Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive675

Quick help over interrupted refactoring?

Hi, all. Can I get some brief help on a mildly time-sensitive problem, please? I'd almost completed a fairly involved refactor here, to move comments about two separate topics into the sections that had been previously created and used for them. The comments about the two topics were intermixed in the wrong section after one editor posted there and other editors followed up on the first editor's comment. I felt some urgency about the task because, at the time I started, the posts in that section were still separable, i.e. each post was essentially about just one topic, but I doubted that would last long.

As I was close to finishing, I was interrupted with an edit conflict, despite the notices I'd placed that a refactor was in progress. A minute or two later the same edit-conflict editor, Collect, reverted all my refactor. He'd apparently been closely watching my "savepoints", and disliked one in which I'd dropped a one-sentence post by one editor that was (imo) basically just sparring, and a half-sentence reply of his to that comment that was more of the same. Here's where I cut from one section, and here's where I pasted (almost all of) that back to the section it belonged in. I'd tried to figure out how to save the content, even though it seemed so non-substantive to me, but couldn't see any feasible way to do that as I was working. I didn't consider the loss significant relative to the benefit of not having comments about one topic interleaved with comments about the other, but I'd also intended to go back when I was done and have a second look to see if I could restore every last word anyway. I didn't get the chance, of course, and I see the sparring has continued over the last hour or two.

Collect did create a talk page section he entitled "refactoring" undone (permalink) to announce his reversion, and I replied there, requesting that he allow me to continue. He refused, and I've now informed him there of this thread, also. He asked me in October of last year not to post to his talk page, though, after I was involved in a discussion that resulted in his being blocked, so would someone please post the required ANI notice to his page? I'll be grateful for that, and for any quick help on this, too. I'd also be glad to know if I've done amiss, of course. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User notified here.  Frank  |  talk  18:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Frank.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Where refactoring is objected to, especially where threads are moved about and material in the thread is removed, the refactoring is ill-chosen. In the case at hand, material from posts was not "moved" but was actually deleted, and thread continuity was fully destroyed. The order "Please acknowledge immediately" seems to be more than a little peremptory at best. Collect (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC) ( Emphasis was not in the original quoted text. -- Ohiostandard, 20:12, 22 February 2011 UTC )

(e/c) I just re-read wp:refactor, and I see that it says if another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. No one's ever objected to any refactoring I've done before, but I suppose this means Collect does have the letter of the law on his side, in this case, or would have, anyway, if he'd let me finish and I hadn't exactly restored his every word. It seems a shame, though, that the talk page has to remain in a jumble that's likely to become more so, just so his half-sentence of growling can be exactly preserved for posterity.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gracious? The fact that no one objected does not mean you were always right. And considering that you were talking well over an hour and a half expecting no one to notice is odd. And, curiously enough, I have read threaded discussions online for nearly three decades now (online since 1982), and never saw the need to simplify discussions by moving repies away from the messages they were replies to. :) YMMV. Collect (talk) 21:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Gracious indeed! This wasn't "well over an hour and a half", I believe, nor was it an unreasonable interval to give to a complex task that I wanted to do well. And also "gracious indeed!" over the suggestion that I didn't want anyone to notice. I don't know what they taught Collect in spy school, but if I'd wanted it to be top secret I wouldn't have pasted great huge notices saying "Refactor in Progress" at the top and bottom of each of the affected talk-page sections. I really don't see any point in responding further to Collect, though. I'll be glad, however, to respond to anyone else who might have any questions or who'd like to comment. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Ohio Standard was attempting to organize the different discussion threads in order to assist other editors to follow the discussion. Collect's objections appear to be pointless and a hindrance for editors trying to follow the discussion threads. TFD (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing that you appear here, indeed. Collect (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Botched move, lacking consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Would anyone care to take a look at recent moves here. I'm not getting involved, but an IP editor has recently been blocked for breach of 3RR on the same issue. I am about the notify the editor involved. Rodhullandemu 22:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You're not getting involved, other than to file a spurious ANI report and continue your inappropriate engagement with Malleus? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Per Andy, what admin action are you looking for here? MF moved the page once and it has been restored. --John (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ... and I have initiated a discussion on the article's talk page, to which Rodhullandemu has so far failed to contribute. What else am I supposed to do? Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. What's the issue? AD 22:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is the BBC's take on this. Like Gaddafi/Qadhafi, this sort of argument is rarely productive.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

... and here's the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography's take on it "Ralegh, Sir Walter (1554–1618), courtier, explorer, and author [also known as Raleigh, Sir Walter]" Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• As it has not been made clear, this report concerns moves to Walter Raleigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). AGK [•] 22:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD and one bold move therein, is not even close to being nearly a matter for AN/I. This thread is frivolous, and if there's going to be an AN/I action it will be against Rodhullandemu for shopping. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Google seems to have Raleigh as the WP:COMMONNAME, but let's not edit war, it's not worth it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, please not that Rod has also blocked an editor who was making the change while involved in the edit war himself. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Malleus moved the article, and his move was challenged. The move was discussed on the talk page, and the agreement was that the new title was correct—so the move was re-done. The correct approach to a wrong move is to challenge it on the talk page, not to file an ANI report (if indeed the motive here is nothing more than that Rodhull disagrees with the move). My view is that this complaint is not actionable. AGK [•] 22:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose this resulted from a recent post to WT:FAC about ODNB. Rodullandemu, you are "involved" up to your eyeballs in a long-standing inappropriate fixation on Malleus; you have been reminded to back off many times, including here at ANI. This disruption needs to stop, here, on his talk, and everywhere. It seems MF can't edit without you looking to allege something. If he starts actually damaging articles or something, then someone else will notice and someone else will deal with it. But then, he's not likely to do that. This is enough: I propose that we ban Rodhullandemu from Malleus's talk page at least; more if that is doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • It has nothing to do with that. I'm trying to avoid Malleus, but when he does something like that, I consider it my duty to request fresh eyes lest I be accused of the very thing of which you accuse me. Unhelpful and perhaps unworthy. Rodhullandemu 22:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And that is just plain malarkey; anyone can review all of your posts to Malleus's talk over the last six months and find out just how much malarkey. I propose you be banned at least from his talk, and also from spurious reports about him to ANI. Your actions and disruptive posts to his talk are aggravating and waste a lot of time for productive writers and reviewers (I see Andy Walsh in here just as he is trying to promote FAC, since we all know this likely resulted from a recent of discussion of ODNB at FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Kindly do not accuse me of knowing things I do not know anything of. I do not go to FAC, nor am I aware of any discussion of ODNB there. I saw an undiscussed move, lacking Talk page consensus, in the middle of an edit-war on the very same issue. No matter whom the parties, that did not look good to me, and furthermore, to accuse me of "shopping" is disingenuous when I tried to distance myself from reverting Malleus directly and brought it here for "fresh eyes". Rodhullandemu 22:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, do you have diffs of warnings in this matter? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

In one of the (many) last times he did this, I began gathering diffs for an RFC/U. I don't know where I put them. To reconstruct, at least two of them were during the DYK plagiarism discussion that got archived somewhere on ANI to a separate subpage, by Nuclearwarfare. I've been aware since then, and have seen Rod's constant taunting of Malleus on his talk, but stopped prepping the RFC based on Rod's personal situation, but sympathy can only go so far when productive editors are being stopped from their work. I may have placed those diffs, months ago, on Malleus's talk-- MF, do you have them? If not, I will have to spend a long time searching archives. It will take me some time to find them now, in case someone else knows where that discussion is. There have been more since then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember ever seeing those diffs Sandy. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe some of the diffs can be found in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I found a partial diff of the last ANI discussion here, which contains the full history, but someone else might be able to find the tail end of that discussion in ANI archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's another, more recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Before this gets too far into other problems lets get the chrono order of what happened on the Raleigh article on the record. An anon IP with no previous edits Special:Contributions/76.4.127.100 shows up and changes the name on the article. The IP edit wars against more than one editor and gets blocked. Then MF, who has not edited the article for more than six months (and could have moved it then if it were important) moves it (breaking the link to the disambig page BTW) with no agreement on the talk page for the move. Then I move it back to the established name because there has been no discussion to move it. Only then does MF starts a discussion on the talk page. That discussion is currently ongoing. There was no agreement on MF's move and there was no third move. Please try and get your facts straight. This looks much more like MF showing up at an article that Rod was currently involved in editing and taking a provocative action. It also looks like Rod came here to get more eyes on the situation and to avoid interacting with MF. If it isn't an ANI situation than so be it but lets get the facts straight on what occurred. MarnetteD | Talk 22:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess AGF doesn't apply when it comes to Malleus, and recent perusal of ODNB. Anyway, one discussion is linked above, that included this, plenty of incivility from Rodhullandemu, and a repeated claim that his account had been compromised. And anyone can review all of his posts to Malleus's talk to see how frequently he taunts MF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's get the facts right by all means MarnetteD. I moved the article to what I believed and still believe should be its correct title. You chose to revert that move and I then opened a talk page discussion. So what did I do wrong in your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that MarnetteD's edit summary in reverting the move claimed there was a consensus for "Raleigh" on the talk page. This claim is not supported by the contents of the talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the concept of "consent by silence" in law, but the article had persisted for six months in its present form. The Talk page shows some discussion but no consensus for a change of title. Furthermore, if you're going to move an article, you should at least change all references in the article from "Raleigh" to "Ralegh", except those that impact upon image names and references; that wasn't done, hence the "botched" in the title of this thread. Now, making major changes implies a responsibility to follow it through, and even perhaps include in the lead, text such as "rendered by modern writers as Raleigh". But that didn't happen. If you're going to do a job, at least do a proper job. Rodhullandemu 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I was in the process of tidying up the move when your compadre reverted the move, hence my work was lost in an edit conflict. Your continual arrogant rudeness is well beyond a joke. Perhaps you administrators have some magical tool that allows you to move a page and simultaneously edit its content, but I'm afraid that we peons don't. Malleus Fatuorum 04:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My initial post is based ON AGK's summary of events which bore no relation to what had actually happened. As to the move back I was going by Wikpelli's post here [1] I assumed that there was a consensus for leaving the page where it is. I was in error. However, there was no consensus to move it and per this [2] which shows numerous dictionaries with the current spelling and only the ODoBH with the alternative spelling. WP:COMMONNAME also applies. In light of this and the ongoing edits on that page today any move should have been discussed before it occurred and anyone with experience around here would have done so. MarnetteD | Talk 23:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you in the habit of making false claims about what has been said on talkpages when reverting? Anyone with any worthwhile experience would actually have looked at the talkpage before making such a claim. DuncanHill (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No I am not. The important thing was to protect the article in the form that it had been in from the beginning. Anyone with worthwhile experience who show up and moves a page where contentious editing is occurring would certainly know to open a discussion and post a move request here Wikipedia talk:Requested moves MarnetteD | Talk 23:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Without getting involved in the rights and wrongs of what happened here, I think there is a larger problem here and on that basis I have proposed a solution here. If Rod accepts, what time period would be sufficient? --John (talk) 23:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's a moot point. He hasn't accepted. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban

Proposed:

• Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from interacting with Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), indirectly or directly, except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction. This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on Malleus Fatuorum's user talk page, filing reports on admin noticeboards about Malleus Fatuorum, reverting edits on articles made by Malleus Fatuorum, commenting in other venues about Malleus Fatuorum, or directly responding to Malleus Fatuorum's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as Rodhullandemu stays away from Malleus Fatuorum. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this ban with blocks of an appropriate duration.

