? Need I mention the change of my AWB settings after complaints (not unmerited) by these two? Ought it to go without saying that I removed my tirade against CMD just hours after it was posted and that you have my word that I shall never go to such lengths on my user page again? The list goes on, but now is the work-week, not Friday night when I may have more time to produce evidence. Also, every piece of evidence CMD provides that is not related to the Scarlborough Shoal is old. Seriously old. If there are significantly more editors with this "if it rains today, it most certainly will tomorrow" mindset on this site, I fear for the future of the Project.

Focusing on Scarlborough Shoal, "my last edit" moved away from using 'Chinese claims' in the header and shifted to a metonymic style which is very commonplace in press reports? The "wuss" remark was made because if I had made amends without any second thoughts whatsoever, I would be totally discarding my principles. I am willing to shift attention away from that page provided no reverts are made to the text below the section headers.

Turning matters away from myself, I begin with CMD's sloppy reverts, which have no regard for anything other than the header, are self-evident in their demonstration of article ownership. Then, of course, there's his total refusal, outside of matters dating to or before the KMT retreat to Taipei and China's seat at the UN, to back any naming configuration other than what has been demonstrated to be the highly politically charged "Taiwan is definitely not a part of China". GotR ^Talk 04:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CMD. I don't know anything about the incident you mention, but I'd like to say that GotR is an extremely valuable wikipedia contributor (just check out his contributions!), and that I have collaborated with him successfully many times and it's always been an enjoyable experience to work with him. I hope the 2 of you can work this out. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 04:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before anyone attempts to assail Azylber as being "ignorant", I should emphasise again that I am willing to make amends to those who do not simply perform wholesale, not justified-item-by-item, reverts. GotR ^Talk 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GotR: I'm capable of engaging in discussion, and I also don't think it'll help you here to open with yet another personal attack (and again I note consensus isn't about a balance of concessions). You can mention what you want, but unless you explain how it's relevant, which you haven't, it doesn't mean much, especially as it doesn't address many of the issues I posted above (and yes your last edit didn't put back Chinese claims in, but it was still a totally new header which you again didn't discuss on talk despite opposition. In addition, arguing it should be used based on commonness of press reports is quite poor considering that China and Taiwan are far more common). You removed your tirade because after making it you went and pointed it out to me on another talkpage, after which I noted it was simply a personal attack. That you removed it with "point made" after this doesn't sell good intentions. It has been explained to you, many times, that in the vast majority of the English speaking world speaking of Taiwan as separate from China is simply common practice, and isn't remotely political. It's impressive that after all this time you still don't seem to understand that.

@Azylber: They may well be valuable, as noted I'm not familiar with many of their edits. However, it seems that in this topic area in particular there's a lot of disruptive behaviour, well illustrated in that at the very beginning of their reply above they decide to engage in another attack, alleging that I can't make concessions. CMD (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Badly needed. Some more eyes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block the user has shown little desire to improve their methods of interacting with the community. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HiLo48. --Rschen7754 03:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block HiLo48 is frequently disruptive through his incivility, there is no doubt that a long term block can be seen as preventative of future incivility, if he'll learn. Ryan Vesey 03:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a reasonable block to me from what I can see. If there's evidence of some administrative error here that mitigates the evident long-term pattern of behavior by HiLo, I'm open to seeing it, but...on the current evidence, I'd support this block remaining in place until HiLo can commit to improving his/her behavior. HiLo could quite easily make that a matter of days (or hours) rather than weeks or months - the length is up to them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't got time to check it out now, but it superficially looks like the editor was making some comments about U.S. gun laws that might be NOTFORUM violations. The block (escalated to indefinite) appears to be due to a misunderstanding (by the blocking admin?) of what "Yes, I think you're nutters" (diff) means. I read that comment as inappropriate (NOTFORUM and very warnable as a perceived CIVIL problem), but it is possible to read the comment as shorthand for "I think [everyone who supports certain gun laws] is extremely misguided". Was the editor warned that such comments can easily be taken as a personal insult to other editors who happen to fall in that category? Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no warning. Just a straight block. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • When a person has had innumerable discussions related to their incivility, there comes a point when warnings aren't necessary. HiLo48 should have been well aware by now of the consequences of calling someone nutters (among other things he does). Ryan Vesey 04:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disagree. Unless you can show me any sort of blanket warning that the user can be blocked from now on at any time w/o warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Without regard to the merits of this block per se, warnings are a courtesy to users who may be unaware of behavioral norms at Wikipedia, not a right. The RFC shows that there is significant recognition of a problem. Now, I have no opinion one way or another about the merits of this block, I haven't looked into the specifics of this situation too closely, and I interact with HiLo enough that it's probably for the best that I don't weigh in one way or another, but the precept that a block is invalid merely because it lacked a warning doesn't hold water. If there's going to be opposition to this block, it should be on the merits of HiLo's behavior in this instance vis-a-vis his history at Wikipedia including the RFCU, and not on whether or not he was warned. Being highly active since 2006 is warning enough. He's aware of the existence of policies and guidelines relevant here. Again, no position on whether this block is or is not justified, just that that particular line of opposition doesn't hold water. --Jayron32 04:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before you (Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556) continue disagreeing, perhaps you should review the relevant policy. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right below that, it says something about "judgement". And that's what I'm questioning here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back it up with some facts. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