I've been watching this situation for some time, and this needs to stop. Malleus does not deserve this harassment. Perhaps with this formal restriction in place, Rodhullandemu can redirect his efforts in a more-productive direction. –Grondemar 23:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose unless the exact same ban is placed on MF. MarnetteD | Talk 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Only way forward that will avoid time-consuming formal procedures. --John (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support for a trial period of at least three months. (MarnetteD, that's interesting, but Malleus never goes to Rod's talk-- it's a one-way street of harassment.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Per long-standing history, see here. Last November, there was already consensus for <something>, but Rod was given a break because he disappeared and argued his account had been compromised. We shouldn't have to keep regularly having this same discussion and putting up with his taunting of Malleus, and as someone mentioned in the last discussion, that we're having to discuss an interaction ban on an admin, something is seriously wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Rubbish, he posted there just a week ago. AD 23:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) MF never goes to Rod's talk page. Since when? He was there last week baiting him just last week [3] Thanks for you speed AD. MarnetteD | Talk 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Struck; I suggest perusal of Malleus's page to see the level of provocation and posting there from Rodhullandemu, relative to the one response from MF. It's not a two-way street; it's a long-standing problem that Rod provoked and Rod won't drop.[4] [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that statement. I suggest a full reading of the post on Rod's page from the 17th. MF was insulting and threatening. Rod deserves thanks for not rising to the baiting that was going on there.MarnetteD | Talk 23:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose agree with MarnetteD, they can both be as bad as each other, constantly bickering (though I admit it is usually Rod who instigates it). They both need to unwatch each other's talk pages and avoid each other. AD 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as above, this needs to work both ways. GiantSnowman 23:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support per Sandy's new info. GiantSnowman 01:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I read this as signifying Rod's acceptance of this proposal, at least in principle. --John (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I still think it would be better to put something formal in place, so that no one can unilaterally back out of it. I would also be willing to support a mutual interaction ban, instead of a one-way ban. This situation needs disengagement. –Grondemar 23:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree and agree too with the amendment that it should be mutual rather than one-way. I have accordingly asked Malleus if he would also be willing to stay away from Rod. --John (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid I can't believe that post by Rod will solve the problem. Rod has said before that he's staying away from Malleus, but apparently continues to feel that it is necessary for him to correct Malleus from time to time. Ucucha 23:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC) & 23:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
        • In what way? Nobody's immune from criticism here, and there has been nothing since I took MF's Talk page off my watchlist until today. I repeat: it may be coincidence pure and simple, but when an editpr, whomever it is, boldly moves a page which has been the subject of a recent edit-war, Something seems rotten in the state of Denmark, since naming is obviously contentious. In those circumstances, no sane editor moves the article without first looking at the Talk page for consensus, which as far as I can see, doesn't exist, and making a proposal. That looks provocative, pure and simple. Rodhullandemu 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
          • That you are so concerned about the trivial difference between two common accepted spellings of the man's name shows that your judgment is affected when it comes to anything involving Malleus. Your action has made zero net difference to Wikipedia, and only caused a lot of unnecessary consternation and waste of time. That you think your admin work and actions to contain Malleus are so indispensably necessary to the Wikipedia are a problem. You can't seem to walk away, even over something relatively insignificant. The community has asked you to do this many times; it hasn't worked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
            • Rubbish, and you know it. Google search shows how people come to our article, and the bottom line is that our concern should be for them. As regards this article, "Raleigh" is by far the most preferred term compared with "Ralegh". However, that did not concern me initially, when in the middle of an edit-war, the article was moved unilaterally, and that is not the action of an experienced editor, who might be expected to have looked first at the Talk page to assess consensus. Malleus isn't that stupid; the article is on his watchlist, and he could have easily have examined why it suddenly popped up there again, and examined the history. He didn't appear to have done so. Both he and you are ostensibly capable of rising above trivial disputes, but sorry, all I see is a bilious witchhunt. Stick with FA please but do not fuck with the janitors. Rodhullandemu 01:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with the added condition that someone tell Rod he isn't the most important and bestest editor on Wikipedia ever. Parrot of Doom 23:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, why, what did you expect me to say? The immediately above comment is a gross breach of how we are meant to interact here, and I've never claimed to be so; I invite you to refactor/withdraw. I just do my job with the mop and occasionally contribute content, mostly gnoming, but some DYKs and a handful of GA's. Mostly I try to keep articles within policies and guidelines. I've already taken MF's Talkpage off my watchlist, but if I see him vandalising, it's my job to deal with that. That's why we have admins. To cry "involved editor!" in such circumstances would be missing the point. But as also pointed out above, this is a two-way thing, and MF also realising his humanity, as well as that of his fellow-editors, would be no bad thing. Sorry if you disagree, but we do NOT operate a two-class system here. See you at ArbCom. Rodhullandemu 23:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

By no stretch of the imagination can the move to the "Ralegh" spelling be described as vandalism. I urge Rodhullandemu to rethink his use of language here. Maybe he meant to say "if I see MF doing anything I disagree with, it's my job to start an ANI thread about him to stir up shit". DuncanHill (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was; "IF" is a mighty big concept for such a short word, and should not be abused. Rodhullandemu 23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This has to stop Rod. When have you ever seen me vandalising anything? Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, MF, I don't see you getting the difference between a hypothetical and a real here. Never have I accused you of vandalism; I'm saying that if it occurred, it should be dealt with, and by whichever admin gets to it first, and there's no reason why that should not be me. Rodhullandemu 00:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I might agree with that if I believed that you were able to discriminate between vandalism and your desire to have everything your own way. But I don't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason it should not be you, Rod, is that you aren't objective when it comes to Malleus, and the Wikipedia will not break if you don't get to something first-- there really are plenty of admins here, in spite of you always falling back on how tired you are, how hard you work, etc, etc, each time you cause one of these problems. Take Malleus off your list, accept the interaction ban because no matter how many times you claim you'll leave him alone, you never do-- that might lighten the load. This spurious ANI distracted, at least, Malleus from an article he was writing, Laser brain (Andy) from promoting FAC, and me from an article I intended to finish citing. We can all do without the constant distractions because you can't disengage from Malleus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh puh!. Is it really beyond you to not all pitch in, like a fanclub, and just ignore it and walk away? That's an argument that doesn't bear much scrutiny, by adult terms. That's not just limp, it's lame. Rodhullandemu 00:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool off-- we don't need any more wanker charges here. If you can claim your admin work is sooooo important that the Wiki will break if you don't address a common name with two different spellings, we can point out the work you interrupt with these drahmaz. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

{{outdent|:::::::::} "wanker charges"? Really? How really, do you dare to breach policy so? I have never ever claimed that my work here is indispensible, just useful. Sorry, but if you can't be civil, perhaps you should fork off into another encyclopedia. Meanwhile, get off of that high horse you seem to think is yours, and yours alone. And I'll just say this: your "work" doesn't need to be interrupted, because you could, if you wished to, ignore it. That you don't do so informs me that perhaps you have a different axe to grind than merely contributing content, and if you can't see that, that isn't my fault. Step aside, please, because FA contributors are not hothouse flowers needful of uncritical adulation and that is what I am seeing here. I repeat, if the kitchen is too hot for you, move outside it and concentrate on the hothouse of featured articles. I'm not keen on ghettos within Wikipedia, but you are making a strong case for such separatism by your continual interventions here. 01:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You clearly have a different axe to grind than contributing content. Step aside please. Your continual interventions targeted at MF make a strong case for separation of you from the ability to edit. If you weren't an admin, you'd be long gone. DuncanHill (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have to say, leaning support here, though I'd like to see more evidence of past interactions. In chronological order: Malleus moves the page Walter Raleigh to Walter Ralegh, perfectly in line with WP:BRD. Rodhullandemu opens a thread against Malleus at AN/I. MarnetteD reverts Malleus. Malleus opens a discussion on the talk page, Rodhullandemu posts on the talk page opposing the move. Rodhullandemu tells User:John that he has no opinion about the page's name and was merely acting as a good admin stopping an edit war (the page had never been moved before and the last discussion was 3 years ago) [6]). There seems to be something wrong here. At the very least he must familiarise himself on basic policies like BRD, but his actions here and his comment to John I think can be taken as prima facie evidence of a lot of bad faith in operation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Again MF shows up on a page that he has not edited for over six months and moves a page where edit warring over that exact wording has been going on. That is not a coincidence. MarnetteD | Talk 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So Malleus sees the issue of the name raised in an article on his watchlist (he's edited it before as you say), decides to look into the matter and moves the page. Is this not the most likely explanation for his move? As far as I can see the dispute about the form of the name in the recent edit history was tied to the anon breaking image-links and did not indicate BRD could not be followed (if I am wrong here then Rodhullandemu blocked an editor he was revert warring against). Am I being fair? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Again? Let's not exaggerate and fail to AGF; Malleus's first edit to that article was in July 2010. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The editor breached 3RR and then sock/meatpuppeted. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You were the main editor reverting him, so you are too involved to perform such a block (though free to seek other admin involvement); if it was a content issue that is. If it was about the broken images then there is no problem with your block. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't patronise me, please, he was edit-warring and blockable. He was not supporting his edits except by edit-summaries, and broke 3RR even though I had on more than one occasion pointed him to the Talk page. That doesn't make me "involved", because I've been an admin for far too long to fall into that trap. Cuh! Rodhullandemu 00:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support, this has already wasted too many people's time. If this needs to go to an RFC/ArbCom route, it will certainly end in an interaction ban anyway. Rod, I urge you to accept this voluntarily lest you face more unpleasant sanctions down the road. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Implied threat aside, I am perfectly prepared to avoid MF, even if this encyclopedia suffers as a result. If I do not step in, perhaps others will. If I could be certain of that, I'd live happily. Rodhullandemu 00:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If you are "perfectly prepared to avoid MF", then why have you opposed the interaction ban? It's not an implied threat, it's Wikipedia dispute resolution, and the route you are forcing the community to if you don't accept this proposal. Many of us are tired of dealing with your long-standing taunting of Malleus, as it takes time away from article writing and reviewing, and your behavior is an embarrassment to the admin corp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I really must protest against Rodhullandemu's persistent assertion that he and he alone is protecting wikipedia from my vandalism. Where are the civility police when you need them? (That was of course a rhetorical question.) Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Have I said I was alone in that? Please don't put words, or anything else, into my mouth. I just happen to have lots of spare time right now. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How can that be? Didn't you very recently post on your talk page that you hadn't slept for 48 hours? Are you trying to set some kind of record? Malleus Fatuorum 00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support in the strongest possible terms. I respect both immensely, but nothing productive is coming from Rod interacting with Malleus and previous attempts to keep the two on opposite sides of the street of their own accords have failed. Hopefully Malleus will take the opportunity to avoid Rod and there will be no need for the kind of bilateral restriction suggested below. I also have to second Sandy's point that this saga in general and this thread in particular are distracting many editors (including myself) from more productive work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. In these circumstances it seems unhelpful to pick out one side in a long-running conflict. Impose sanctions on both or or on neither. Mathsci (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I would be interested in what specific problems you found with Malleus's conduct here; I keyed in on the problem after the DYK plagiarism incident, and have seen Rod's taunting ever since. That the conflict is long-running does not mean both are equally involved or to blame. Rod comes to Malleus's talk page regularly to taunt him. And we do expect certain conduct from admins; when they repeatedly breach admin norms, they are likely to end up before ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I was thinking of the events surrounding the blocking and unblocking of GTBacchus (by HJMitchell/Spartaz) in early January. I agree that wikipedia is not the place for editors or administrators to settle grudges or continually to cite personal circumstances as an excuse for poor conduct. Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• SupportRod is a pest. Malleus is too bored to even rise to the bait much. It's obvious, Rod is stalking Malleus, not vice versa.TCO (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support something stronger. Rodhullandemu has been acting extremely poorly since his block of Malleus on 11 July of last year, which was one of the worst admin actions I've ever seen. Where,to refresh everyone's memory, he launched a personal attack at Malleus continued it, got the same in return, and replied by blocking him at 0149, and then left a final warning a minute later, when it is a critical breach of WP:INVOLVED to block an established editor for insulting you. Malleus wasn't behaving well there, either, but in each and every one of these skirmishes, it has been Rodhullandemu picking the fight, with alarming regularity since that first incident. Even here, while a relatively mild sanction is under consideration, Rod has been unable to abide by basic civility. Time to stop this disgraceful sequence in its tracks. Courcelles 02:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• comment from an enforcement POV a one way interaction ban strikes me as a bad idea.©Geni 02:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but the hope is that, with Rod prohibited from provoking Malleus, Malleus will have no reason to go anywhere near Rod. It would be unfair to impose this sanction on Malleus, because it is clearly Rod who has been (and continues, even on ANI where he's the subject of discussion for the very same thing) picking the fights. If rod is banned and Malleus picks a fight, then we can consider imposing the same restriction on him, but I think Malleus, like the rest of us, would much rather get on with writing an article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This needs to be a mutual restriction to have the most teeth and best chance of working, methinks. This has less to do with "fault" and more to do with common sense. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Gobsmacked epiphany I had no idea that Rodhullandemu was an admin. This puts the whole thing on a different plane. The party line is Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, which hardly describes the conduct we have seen. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I have seen nothing positive come from rod appearing on Malleus' talk page. This is the better of the two solutions. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Looking for trouble is not like looking for love. If you look for trouble, you find it. In general, I have great respect for Rod as an admin, but this particular area he should stay out of. Drmies (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've never much liked the idea of interaction bans, but the notion of a one-sided ban is more objectionable still. Gatoclass (talk) 09:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This isn't a knock on Rod's skills. But the recent interactions, coupled with Rod's bristley "tin ear" comment above, pushed me into the group !voting support. I'm a bit taken aback by Rod's lack of respect for consensus input of his fellow editors here, even though I understand Rod is peeved. I think it is a step in the right direction that Rod has taken MF's talkpage off his watchlist--there are a rogue sysop or two who in Rod's place (until the hammer falls) don't understand the wisdom of taking such steps in circumstances such as these, and view themselves as some Angel of Something-or-ever whose purpose is to follow another editor about the Project. But I would think, that being the case, Rod would not be likely to run into MF in the vast expanse of wp, and if Rod did it would be no-nevermind to report the issue to another sysop, and let her take care of it. Rods' absolute intransigence under the circumstances to agree to do so strikes me as troubling, and perhaps relates to some of the attitude that caused the issue in the first place. A ban would not only do both the parties good, it would rid the other editors commenting here of needless drama and distraction, freeing us to do God's work at the Project.... so to speak.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, with the caveat that an identical ban should be ready and waiting to apply the other way without another full discussion should our faith in MF be misplaced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternate proposed interaction ban

• Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are indefinitely banned from interacting with each other, indirectly or directly, except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction. This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on each other's user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards about each other, reverting edits on articles made by each other, commenting in other venues about each other, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as they stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this ban with blocks of an appropriate duration.

Submitted for discussion. I don't think Malleus needs to be restricted, but I think the good here outweighs the bad. –Grondemar 23:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to show evidence that there is a problem on Malleus' part here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's been a problem on Malleus' part. My first preference would be for the interaction ban I originally proposed. However, I'd rather see Malleus be banned from interacting with someone he has no intention of interacting with then see the current situation continue. I apologize to Malleus for any slight since I really don't believe he's at fault here. –Grondemar 23:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Others wouldn't see it that way, just see the ban as yet more evidence that I'm a bad 'un, which is why it would be unacceptable to me. Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Grondemar, we don't impose restrictions on editors purely because their 'opponents' have acted inappropriately. The community won't even look at a proposal unless there is evidence that it is necessary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, my original intent in posting this alternate proposal was to codify what several of the opposers were mentioning as preferable to my original proposal, which is what I meant when I said it was "submitted for discussion". I also originally thought enacting this version of the proposal would be preferable to no action being taken at all, since it would at least achieve the goal of stopping Rodhullandemu's harassment of Malleus. After further consideration, however, I agree with Malleus: it's not fair to him to accept his reputation being maligned just to stop someone from harassing him. I therefore now oppose this alternate proposal. Only the original proposal is acceptable. –Grondemar 02:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Neutral, prefer the first option, as this puts additional stigma on Malleus for having long been taunted by admins, and is unfair to him. If it's the only way to get community consensus for Rod to stay away from Malleus, considering the long history of admin abuse by Rod documented in the diffs above, followed (typically) by his pleas for clemency, then that's a shame, since Malleus should not be stigmatized for Rod's admin abuse. If it has to go to the arbs, so be it; Malleus may be sanctioned, but there is plenty of evidence for Rod to be desysopped. [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• After seeing Courcelles' diffs of how Rodhullandemu started this, and knowing how he continued it, I oppose any suggestion that Malleus should be further penalized for Rodhullandemu's actions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I will not accept such a ban, as it implies that I have done something wrong, and I have not. Unlike Rod I rarely bear grudges and never target those editors I feel are unworthy to be the shit on the sole of my shoe. Just look at his talk page if you don't know what I'm talking about, search for the words "cockroach", or "human". Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  I searched; I can't find them. Maybe they went unarchived while his "account was compromised". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"Cockroach" and "not human" are here [8] which are what led to the mirror comments. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Neither will I, as it implies that I am precluded from taking necessary Administrative action against MF, for example, IF it appears that his account is compromised. Unlikely, perhaps, but I've been here long enough to see it happen, and more than once. I don't keep a spreadsheet of my admin actions, because most are short-lived and adequately effective to deal with the immediate problem. In short, I move on. Would that others would do the same. Rodhullandemu 00:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You would perform administrative actions against him? Are you not too involved anyway? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rod, please read this boilerplate ArbCom principle; I urge you to accept the first interaction ban proposal (above) to avoid taking more time away from the community. Many long ago grew weary of the disruption. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of us are also tired of MF's long-standing taunting and threats towards Rod. He was threatening and baiting him on Rod's talk page less than one week ago. MF's lack of civility which can be seen in his comparing editors to what can and cannot be on the sole of his shoe (little comment on content there) are just as much of an embarrassment. MarnetteD | Talk 00:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

MF was echoing Rod's prior use of the phrase [9]. DuncanHill (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You've indicated one post by Malleus, which was the response to long provocation on Malleus's talk. Let's tell the straight story and not exaggerate one incident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you would look at the edit history you would see six posts over 25hours by MF. The first coming at 17:11 on Feb 13th [10]. A personal attack came at 17:46 on the 13th [11], a remark implying that R will likely lose his admin status came at [12] 17:55. The last post came more than 24 hours later [13] at 18:41 on the 14th. Neither editor can be said to have been acting appropriately. R then removed the enire thread which looks like he was tying to disengage. As to your contention that there was a long provocation on MF's talk page I have gone back to Jan 3rd, 2011 and can find no post from R on it between then and 19:28 on the 13th of February - that is more than two hours after MFs first posted on R's talk page that day. Indeed it even comes after the other two posts that i have linked above. That post does contain incivilty that I think should not have been used but, as so many others have stated that is par for the course between these two. The facts that I can find do not seem to show a "long" provocation recently - at least six weeks recently I should have said - on MF's talk page. That would seem to be the straight story based on your request for diffs in your edit summary. I have watched this go on for a number of months. Neither editor has covered themselves in glory but to claim that the things that are going on between these two editors are only going one way would be incorrect. That is why any interaction ban should apply to both MarnetteD | Talk 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please fill in the missing diffs so we can all see the whole story and draw our own conclusions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rod is pestering Malleus. I've watched a very little bit of it from afar and it's pretty clear that Malleus isn't even interested enough to do battle. The whole Rod thing is just lame. Find some article to write or if drama is the lure some juicer drama.TCO (talk) 01:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, I'm not sure that this needs any community action at all. Malleus is more than capable of dealing with Rod himself, and while Rod's clearly the one proactively pursuing the conflict, Malleus seems to be getting his own share of enjoyment out of baiting Rod and trading abuse. As long as the issue remains between the two of them they're perefectly capable of dealing with it without administrative intervention. - DustFormsWords (talk)

• That's a curious thing to say: I'm pretty sure I know Malleus fairly well, and I'm certain he's not enjoying this. And why should we leave a content contributor to constant distractions from an admin who has been after him for a long time? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New info

I've finally located the full archive of the previous ANI report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649#Rodhullandemu admin account; Rod was already requested to stay away from Malleus, so he has already been well in breach of that directive since November with repeated taunts at Malleus's page. I suggest we have all we need to either ban him from Malleus's talk or go straight to ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Go on then; make my day. Meanwhile, while I am able, I will resist vandalism as much as I see it here, and will try to keep articles within policy and guidelines. If I don't do that, other admins will, although there are fewer and fewer being appointed here. Quelle surprise, although the poisoned chalice of adminship from some quarters has had an unexpected effect, that an uphill struggle for adminship over the last couple of years has resulted in a Sisyphean task for those who have the balls to even volunteer. The concomitant result is that admin tasks get backlogged, to the detriment of Wikipedia, and admins are worked harder and harder, and burn out. I'm sure that's not what you intend, but it is a natural and probable consequence of you actions. Well done! Rodhullandemu 02:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on the link provided by SG I have checked further back than my last post above. There is no post on MF's talk page from November 13th - the day that the ANI thread was closed until two hours after MF had posted three times on R's talk page. Any ban of R from MF's talk page should most certainly a reciprocal ban. MarnetteD | Talk 02:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, since you checked, how about diffs to substantiate that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