? That request doesn't make sense... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • (edit conflict) The purpose of warnings is to make sure users are aware of our policies, because we don't sanction people who don't realize they're doing something wrong. In this case, it's fairly clear that HiLo knew perfectly well what civility was, what our policy was on civility, and that violating the policy would get a user sanctioned. Unless you're prepared to argue that he was somehow actually still ignorant of these things, I don't think "well he wasn't warned [this particular set of thirty seconds of this particular day]" is going to fly. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk)
          • The last line his latest post says "I truly didn't realise that using language common in my part of the world about a group that includes some editors here was a personal attack". And that leads to an indef. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then that's not true, because he used the phrase during his RFC and was heavily criticized for it. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/HiLo48#Somewhat_inside_view_by_Rschen7754. --Rschen7754 04:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the first I'm hearing of this block, actually. I've interacted with HiLo a few times before, and I think it's clear he does have some issues with communication and civility. I am a bit surprised, though, to see that it has escalated to an indef. While the block is in keeping with procedure and has a solid rationale behind it, an indefinite block seems to be overkill to me. While I understand the desire to keep things under control, I don't think it's reasonable to escalate directly to indeffing a user with an almost-clean block log. For my part, being somewhat familiar with HiLo's antics, I would recomment reducing it to two weeks or so. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I respect Evanh, I don't understand his comment: What would be the point of a medium-term block in this case? They're supposed to be preventative, not punative. The editor has given every indication that this repetitive behavior will continue, even after the block. Toddst1 (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about the speed at which this escalated. It wasn't an incredibly serious personal attack, but a block may well have been warranted. But the jump from a single, 12 hour block in his block log to 3 weeks for the second seemed excessive. And to then go straight to indef was a bigger problem - three weeks was plenty of time to work this out before escalating further. There was no pressing need to jump straight to indef. - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People are placing too much emphasis on his block log and not enough on his history of behavior. Perhaps I've just been unlucky in my interactions with him, but I have seen him acting in an uncivil manner every time I've come across him. Literally every time. He consistently manages to maintain just a low enough level of incivility to get by without being blocked. I understand that Wikipedia is uncensored and all, but I'd love to see a comment ban on HiLo48 using the term "fucking" or more than one exclamation mark to end a sentence. In my experience, he can't make a point without either of those. Ryan Vesey 04:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Toddst1, can you at least see that after there are voices questioning your decision, that it isn't for you to extend the block? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, as I see it, is not punitive versus preventative measures as far as blocks are concerned. We all understand that blocks are meant to prevent damage to the project, and no one so far has disagreed with that. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, a block of indefinite duration does not prevent damage in this case, and all I'm asking is that everyone try to put this issue in perspective. If his block expires in due course, the project will not go down in flames. If he remains indeffed without a chance to fully absorb the lesson of a block, we will lose an editor who is, at the very least, competent and productive. (And yes, I know that indefinite does not mean infinite, but I think most here realise that, in practice, the two are often the same.) If he is unblocked thirteen days from now he will return to the project, and before too long we'll know whether or not he's decided to take this lesson to heart. If he doesn't, I'll eat my words and someone will indef him -- for good this time -- and we will all move on with our lives. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block. After reading through the discussion which led to his topic ban at WP:ITN, I wholeheartedly endorse the blocking admin's rationale. Horologium (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support a 21-day block, but I don't know that I am willing to endorse the indef block. Horologium (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose block, as the discussion at Wayne LaPierre is highly emotionally charged. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Random commentary. I don't like civility blocks and they should only be imposed for extreme cases. Referring to NRA members as "nutters"--well, that's not such a big deal, and in real-life conversation it's mild enough to pass (if they can't handle such "insults" they should embrace more reasonable policies). I don't condone a block for that, certainly not an indef-block. But the other side is this--despite what is perceived by some as incivility, can one still collaborate with the editor? The answer, in my reading of the LaPierre talk page, is no: the all-caps and exclamation points are irritating enough, but the battleground mentality (that's nothing new with this editor), in which every rhetorical opponent is a gun nut and therefore unreasonable, one can't work with that. And I see the same thing on HiLo's talk page: HiLo thinks this is about gun rights and stuff, and it's not. So, I support a temporary block (a cool-down block? maybe--long enough for them to think about this and hopefully separate political position from rhetorical stance), of a week or so, and I support future action if this battleground behavior continues. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have just found this discussion and am somewhat surprised by the swift way the sanctions against HiLo have been escalated. Reading through the associated discussion pages that apparently have led to this turn of events I am struck by two things. Certainly I feel that a block for civility breaches was warranted, although I think that more than perhaps 48 hours is simply punitive and excessive. The second thing I noticed was what appeared to be an air of somewhat confected outrage and a lynch mob mentality amongst those arrayed against his edits. I am far from convinced that those opposed to HiLo's edits are as squeaky clean as they demand of HiLo and I feel that trouts all round would be appropriate. I respectfully request that the admins involved reconsider the escalation and reduce this block to a more reasonable duration. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block - The community has had lengthy discussions with the user on civility. Ultimately, this was a preventative block because he just doesn't seem to get it when it comes to personal attacks. Admins cannot be expected to have to tell him, "That was a personal attack", and then give him another chance to behave. He should have known that "nutters" is a personal attack. It would be absurd to allow him to call people "nutters" and claim ignorance as to that being an attack. If the community allowed that to happen, people could just come up with creative personal attacks and claim ignorance on each new name they use during a spout of name-calling. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that happens all the time, it's just very selective who gets to get away with it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nutters", to me, appears to clearly fall below the line set by WP:NPA and land in the WP:Incivility territory.OakRunner (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although a simple 24 hour block was justified for incivility, an indef block is certainly unwarranted and excessive in the extreme. Personal attacks and civility problems are subjective by their very nature, one can interpret the word fool in various manners and consider it uncivil to various extents, personally I would say "fool" at most borderlines uncivil and barely constitutes a personal attack. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]