They are in my post above. But I will repost them here for your convenience. If you would look at the edit history you would see six posts over 25hours by MF. The first coming at 17:11 on Feb 13th [14]. A personal attack came at 17:46 on the 13th [15], a remark implying that R will likely lose his admin status came at [16] 17:55. The last post came more than 24 hours later [17] at 18:41 on the 14th. Neither editor can be said to have been acting appropriately. R then removed the enire thread which looks like he was tying to disengage. As to your contention that there was a long provocation on MF's talk page I have gone back to Jan 3rd, 2011 and can find no post from R on it between then and 19:28 on the 13th of February - that is more than two hours after MFs first posted on R's talk page that day. Indeed it even comes after the other two posts that i have linked above. That post does contain incivilty that I think should not have been used but, as so many others have stated that is par for the course between these two. The facts that I can find do not seem to show a "long" provocation recently - at least six weeks recently I should have said - on MF's talk page. That would seem to be the straight story based on your request for diffs in your edit summary. I have watched this go on for a number of months. Neither editor has covered themselves in glory but to claim that the things that are going on between these two editors are only going one way would be incorrect. That is why any interaction ban should apply to both MarnetteD | Talk 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Any particular reason for leaving off the diffs from Rod while giving them for Malleus? Seems biased-- I see a refernence in one of them to Malleus "not being human", which is the worst thing I've seen so far, so it seems you're presenting a one-sided account, curiously missing some diffs, and certainly not exploring where it started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It's all a moot point, as usual. Rod has reacted by blanking his talk page and refusing to accept good faith offers by John and others. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You did not ask for the entire exchange to be posted blow by blow. If that is what you wanted you should have asked for it or, perhaps, done the research yourself. Please be more thorough in what you are requesting. Nor did I say that R was without blame in this. I still think that they are both in the wrong. If anyone want to read the entire exchange they can do so here [18]. In his first post after MF came to his talk page I see that Rod suggests the proper wikiprocedures to deal with whatever the bone of contention was. MF then state that R "doesn't know what he was talking about". I am glad that you don't see that as provocative. I hope that no one says that to you. Rod then asks him to step away MF doesn't and things deteriorate from there. I also notice that you don't point out who made the statement about "Malleus not being human". That seems biased to me. It was HalfShadow and not R for those of you who don't want to read the whole thing. In your post in the "Alternate proposed interaction ban" above you claimed that there had been a long provocation on MF's talk page prior to the Feb 13th exchange. I simply pointed out that there had been no posts by R on MF's talk page from Nov 13th until Feb 13th. In your post here you stated that R was in violation of the talk page ban as though there had been no provocation before he broke it. I pointed out the MF had made three posts to R's page before R broke the ban. Based on my research I felt that both of your statements needed some context. Since it looks like R has left the project I will be bringing my posts to a close. I am sorry if I have offended you SG. My AGF would have been better with more research on your part. And I also apologize for that statement. MarnetteD | Talk 03:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no offense taken; I just want to get the full story for the benefit of other readers. I wouldn't take it too seriously that Rod has "left the project"; he also was absent for the last discussion, and it is my understanding that this is the typical reaction every time something comes up (he hasn't slept, his computer was compromised, etc). Now that I've seen Courcelles description of the original incident (I didn't begin to follow until some months after that), I suggest it's time for a visit to the arbs, since the community doesn't appear to be prepared to deal with an admin who thinks it's his personal "job" to insult MF and prevent him from "vandalizing", and it's been going on much too long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe Rod "left the project" - I think he just went away briefly (to bed?). I don't know that Arbcom is necessary here; we have a pair of community proposals that appear germane and effective here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What I see is part of the folks arguing they won't accept an interaction ban unless it applies to both, and the other part arguing they won't accept an interaction ban if it applies to both. If there's not a clear consensus when I check in the morning, my conclusion is that the community can't decide this and with the ongoing disruption and a clear pattern of admin abuse, it's time for the arbs. And btw, since Rod was supposed to stay away from Malleus anyway, why wasn't he blocked on his first taunt? I don't see evidence that the community is handling this at all, but I'll peek in in the morning and maybe things will have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And with that...

Sandy has a good idea for us all here: "I'll peek in in the morning and maybe things will have changed.". Things like this are often solved by us all going away for a few hours and coming back with a long-term plan and fresh ideas in the morning. Rod's behaviour is distressing more than anything, and it's disrupting the project, but situations like this need to be handled carefully. I'm appealing to everyone - as an arbitrator, administrator, and more importantly as a fellow editor - for us all to go and have a hot bovril and sleep on it, and approach this from a fresh direction in a few hours. The Cavalry (Message me) 04:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Rod for 2 weeks for disruption, harassment, and childish behaviour in the midst of a discussion of his actions. I can provide a more detailed rationale, but really, it's obvious from the preceding discussion that enough is enough. There is too much behaviour entirely unbecoming an admin here, and maybe for once we should just say enough. Rd232 ^talk 07:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All this over "Raleigh" vs. "Ralegh"? Ugh. P.S. "Raleigh" is the most common spelling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All those who think that was lame say "I" Blackmane (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Or "i". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Aye! To avoid any confusion. – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment from the peanut gallery

Having used poor judgment and allowing myself to waste time getting sucked into this drama, I have the following thoughts:

• In my opinion, MF historically and consistently is needlessly provocative and rude to the WP community. For me, the community tolerance of his interaction approach epitomizes "all-that-is-wrong-with-Wikipedia."
• Obviously, while MF's opinion on what is appropriate is vastly different than mine, he is forthright in his approach and reasonably consistent. He demonstrates superior understanding of the bounds of allowable behavior and stays within them, albeit frequently on the very edge. If the WP community as a whole has a problem with his behavior, it is up the community as a whole to address it. Personally, I find WP is sufficiently large and my interest in editing small and sporadic such that the best solution has been an unannounced because no one cares, self-imposed interaction ban with MF.
• Also to his credit and consistent with the philosophy stated on his user page MF expresses no interest in an admin role.
• As stated above, an admin should be held to a higher standard of behavior. Consider this comment from rodhull last July [[19]], and all that has followed, it appears that Rodhull has a personal vendetta against MF.
• Rodhull's statements to the effect of (paraphrasing) It is my personal job to protect WP from MF show a serious lack of judgment. I've never noticed a shortage of administrators on WP.
• As discussion above per BRD, the cited reason for the block rodhull dropped on MF isn't credible.
• Accordingly, I think that it is insane that the WP admin community has wasted so much time on this.

• Not only should rodhull have an interaction ban imposed on him, he should be desysopped. I mean, really guys? Isn't that obvious? Gerardw (talk)

(i) Yes, MF can be needlessly prickly, to a degree that isn't terribly unusual. Actually, it's a long time ago, but under a previous username: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum. (ii) Rod's relationship with MF at this point doesn't require a formal interaction ban (a previous ANI suggested informally staying out of each others' way), it's risen to the level of harassment and any further behaviour in that direction should be met with further blocks. Desysopping is not out of the question, but if the errors of judgement relate purely to one user then maybe it's not necessary/worth the effort. Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen how this has unfolded. If I may, I'd like to try and intercede on Rodhullandemu's behalf, at least to the extent of suggesting that a two-week block may be a little excessive. Maybe commute it to two days? There are obviously things going on in Rod's life, and sometimes they may cause him to lose some perspective and act inappropriately, but we're none of us perfect, not even me. As you say, I can be sometimes be rather prickly, but then so can everyone else; all that varies is our threshold level. That it has been felt necessary to block an administrator for personal attacks and harassment without that administrator being desysopped is a disgrace really, given the way that administrators treat the handing out and removal of trinkets like rollback, but that's a discussion for another time and place. My view quite simply is that Rodhullandemu should not now be an administrator but that a two-week block seems a little savage. Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm going out now so if anyone wants to amend or remove the block, there is no need to consult me. Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

On that basis, I've reduced the block to two days, but will recommend that Rod stay away from Malleus or I'll have to reimpose it. The Arbitration Committee are already looking at the situation (separate from any filing that SandyGeorgia is in the process of making), as things can't really go on this way. Malleus, I'm trusting you to have the sense not to post anything - however concilliatory - on Rod's talkpage or in response to him in this interval, as previous experience has shown that it's never taken well. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. I have no desire to inflame this sorry situation. Malleus Fatuorum 14:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just catching up this morning. Considering the events while I was sleeping, that I have pending travel, and that the community now appears willing to deal with this and EotR indicates the arbs are looking at it, it doesn't seem helpful at this point for me to file the RFAR. It appears to me that if there is a recurrence, there will be swift action. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Re: Interaction Bans

I am under a permanent interaction ban with another user, and while I felt like it was one-sided at the time, I can now safely report that it works. Wikipedia is a vast expanse, and it's easy enough to find areas to work in that the other party is not involved with. Even if it currently appears one-sided to Rod, he should voluntarily accept it and move on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your observation. It is a helpful one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

user:Awikipro spamming his services as a professional editor

Awikipro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appears to be spamming his services as a professional editor to any and every new account he can locate. Possible spambot. WuhWuzDat 08:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• See also his comment at AIV. This definitly smells fishy to me, but as a brand-new admin I'd like somebody more experienced to take a look, thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blatant spam. Good block. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All the talk pages Awikipro spammed need to be de-spammed - I've done a few, Wuhwuzdat has done many more, but there is still a bunch of them left. Is there an automated process that can be used? --bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

An automated process wouldn't be able to choose the correct "welcome" message based on the new user's edits. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please delete Template talk:Prohelp. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I deleted the Template talk page, an easy way to remove the transclusions would be to batch delete all talk pages with transclusions of the template, because none of them appear to have any other edits anyway (except the one to his own talk page). Better than leaving a redlinked template at numerous talk pages. Not doing it now as it's a controversial move; if others see no objection, it could be done. —SpacemanSpiff 09:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Good heavens. Support block. (For those who can no longer see his templates, he was siphoning new users away from Wikipedia's own help forums to his for-pay service by directing them first to his userpage (From the template: " If you need help or have any questions about Wikipedia visit the active question page and get answers from WikiPros.") and then to his website, where he sells his services (or his group's) (" [http://awikipro.com/wikipro1.html If you need help or have any questions about Wikipedia visit the active question page and get answers from the WikiPros.] ") It doesn't get much more spammy than that, even if he/they actually do follow policies in their pay-for-editing practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters (the block was certainly good), but this blatant spamming was probably a Joe Job. --Versageek 15:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Block-evading IP

85.180.6.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is apparently evading a block in order to promote their Web page. I agree with WP:AIV reporting user David Biddulph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) that a blacklisting is in order. Once that's done, we can get on with life. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by JamesBWatson Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Blacklisting is probably in order. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Site and IPs added to new report at WP:RSPAM. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a rangeblock?

I've lost count of how many times I've seen it in the last two days, but an IP user has been engaging in a vandalism spree, most recently from 88.243.72.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Every time I've seen it I've checked the WHOIS, and it's all coming from the same ISP. I'm wondering if maybe it's time for at least a short-term rangeblock instead of playing whack-a-mole for hours on end... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this is Grawp. Anyway, if you list some of the other IPs you've seen then we can do a rangeblock. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Non-Admin Comment - Range blocks are asked for and sometimes granted way too quickly lately. Isn't there a better way of dealing with this? Block the ips that are creating the chaos, but range blocks have too much collateral damage and should be used in only the most extreme cases.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on the behavior, I'm almost positive this is an extremely prolific vandal/socker. And I think we could justify a rangeblock. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Well lets be sure based on WP:Range before literally affecting thousands of ips.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Additional IPs used for identical vandalism: 88.241.117.182 and 88.241.155.148. They all come back to Turk Telekom. I hate thinking about rangeblocks, especially for that large a block of addresses, but watching the "Ghostface Killah" edits pop up over and over again wears thin after a while. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • There's no range to block here - he's also using 95.8.114.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 78.176.10.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). We can't really block him unless we block the entire ISP. I semi'd three pages for a week. T. Canens (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yikes. Never mind. I'll just go get a spare mallet. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I protected Biscuit earlier today, I figured it was probably someone familiar but forgot to ask here. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• If it's Grawp, he's not going to be that easy to block. HalfShadow 20:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on the IPs that hit Daytona 500 alone, even a bunch of /16 range blocks won't cover it. Turk Telekom includes a very large number of IPs and this vandal seems to have rapid access to IPs throughout Turk Telekom's ranges. The pages targeted are random, and he just moves to another when each is semi-protected. Abuse filter(s) should be considered. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd look for some regexes to submit to the filter creation list, but all the revisions have been hidden from us mere mortals.  :-) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Filter request is now submitted. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • (ec) The edits themselves are still visible (at least at biscuit and Daytona 500) so you can have a look at those. The edit summary for every incident I can find is the same: "Came up with the right dough? Bigger dick? I don't know, must have been the best flow." -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Edit texts almost always include some combination of "ghost", "face" and "killah" too. That should keep the filter fairly simple. I don't speak regex well enough to produce it myself or I'd offer one up. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed this thread. I made a bunch of rangeblocks. Looking for more feasible ones. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, for any passing by admins, please disable talk page access for any IPs that come up. They abuse them too. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I did a bunch of these yesterday and protected four articles which are all related to Ghostface Killah lyrics in some way. The line above is a copy vio and some of the material inserted into the articles was copy vio as well. The ones I saw were too widespread for a range block: 78.176.3.76, 88.243.78.108, 88.242.208.72, 85.100.95.238, on Waco, Texas, for example. The other articles protected were Dust, Kilogram, and Uptown. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't advise protecting these pages. This type of vandal moves from one page to the next. Protect the page, they move to a new one. I didn't do a widespread rangeblock. I made a bunch of smaller rangeblocks were no one else appeared to be editing. Check my logs. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

holy crud! that was what was going on yesterday! are you saying that the ghostface killah guy is Grawp?? I had to deal with all the crap he was putting on daytona 500, funeral and hinge yesterday and funeral has not been revdelled yet--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 12:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Threat by User:Brianwazere

• Brianwazere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello fellow admins. This deleted revision by this editor contains a threat against me personally, and I request eyes on this user especially following the expiration of their block in a week (placed for blanking another user's page with clear evidence of bad faith).

I would additionally request counsel from the WMF with regards to how I should react to this threat. I am unsure if something of this nature needs to be reported, and who it should be reported to.

Thanks, --Chris (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not expiring in a week anymore.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reported things like this here before, and always been told to revert, (ask for a) block, and ignore, since these are just trolls clamoring for attention rather than real death threats. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I've seen how suicide threats are handled but haven't really dealt with violent threats yet. I appreciate the insight. --Chris (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

emergencywikimedia.org. If you consider that a serious threat, Chris, email them immediately. IMO, it's trolling, but I'd err on the safe side if I were you. That address works for all threats (suicide, violence, bombs, etc.) and other such emergencies. Response time should be very quick; it's monitored by WMF staff and certain volunteers. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

btw, I've added a note about this to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; we've had a number of threat reports recently and people should know about the emergency address. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He's at it again

Champ and Swagger are under attack from one of our regular customers. Some help would be appreciated. A rangeblock cutting off all of Turkey would be acceptable collateral damage right now in my frazzled, Twinkle-deprived opinion. Favonian (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected both pages for 1 day, hopefully that'll help.  Bettia  Talk  12:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but according to Elockid in a comment higher up on this page, that may be counter-productive, as the jerk just moves on to other articles. Favonian (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I think Edgar181 is right; an abuse filter might at least stem the flood. I think my request is still active, although I haven't looked at the latest diffs to see if he's still using the same edit summaries or inserting the same garbage. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Searlsa

The editor Searlsa (talk · contribs · logs · block log) exists only to post external links to various promotional websites. Examples of websites the editor is linking include http://www.greatvalueonlinebooks.com, http://www.photodrama.info, http://www.ultimatebiblereferencelibrary.com. All of the sites are hosted from the same IP (209.157.71.214, an account at homestead.com).

Possible CheckUser may be warranted to determine whether the editor also runs the websites, but in any case, the promotional links violate WP:ELNO (#5).--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see how we could assess that with CheckUser (except if they edit from the server, which I doubt) :) -- Luk ^talk 13:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason why an editor who only adds link spam should not be blocked anyway??--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You requested the checkuser, so it's reasonable for someone to respond to that. As for spam links, the user has been warned appropriately; let's give it a rest for a moment and see what develops.  Frank  |  talk  13:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The CheckUser suggestion simply caught my eye :). I haven't looked further. -- Luk ^talk 13:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I had thought homestead.com might be an ISP, but it looks as though it's just a host. So, no, a CheckUser almost certainly won't be conclusive. I'll report back here if they continue the link spam, but given previous behaviour it seems to be the only purpose for the username.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing - Systematical removal of edits out of religious prejudice

- Over the last few many wikipedia articles have been improved with edits which reference Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda. Many edits persisted for many years without conflicts, but in the last month or so User:Wikidas began to systematically delete carefully the references on a per auhtor and not on a per content basis. After a discussion on this page, which was not concluded, User:Profitoftruth85 began doing the same thing. There are no multiple pages other than those touched by Wikidas and as you may well know, the balance of edits of Wikipedia is a result of many carefully agreements. If you have one user (and now two) which blindly takes the side with disregard for the content, this gives those who may not agree with all the entries an opportunity to add their own plate to the matter and take advantage of disruptive edits by one user. If I would follow the trail of the edits of Wikidas and undo them without regard to the quality of the articles that would be considered disruptive. But something tells me that in this case I would be immediately be challenged again about what I am doing. Wikidas on the other hand obviously has free hands to violate all the rules and regulations. The problem is not in finding agreements with other editors, but to stop disruptive edits by Wikidas which has decided that Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is not notable and that references to his work need to be deleted. This job has now been taken over by his partner ProfitForTruth following the same rules of behaviour. What can be done about this? Atmapuri (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You didn't notify the two editors as is required. I've done that and added links to them in your text so that other editors can see who you are talking about. I presume you are referring to Swami Maheshwarananda. Without these links it's difficult to understand your post. If you are referring to being reverted at Om, raise your concerns on the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The issue has to do with the attempt of previously one and now two users who have taken it upon themselves to delete all references to Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda from all articles which refer to it with the explanation that according to their oppinion he is not notable and that edits are advertisement. I think that such behaviour should be sanctioned by Wiki policy makers, because it does not take in to account the quality of the articles or unbiased view when we are considering that this is a living person with enough notability to be present on the Wiki. Such editing breaks otherwise fragile agreements reached on each articles page. If this is not stopped many articles will be substantially degraded in quality. The two users in question have already teamed up before to remove part of the name from the title of the article. That part of the (legal) name doubled as a honorific, but without it the article title leaves readers questioning if they are reading the biography of the right person, because in nearly all public references, the person is refered to with full name. Together the two editors in question have performed over 50 strict delete only edit over the course of last few months leaving large sections of articles unreferenced or almost completely blank, where the content persisted for many years without any interventions. Atmapuri (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Recent discussion on this issue here [20]. Dayewalker (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is clear example of WP:GAME by Atmapuri, as User:Profitoftruth85 brought a WP:AN/I against Atmapuri. The real issue is Atmapuri spamming his links on various articles, which is clearly WP:Advertising. Thanks--SH 10:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Forming a Sikh tag team now? Atmapuri (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from making such insinuations. As User:Profitoftruth85 will testify, I have reverted many of his edits and even issued warnings against him. You are violating the principle of WP:AGF by making such statements. Thanks--SH 13:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: A complaint was here on this very issue against User:Atmapuri and archived less than a few hours ago. It's at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive674#Help_with_Repeated_insertion_of_material_2. What we have here is Atmapuri repeatedly spamming other articles with the viewpoints of this one person. This appears to have been discussed at different (but not all) talk pages of articles that he's been spamming the links and viewpoints of Maheshwaranda at, has been reverted by more than two editors, yet continues this behavior. —SpacemanSpiff 12:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Can somebody please level with me? If I understand this right. The article about

Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda is to be orphaned and this will be perfomed by the users that began the process affecting more than 30 articles? This is OK and there is nothing that Administrators have to say about this? Also, what is the point of having an orphaned article on the Wiki? Atmapuri (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no article Paramahans Swami Maheshwarananda. Perhaps you mean Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda? If you don't use the correct links, nobody will know what you are talking about. As you are perhaps unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, may I point out to you that a red link is an indication that the page in question does not exist. Your links above are red, so they are pointing to a page that doesn't exist. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Fixed. And thanks for the first unbiased open post. Atmapuri (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible interaction ban between me and User:Kintetsubuffalo?

I will begin with a short summary. The explaining can go later. Kintetsu apparently has a hogwash idea of what WP:FORUM means. On the Republic of China talk page, after seeing this raving post by an IP, I promptly removed it. Then Kintetsu many days later decided that I was "snarking simply for the sake of snarking", and then accusing me of trolling, POV-pushing, editorialising, and the like. In fact, I will admit this... it is only he that I am trolling, as occurred at the page Flag of Tibet.

And it is of the utmost cowardice for him to press charges against someone without allowing him to defend himself.

Because of the hard malice built up between the two of us, I recommend a total, indefinite interaction ban between the two of us...including that we shall not revert any of each other's edits. If the ban is not placed, then flame wars could continue to occur between the two of us. Who knows the level of disruption that could happen then? --HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I really dislike interaction bans. We aren't a court, and we shouldn't have to have the red tape of dealing with what amounts to wiki-restraining orders. If people do something wrong, then sanction them for it. You were completely in the right to remove the "raving post", IMO. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

user:97.90.124.232

Unresolved

97.90.124.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Per WP:NSONGS, I proposed a merger of several singles by Ellie Goulding into either the article on her or her album. user:97.90.124.232 disagrees, which is fine, and removed the proposed merge templates, which is not. I replaced the merge templates and warned user:97.90.124.232 not to remove them pending consensus, but s/he retaliated by blanking my user page and has started to remove them again. I don't want to have an edit war so I have not reverted their removal of the template a second time; what's the way forward? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW }

• Incidentally, from a brief glance at user:97.90.124.232's contributions, this seems to be a WP:SPA.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• This request was completely ignored for 36 hours before being archived by a bot. Restored. 63.134.128.4 (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I have re-notified, for fairness. Also, 63.134.128.4, are you Simon Dodd? GiantSnowman 17:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I just forgot to sign in. It happens. I wouldn't have thought that renotification was necessary since this isn't a new issue?. It's a little disappointing that a dig through the archives (and this conversation) became necessary, truth be told. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Don't worry, I wasn't accusing you of socking or whatever, I just wanted clarification - it happens with me as well! I re-notified because the IP may well have seen your notification, come here, and found nothing (the discussion already having been archived) - now they know that 2 days later, it's back up, and the issue still isn't resolved. GiantSnowman 14:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• T+62 hours. Would this be better served by taking it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe, what's the COI? Maybe have a try at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to try and solve the dispute? GiantSnowman 19:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, as I mentioned above, the user is an SPA; that, plus the tone and content of their edits and talk page comments tell me that there's a COI problem. The article edits are too numerous to detail here (check the history), but the talk page comments in particular are telling: "If you have distaste for her or her music," user:97.90.124.232 objected to my edits, "then don't view her page, it's clear you're not a fan and therefore you've managed to change the entire tone of her article." When I pointed out that I have no opinion on Goulding and that changing the article's tone was exactly what I was trying to do, s/he responded: "Then you really shouldn't be concerned with her article. The changes and suggestions you've made lessen her as an artist and diminish her accomplishments. Someone who doesn't care for the music shouldn't be worried about how she's portrayed." And as if to make my point in one quotable sentence, the user criticized my edits for "mak[ing] her page sound much more encyclopedic." Individually and collectively, this all screams COI.

Having opened this case here at AN/I, I don't feel that I open a case anywhere else without leave from an admin (I'll be accused of forum shopping). I opened the case here because at the time, my immediate concern was the user's actions in blanking my user page in retaliation for proposing a merge and the attempted removal of the merge templates. Well, that was two days ago (certainly demonstrating the kind of prompt admin response that encourages people to use process rather than dealing with problems themselves), and those problems haven't yet recurred. At this point, the COI is the larger problem.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You could easily defend yourself from any accusations of forum shopping by pointing them here - you've posted twice over a period of days, and received no reply or help from admins. Now you've explained it a bit more, maybe the COI noticeboard is the place to go. GiantSnowman 20:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Case opened at COI; I'll notify the user. I'd still like an admin to do something about the user page blanking, so I'm leaving the request here open.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the IP seems to have stopped editing on the 20th, and a note was left about the page blanking. I'd be inclined to let it go as a newbie mistake for now. Sorry no one responded to your post, I guess the drama-filled threads are more attactive? Rich Farmbrough, 01:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, Rich—I guess it's good that I'm not bringing drama! ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• User is back and being disruptive again, removing the merge templates: [21][22][23][24][25][26]- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has responded, I have reverted the tag removals and warned the user again.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Still unresolved and basically unaddressed after six days.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? Until opining on the talk page last night, the IP hadn't edited since removing the templates (which you had already reverted). If the IP vandalizes again, we can block it. --B (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "until"? There was the original incident which led to this report being filed. And then, as I mentioned above, there was another round of it after five days of this report languishing unanswered. So are you saying that you will block them if they come back for a third round, or that you'll block if if they come back for a second round, which has already happened since the original report was filed?

As to what admin action I'm asking for: I want someone other than me to slap the user's wrist (whether with a warning or a brief block), because obviously hearing it from me—whether because I'm involved in the dispute or because I'm not an admin—ain't getting it done.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Attention Wikipedia - you have been conquered,,,

Remember this exciting ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Something fishy on Pelican State beach? See this item from Flavorpill and this editorial. I'm considering a lawsuit. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work in spotting those pics in the first place.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

? Sue for what?·Maunus·ƛ· 23:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

For use of my words without proper attribution, but I'm just joking about a lawsuit, of course. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They seem to have included signatures with the comments, even Bugs' carrots; that attributes their authors :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with one of the commenters on Flavorpill: "If this is an example of art from Brooklyn, I'm sorry for Brooklyn." It's a stunt that someone's trying to pass off as a dig against Wikipedia, nothing more. Move along please, nothing else to see here. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Relax Delicious carbuncle, you're famous! ;) GiantSnowman 23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

An interesting piece of art to say the least. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty funny that an "artist" has to add photo's of himself to Wikipedia to get noticed but given the low quality of the images themselves I think we all know why. --Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Conquered?" Meh. There are certainly far less constructive ways to try to game Wikipedia. And I don't think it was intended as a dig. Taking them at their word, they just wanted to put the pictures out there, and didn't anticipate their removal. At most, it may have been more open ended, as in "I'm going to do this, they're going to react, and I'm going to combine their words that result with my pictures." So in the end, we have the juxtaposition of the figure contemplating each beautiful landscape, the informational article text about the place, and the oft arcane posts and edit summaries of the behind-the-scenes workings of the articles. Meh. John Berger would be proud.

The photos weren't useless for the most part. If they haven't all been overzealously deleted, and there are any that can't be cropped easily to remove the figure, drop me a note and a link and I'll photoshop the figure out, at no extra charge. postdlf (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC) (and I, too, was quoted in their art project)

An excellent idea. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

They were deleted from Commons due to irregularities with the professed public domain release; see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Honestly, some of them were not bad photographs, although none of them were great. My biggest reason for opposing those images was my certainty that the endgame was something exactly like this, using the uploads as "proof" that something (pick anything consistent with the narrative) was evil about Wikipedia. Meanwhile, all I have to show for it is a random space inserted in my ellipsis for some reason. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This looks like it would have been a win-win for this guy if the photos were kept or deleted. If they were kept, he'd be able to say "Look at these crappy photos I put Wikipedia and they're too stupid to get rid of them". But instead my critiques of his shit attempt to subvert this site get immortalized in an art installation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing more than an example of attention-seeking by someone with little real artistic talent. Meanwhile, the real contributors and/or real hoax-artists continue their work: "The Riley slice is the quotient of the Teichmuller space of a 4-times punctured sphere by a group generated by Dehn twists around a curve, and so is topologically an annulus". An almost-poetic description of something or other that may or may not even exist in the minds of those who created it, described in a newly-created article. I'm still uncertain whether (a) this is a real mathematical concept, (b) the article is a hoax, or (c) mathematics is a hoax - this is art at its best, leaving one unsure whether one has seen something of wonder, or just been the butt of a joke. A heck of a lot cleverer than uploading a few photos, either way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He has some way to go before he hits the epic trolling proportions of this artist, though. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the followup comments, all of which put down the guy who uploaded the photos. Meanwhile, he's offering a PDF to download. On one of the ref desks, someone asked whether the internet has made people any smarter. This little example might be an answer to that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Humans in general are known for being incredibly creative but not necessarily bright... Now what admin action is needed here? N419BH 04:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He's a sockpuppeteer: User:Rasputinfa and User:Free book. --Perseus8235 16:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, "geek overlords"! :D - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 16:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the name "Karellen", thank you very much (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new geek overlords. --Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1

I'd like the community to call User:Mclay1 to order.

He is trying to WP:OWN certain templates and categories. Specifically, Template:R to template and Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. In general, he has been opposed to almost any proposal I have made to simplify a few related templates and categories, as can been seen in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#Template:R_from_other_template and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_18#Category:Redirects_to_template_from_non-template_namespace, but has had to bow to community consensus.

When he tried to speedy Category:Redirects from other templates, that was denied because the category was still populated by over 200 templates at that time. He seems to be unaware of the rules for speedy deletion. Then he renominated it for speedying, in flagrant disregard of the fact that he was denied, and was denied a second time. Since then I emptied the category and the templates was deleted. But any admin can dig up the history and see for himself that Mclay1 has no knowledge of, nor regard for, Wikipedia procedures.

Template:R to template was deleted as being not in use and per the spirit of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_5#Template:R_from_other_template. Mclay1 recreated it, only to put it on Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. This is a category which he is trying to develop though a few related templates, like Template:R to warning template and Template:R to userbox using a template Template:Redirect category which he has adopted, so to say. There is no reason to do so, since Template:R to warning template and Template:R to userbox are not in use at all cross-namespace! He is edit warring with be about this on Template:R to warning template and Template:R to userbox in disregard of WP:BRD.

After Mclay1 recreated Template:R to template, I asked for it to be speedied, and Mclay1 removed the speedy template, in violation of Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion which say specifically in bolds that The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. I warned Mclay1 about this in this edit. His rather angry reply was that he refuses to bow to this rule, as he stated in so may words in this edit. After the template was deleted Mclay1 recreated it again.

I'd like the community to point out to Mclay1 that he has to abide by community decisions. He can not recreated deleted templates every time. He should not try to create a category structure, which does not have community consensus, and he should not remove tags in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. In general, I'd like Mclay1 to understand that he does not own Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You, Debresser, have done some good things for me and for WP in past years. And here recently, McLerristarr (Mclay1) has also done some good things, both for me and with me. So I certainly don't want to be in the middle of all this. Just let me say that I sincerely hope that you both can resolve these issues between you in a timely manner that is satisfactory to all.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. Perhaps the seriousness of the fact that I posted here, and the in my opinion serious accusations I have made, are in themselves enough to help Mclay1 see reason. We have cooperated in some things, even in this very same area I have posted about. If worse comes to worse, I am sure another editor will be found who can judge this case. Let's await his response here, first of all. Thank you again. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise that Template:R to template was not part of the TFD for Template:R from other template. It was a redirect to that template, so when that template was deleted, so where all the redirects. I created a new template under the name of the redirect. That is recreating something which was deleted after a discussion. Every redirect category should have a corresponding template which populates it. Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace had no template so I created Template:R to template for it. I also added a cross-namespace recognition function to the other redirect templates for template namespace. The fact that the templates are not being used for cross-namespace redirects at the present time is irrelevant – most redirects have not been tagged yet. If anyone is out of line, it is Debresser – you are the one reverting perfectly legitimate edits. As for nominating Category:Redirects from other templates for speedy deleting: the category was meant to be populated by Template:R from other template, which was deleted. The template was deleted because the consensus was that the category was not needed. There is no rule which states that categories that aren't empty cannot be deleted. There is no serious issue here and I find that fact that this discussion exists ridiculous. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1 continues to 1. recreate the template that was deleted three times by now. 2. add a completely unneeded category detection to the two templates mentioned above in disregard of the deletion discussion of a now deleted template that populated that category.

He call his edits "legitimate and useful" but since they go against a deletion discussion and repeated deletions they are not legitimate, and since the category detection is not in use on either of the templates they are not useful either. In any case, their usefulness is clearly being questioned, and Mclay1 should seek consensus first.

I now call upon the community to call Mclay1 to order for repeated edits in violation community decisions, explicitly stated disregard for Wikipedia guidelines, ignoring WP:BRD and especially WP:OWN. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

How is my wanting the function different to you not wanting it? Neither of us are trying to own anything. And for the last bloody time, the TFD had nothing to do with cross-namespace redirects, which is ALL my edits are for. Template:R from other template was deleted because the consensus was that redirects from template namespace pages to templates were unnecessary. That is irrelevant to what I'm doing. The category was not populated by any template until I added the functionality just before it was deleted. It was meant to be populated by all the redirect templates for template namespace but somehow it never got done until I did it. There is no policy which states I must ask someone before making an edit. You are the only one who seems to be opposed to cross-namespace recognition and for no apparent reason. Reverting edits for no apparent reason is against policy. Unless you can actually give me a reason why this functionality is not needed, I will continue to improve the encyclopaedia. And the fact that no cross-namespace redirects have been tagged yet is not a good reason to delete things – it's a good reason for them to be tagged. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is basically: I think that what I am doing is The Right Thing To Do, and therefore I will ignore the fact that I am the one trying to make the changes (WP:BRD), I will ignore your opposition (WP:CONSENSUS), I will ignore the fact that one deletion discussion showed clearly that people do not agree with me (here) and that the other one shows that no one supports me (here), I stay with my explicit refusal to abide by Wikipedia guidelines about what I am supposed and not supposed to do [27], and I will do as I please (WP:OWN). Will somebody please call Mclay1 to order. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am really getting sick of having to repeat myself. The TFD was entirely, completely unrelated to what I'm doing. {{R from other template}} categorised redirects from template namespace to template namespace into Category:Redirects from other templates. They were deleted after the TFD. {{R to template}} was a redirect to {{R from other template}} so was deleted too; however, I created a new template under the same name to categorise redirects from non-template namespace to template namespace into Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace. In no way was I going against the consensus determined at the TFD. That other TFD you linked is the one where you agreed with me to add the cross-namespace recognition to {{R from other template}}, so I don't see where you get the "no one supports me" idea from. You are not a consensus. The fact the one editor continually refuses to allow me to edit without explaining his/her reasons is definitely a violation of policy. Can we please discuss this properly without a ridiculous attempt to get others to gang up on me, which, as you can see, isn't working. Let's settle this like the sensible human beings we are. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is behavioral. You are trying to make up a completely useless and empty category and populate it with additions to templates. You call this "improving the project", while in fact you are ignoring consensus and trying to enforce your own sense of order with repeated recreations of a deleted template and edit warring. It is a little too late now to play to reasonable guy say "let's talk it over". Try and seek consensus, and come back, even though I have already shown that consensus is against you. But in the mean time, you have to stop with your numerous violations of Wikipedia rules. Which is what I'd like to community to explain to Mclay1 Debresser (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1 has done some good work in the area of redirects, as has Debresser, but these allegations of WP:OWNership are serious and worrying. It's clear that both of you are interested in working in the same area and your style's are clashing. Mclay1 needs to temporarily step away from particular areas when it's become clear that his actions, good or bad, are having an adverse effect on another editor. Debresser needs to accept any possible chance of resolving this matter civilly, if Mclay1 extends a token of good faith to discuss this sensibly then by not taking full advantage of that you are propogating this dispute. I call upon one of you, either one, to make a decision to accept the others way of doing things before this escalates into an ugly mess. This shouldn't require any blocking, you are both valuable editors, and we don't want either of you blocked. And you're both mature enough to not need any scolding from the community. -- œ^™ 17:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cross-name-space redirects are generally a sign of something that has gone wrong, therefore I am not wholly opposed to any means of gathering information about them - even about those that are not a problem. I would suggest that the template in question is taken to TfD, or discussed at the Redirect forum (I forget exactly where that is). It would be great if soemthing useful could come out of this. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

I agree. I have stopped since I've realised this isn't going anyway till the matter is resolved. However, Debresser claims I'm going against a consensus but as I have repeatedly explained, there is no consensus one way or the other because this has never been discussed before. Also, Debresser, criticising me for edit warring is a little hypocritical: it takes at least two to edit war. Now, let's discuss this somewhere else, such as Category talk:Redirects to template from non-template namespace, the talk page of the category in question, which wouldn't be empty if it weren't for Debresser. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Mclay1 has again removed a Cfd tag from Category:Redirects to template from non-template namespace in this edit. Without adding an opinion to the discussion page, btw. If Mclay1 wants to discuss it, that would be the first place to go. Instead, he removed the tag. I ask for an immediate block of this editor, until he agrees to stop removing tags from pages. Debresser (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably Mclay1 meant to forestall the CfD until the discussion he proposed above is complete? Regardless the CfD is started, and representations can be made there to have it delayed or thrown out until some other forum has completed its work, if that is appropriate. If CfD agree to postpone the discussion or Debresser withdraws in favour of discussion on Category talk:Redirects to template from non-template namespace or elsewhere fine. If not the CfD will run, and should be a suitable forum anyway, and the result should be followed. Any problems with that? Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

I'm sorry, I thought it was a speedy deletion notice, which would have been enitely innappropriate. I clearly didn't read it properly. I will restore the notice; however, the matter should be resolved elsewhere first – since Debresser and I are the only two editors who seem to care, it would be easier to have a conversation between ourselves (if that's possible) before resorting to a CFD. P.S. Please don't ask for me to be blocked; it's getting a bit pathetic now. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not support a block under these circumstances. It seems that both you and Mclay1 need to step back from this issue and go do other things for a time. This is just the sort of thing OlEnglish spoke of when the escalation card was pulled. So, please, both of you, step away for awhile and go do some good editing separately. You've both been here long enough to know that this works.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

And he did it again [28], removed a tag. Note the text of his self-revert "My mistake - I thought it was a speedy deletion tag". And if it were? I have no problem with discussing things. As anyone can see from the fact that I opened a Cfd. But Mclay1 even after this discussion thinks that he may remove tags. If not a block, then at least a serious reprimand is in order. And note that in his last reply here, he calls my asking for the community opinion by nominating the category for a Cfd "resorting to a Cfd". That is not the attitude of someone who cares about consensus. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's a Speedy deletion template, then Mclay1 will hopefully discover and use the {{Hang on}} template, rather than to remove the SD template, if the page is one created by Mclay1. I said I didn't want to get in the middle between you, and here I am. I should respectfully dismiss myself and hope that you and Mclay1 can resolve your differences amicably.  — Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify at this point that I didn't do it again. I removed it twice but both times were before my previous reply. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we mark this as resolved and leave it to TfD/CfD now? There seems little point leaving it to the protaganists here to discuss between themselves right now. The TfD has already started of course, so unless it were withdrawn it would have to continue there anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC).

Two Editors incapable of working on Christian Terrorism Article

Resolved

 – Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

The editors User:Ion Zone and User:Rpeh have been engaged for a second time (earlier AN/I here [[29]] in bickering and derailing legitimate discussion on this page Christian Terrorism. Neither seems capable of working on the article and keeping a cool head, as I think the talk page there will bear out. It is becoming increasingly frustrating for other editors to discuss there due to the way these two editors persistently bicker. I have warned both and tried to be impartial. User:Ion Zone is being provocative by mispelling User:Rpeh's name. He excuses this by saying he cannot be bothered to spell it correctly. User:Rpeh has closed discussion and implied improper behaviour against an experienced editor User:The Four Deuces. Neither of these editors is demonstrating any degree of seriousness in the discussion. I would suggest a block for a definite period of time from this article is required for both, but would like Admin. opinion.DMSBel (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am serious about the section I'm trying to improve. I keep trying to get somebody to respond seriously to my queries about parts of the NI section. Reph, or whatever his name is, constantly tries to bend the rules to his advantage, refuses to answer legitimate questions, and launches near constant accusations at anyone who disagrees with him. I have trouble telling what the letters are and find it silly that anyone cares. If it was his real name, 0k, but it isn't and I don't see why DM, or anyone else is bothered. I didn't even know it meant anything to him until he started accusing me of making fun of him - and he is very good at accusing people of things.

Ion Zone (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to this fully in the morning. In the meantime it's worth stating that DMSBel is one of the editors trying to push a POV on this article. --rpeh •T•C•E• 22:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

R - this is exactly what I'm talking about. The moment someone tries to do something you don't like you accuse them of pushing an agenda.

Ion Zone (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'm just as serious. Every time I try to point out something, I get a big whack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in reply. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Then could you please go through the section with me, in order, point by point, justifying the concerns that me and others have raised about their legitimacy. So far you have simply ignored all of us and parroted the same line over and over without trying to validate any of the sections. If it's so simple, as you claim, then you should find it incredibly easy to explain to us all. If our raising concerns about the section is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then why did you try to close down that poll when people were simply voting on how to make the article better?

Ion Zone (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)In fact, screw tomorrow morning: here's my initial reply. On the couple of issues mentioned: 1) I notice no diffs have been supplied. 2) I notice DMSBel decided not to mention his/her own conduct.

On concomitant issues 3) Ion Zone has had his/her WP:COMPETENCE examined previously on AN/I 4) He/she kept displaying the same conduct after a warning

On issues related to the article in question 5) I have done nothing except try to present evidence why the existing material should not be kept, while other editors such as Ion ZOne and DMSBel (plus others like Eli plus) have done nothing except try to delete it.

As I said on DMS's own talk page, yes the closure of the "vote" was provocative, but then the entire poll itself was an exercise in senseless provocation and had absolutely no place on any article's talk page.

I have been incredibly restrained given the sustained campaign of IDONTLIKETHAT aimed at the article, and if anybody should be banned from editing it's the train of people who have deleted HUGE chunks of material with NO consensus while discussion was still taking place!

Now I haven't provided diffs either. THEY will wait until tomorrow. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

1) what's a diff?

2)I think DM Has been fine, beyond telling me off for not being fussy about my spelling in talk, but I haven't seen anything worth complaining about.

3) What you mean to say is that you started a thread in admin complaining about my competence and were told off as well. And 4) if I make fun of you on my own talk page after you suddenly start screaming at me for misspelling your name, why are you blaming me? I don't like people trying to hide that they are being rude to me by saying it behind everyone elses' back.

6) If the vote was provocative, lodge an objection in the vote. Don't try to close down the discussion because you don't like what's being said!

7) So now everyone who disagrees with you should be banned?

Ion Zone (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)See my previous AN/I that demonstrates Ion Zone is not WP:COMPETENT to edit this site. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not an Admin. but have I have tried to be impartial here as best I can, and waited as long as possible before bringing the matter here for more experienced consideration. I commented in the earlier AN/I linked to above and suggested both editors take a break from the page. I don't agree with Rpeh's assessment regarding the Proposal section, as from my understanding of the whole of WP:VOTE, it is not entirely prohibited to hold a vote or make a proposal, and in any case the result of a vote is not binding, so I don't see that anything improper was done in that regard. Could Rpeh maybe indicate what aspect of my conduct he thinks I should have mentioned here? DMSBel (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I did take a break - and User:Ion Zone did not - but s?he continued his/her pattern of editing regardless. I have tried again and again to assume good faith on his/her part, but s?he keeps making the same sort of edits over and over again. Enough is enough. --rpeh •T•C•E• 23:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes in all fairness you did take a break and were away from the discussion longer than Ion Zone.DMSBel (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(Placeholder: I would like to comment on this, and will have an extensive collection of diffs tomorrow. Almost had them now, but my browser crashed. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)) done

• The article as it currently exists is a disaster; WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:SYN]—the list goes on and on. I'm not sure which of the contending parties here is on the side of fixing it, but any of them who defend the status quo are wrong and should lose here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I won't be able to comment for a bit, I need a break for a few hours at least from wikipedia, and I have things to do in the real world. Oh and just a word of thanks, to the two aforementioned editors: putting out rubbish, topping up my electric meter and other mundane tasks have become appealing since working on that article. DMSBel (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

In the time between my initial attempts to change the article and the current time the only edit I have made has been to change one word in one sentence that didn't affect the meaning of the phrase. This was quickly reverted in any case. Thus far the only significant opposition to the removal of the unnesessery portions of the Northern Ireland section, is R. In fact, most of the comments I have seen are from people who think I should remove more of the section or delete it entirely - the conflict in Ireland being Nationalistic and there being no attempts to prove otherwise from any side. I have not taken a break from the talk page myself because I saw R's brief leave of absence to be, effectively, as good as.

Ion Zone (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not defending anyone here but every time i have to address "RPEH" i have to scroll up or down the page to get his name right, and sometimes i don't bother. I did not imagine he would have this kind of reaction. On a second note, user Rph is acting as if he owns the miserable article and always defending the horrible status quo. In brief, he has to stop being so territorial and just relinquish to reason and evidence and stop derailing the discussion with silly accusations. Eli+ 16:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that I commented just last night that I fully support a rewrite, your statement is demonstrably untrue. I've given up anyway. The page is no longer on my watchlist and you and your cohorts can whitewash it to your hearts' content. --rpeh •T•C•E• 16:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Rpeh, there's a wealth of material about Christian groups acting in the name of Christianity in books about terrorism. Someone could probably write an entire article about the Pacific Northwest alone. It's not about whitewashing, POV pushing or editors having a "faulty interpretation" of policy. There are several experienced editors voicing their perfectly valid policy based concerns. There's no need for you to give up. Can't you just tone it down a little, be a little less paranoid about people's motives and focus on the material out there that actually does belong in the article rather than defend the material that doesn't belong in the article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've had the dubious pleasure of being in the midst of this situation. If I may interrupt this discussion, I'd like to step in and try to offer some pieces of information and interpretation.
  • Although not a good thing, the misspelling of names has really been a minor part of this conflict, and is something of a distraction here. I also note that Ion Zone has indicated that he has dyslexia, and makes mistakes typing as a result: [30].
  • What is actually going on is a very heated content dispute about whether the article does or does not contain material that is cherry-picked to have an anti-Christian POV. There are editors with good-faith concerns, arguing reasonably, on both sides of that dispute. Not surprisingly, some of the involved editors are getting very hot under the collar. There have been a lot of incivility and personal attacks, some low-level edit warring over deleting and undeleting sections, and a great deal of IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument back and forth on the talk page with editors restating their own opinions instead of listening to the opinions of others. Actually, one can get a bit of the flavor of it from Simon Dodd's comment here, just above, about winning and losing sides (to be determined at ANI, no less).
  • It seems to me that Ion Zone has been attempting to participate in the discussion mostly in good faith, although he seems to be rather unsophisticated about how Wikipedia works. Recently, he made some needlessly incivil remarks needling Rpeh, leading to the complaint here: [31], [32], [33], [34].
  • Rpeh has been an editor of the page for quite some time, and in my opinion, has been very helpful in countering the recurrent efforts of pro-Christian POV pushers to sanitize the page. He is usually responsible about sourcing and accuracy. (His observation here, lost in much of the jumble, was spot-on: [35].) However, he easily becomes hot under the collar in talk, and starts commenting on editors rather than on edits, without listening to the merits of arguments made by those who disagree with him. Recently, he has made some incivil edit summaries in response: [36] and [37], and displayed poor judgment in hatting a discussion with which he disagreed: [38].
  • Actually, it seems to me that the editor who has done the most to raise the temperature is not mentioned above (although he just commented while I was writing this). Elie plus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who single-mindedly follows a pro-Lebanese Maronite POV, has, over a period of time, repeatedly made incivil remarks directed at those who disagree with him: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], and my personal favorite [44]. (The last pair of diffs also includes a comment by DMSBel directed at me, which I should explain. It refers to the use of the word "hyper-ventilating" in these comments: [45], [46], and [47]. I think DMSBel has acted entirely in good faith throughout this whole business, but maybe he over-focused on an isolated word there.) When an editor (who disagrees with me about content) contacted him about that at his talk, Elie plus responded unapologetically: [48], and later was sarcastic about it at the article talk: [49]. Elie plus also engages in WP:POINTy edits to the page: [50], [51].
  • I don't, ultimately, see anything in any of this that requires administrator action in the form of a block or such. Rather, I think that this thread should serve as a notice, on the record, for all named parties to be careful going forward, and I hope that some uninvolved administrators will keep an eye on the situation in that regard. Thanks.
• --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Eli plus notified: [52]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

R - no you didn't say you supported a re-write. What you said was that you supported improvements to the article....which flies in the face of your constant refusal to let anyone do anything to it - and demands for 'more discussion' (there has been plenty of discussion - nothing but discussion) - there is approximately five different threads for each edit.

And I do know this was you: [53].

Ion Zone (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Perhaps you can tell me your secret method for adding improvements to an article without rewriting it? I'd love to hear it. 2) That edit was nothing to do with me and I'm seeing it for the first time now. Are you accusing me of vandalism? If so, ask somebody to run a Checkuser of apologise for your baseless personal attack. --rpeh •T•C•E• 10:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest, given that both times these two editors have interacted on ANI it has led to lengthy and heated arguments, which do not show any sign of abating after your thoughtful summary, that some kind of short interaction ban might help matters. A week of not interacting on any talk page, not posting on each others talk pages, and not reverting each others edits, might be constructive?--Korruski^Talk 10:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left the article that was the root cause of this problem and would have left this alone except I saw myself having been accused of vandalism. Could you let me know what you plan to do about Ion Zone's personal attack against me? --rpeh •T•C•E• 11:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Let's not over-complicate this Tryptofish - this is about a simple case of two editors who have shown little sign of being able to work together without slipping into squabbling on this particular article. I see no need to go into all the in and outs of the discussion about POV on that page to resolve the immediate issue. Once it is resolved then other issues can be considered if necessary, for instance if there are any editors still pushing any POV. That is not always deliberate in every case. So we should be hestitant and circumspect before alleging it. We can't tackle some issues until more basic ones are addressed. I brought this here because I was finding it nearly impossible to follow discussion on that page due to the squabbling between Rpeh and Ion Zone which was flowing over from their talk pages to the article discussion page. An interaction restriction might be best here, I'd agree with that being for a week in duration. DMSBel (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry if I sound frustrated with this, but it feels very much like he has been trying to obstruct improvements to this article in order to push a POV, particularly with regards to the colossal number of accusations he makes against others. I really just want to make the article better and it annoys me when people act like they own Wiki pages. With regards to the linked edits....I'm sorry but, hidden by a proxy server or not, I would bet money he made them. The style is exactly the same, he is the one who has objected most to changes made on this page, and he is the only one who left the page in disgust around that time yesterday.

If this is genuinely an unfair accusation, then I am sorry and you may consider it withdrawn. But, in honesty, I think it is fair - particularly if we remember the sheer number of accusations he regularly makes against other editors. Certainly he isn't one who should get upset because someone accuses him of vandalism.

Ion Zone (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If this could be wrapped up fairly soon by an Admin. that would be great. Ion Zone has given what is probably his best stab at an apology given his concerns about POV, and it seems to me better to just close the matter now without further sanctions.DMSBel (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

DMSBel, there's a difference between over-complicating something, and getting something right. I recommended no action beyond administrators keeping an eye on all involved parties for a while, and that's hardly complicated. I've been watching pages that involve criticisms of religions for a long time, and this wasn't simply a case where a page was moving along just fine until two editors started squabbling with one another. Editors, more than just these two, were behaving as I described, as a result of a content dispute, not just because a squabble materialized out of thin air.

And getting it right matters. In fact, I'm very happy to observe, on logging in today, that the article has quieted down to where constructive editing is moving along just the way that it should! Actually, I would have no objection to a ban against either of these two editors commenting on the other's user talk for a while, and likewise for either of them reverting the other's edits to the page. But interaction bans can be tricky, especially with regard to the article talk page. Telling someone they cannot respond to a comment in talk can skew the discussion, can disenfranchise editors. If after all this they interact on article talk in a manner that is counter-productive, then that's where administrative action will be appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Marked resolved, previously both editors have indicated they will disengage one way or another. Rich Farmbrough, 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Vanjagenije's behaviour at Catherine of St Sava

Vanjagenije (talk · contribs) has reverted my good-faith moves and edits to the article currently called Catherine of St Sava in a manner I find quite disruptive.

I had previously explained at length at Talk:Catherine of St Sava#title why I came to the decision to move the article, and had what seemed like a reasonable discussion with another user who had previously moved the article twice without discussion.

In return for that effort, my change was immediately reverted and I was accused of not discussing anything at all (?!) and then of not respecting consensus - without a shred of demonstration of there ever being actual consensus on the issue, let alone an actual factual objection to my reasoning.

Consensus decisions on article titles aren't supposed to be a matter of fixating on a status quo, rather any action needs to be supported with reasons. Reverting without providing an actual reason other than "you're changing status quo" is basically Wikipedia:I just don't like it.

These are the diffs: diff diff diff

Vanjagenije had also previously reverted a moves by someone else, which actually wasn't particularly controversial, but in context of this latest behavior, this indicates to me an unhealthy attachment to the current article title for no apparent reason:

diff

Granted, I could have employed WP:RM early. But there's a non-trivial difference between me not being perfectly attentive to procedural matters while making a series of good-faith contributions, and them being explicitly disruptive towards me.

I feel this is a clear abuse of process and a case of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

In any case, even if I'm wrong, will an uninvolved administrator please intervene? Especially given that this topic can fall under the Balkan topics discretionary sanctions. :/ --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User making legal threats over deleted article

Elementalkarl (talk · contribs) --- here. Article in question was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tesa Arcilla. See also the conversation at User talk:Elementalkarl#Deletion review. cab (call) 00:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also personal attacks], for good measure. cab (call) 00:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Invited her to retract threat. You forgot to tell her about this thread. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan conflict

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

---

Page: Moe anthropomorphism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Melodia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L-Zwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jinnai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juhachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [54]
• 2nd revert: [55]
• 3rd revert: [56]
• 4th revert: [57] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvoryMeerkat (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an obvious violation of WP:SELFREF and WP:OR going on, but there is a coordinated group of editors who are fans of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan that are tag teaming and preventing progress on this front. See them coordinate here and the blatant personal attacks perpetuated by this group which was canvassed going on at this MfD. When trying to get a third opinion on the matter, they totally swamped this noticeboard request with their coordinated attacks. Apologies if this is in the wrong place.

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it seems like you borrowed the formatting from the 3R page, but that's OK, I guess. I've looked at the history, and I'm no expert in the field of moe (whatever that is--I guess it's an encyclopedic topic). What I do see is you removing of an image with a very tenuous argument to SELFREF. If there is such a critter for the Opera web browser, surely there can be one for this here online encyclopedia. That this should be Original Research, I don't understand. But all of this should probably have been addressed on the talk page; you left a note there, I see, but didn't wait very long before taking it to the OR noticeboard and then charging people here with tag-teaming (a conspiracy, in other words). This last charge is serious, and the evidence suggests to me that instead of tag-teaming we are dealing with a few (more) experienced editors who may well be right.

  Worse, it appears that you post this here since the discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Moe_anthropomorphism (which I haven't read in any detail, and for now it's beside the point) does not seem to be going your way--that's forum shopping, and it's generally frowned upon. Your tone, both in notifying editors ("I reported you...) and on the OR noticeboard, leaves something to be desired.

  In summary, I don't see any need (yet) for administrator intervention, but I encourage the input of other editors. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot get outside input into the actual issues. How is one supposed to get this? All I get is a bunch of people who are fans of Wikipe-tan piling on. I'm fine if administrator intervention is not what is required according to Wikipedia precedent, but what recourse do I have? If someone would read these links and let me know if this is standard operating procedure when a bunch of fans of lolicon get together to try to protect misogynistic otaki illustrations on Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Wikipedia:Think_of_Wikipe-tan.21_up_for_deletion
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!
• Wikipedia:NORN#Moe_anthropomorphism

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IvoryMeerkat has previously declared his intents to remove Wikipe-tan from Wikipedia altogether.[58] He has also repeatedly remove the image from Moe anthropomorphism despite every response to WP:NORN#Moe anthropomorphism being against his position. In short. And this report is just forum shopping since he can't get the results he wanted elsewhere. —Farix (t | c) 15:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is another member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga. Why is it so hard to get a neutral party to look at this situation? Fans of Wikipe-tan shouldn't be the ones deciding whether their favorite mascot should be in article space. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur, looks like forum-shopping to me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How is one supposed to get outside help if they follow me from place to place? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that people are fans of pushing images of a sexualized cartoon girl as a representation of this website without recognizing the fact that a lot of Wikipedia users, like myself, find that association extremely problematic for such a huge on-line presence. I joined Wikipedia to help add to this encyclopedia but am having a hard time visualizing myself continuing when there is such an entrenched group fighting for a lolicon mascot for the encyclopedia to the point of pasting huge images of her in google-indexed articles. This isn't some kid's blog, this is a highly visible internet site. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps some people just don't want to see the Wikipedia project-space decorated with what could be construed as lolicon. It seems that the text of WP:OI does support the creation and use of the image on the Moe anthropomorphism article, but to be fair, the initial comments at W:NOR were all from the manga fanclub. When assistance with an editing conflict is sought out at our various dispute boards, it is usually to get an outside and uninvolved opinion on the matter, and it an be a bit disheartening to see the only responses come from the people you're already involved with. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So the objection really isn't based in WP:OR; instead, it seems like you have a complaint with the tone of the image and what it connotes for Wikipedia. Which seems to me is a matter that is addressed by simple editor consensus. Where the Foundation has not decreed otherwise, editors make Wikipedia what it is, and you're not always going to like it. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The picture itself was invented by Wikipedians. I've looked at two books on Japanese culture that discuss this and neither mentions Wikipe-tan. In the meantime, these people are spamming Wikipedia to include images of cartoon at Fan art and Ren'Py and Adventure game and Bishōjo game and Catgirl. These people invented Wikipe-tan and now this image is suddenly representative of all these things? Where are the reliable sources which indicate this? This spamming has to stop and people need to be told that it's not okay to invent a fantasy cartoon and declare it to be this-or-that so you can get it included in Wikipedia. This goes against everything I read in your policies about the encyclopedia striving for excellence. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If we needed a reliable source to tell us what was depicted in every user-generated image, then bye-bye user-generated images. Can you explain why you disagree with Tarc regarding the application of WP:OI here? If we need a reliable source telling us that File:Wikipe-tan full length.svg depicts an example of moe anthropomorphism, then why don't we need a reliable source telling us that File:Gymnogyps californianus -San Diego Zoo-8a.jpg depicts a California Condor? postdlf (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. (Emphasis in the original.) I am saying that the existence of a moe anthropomorphism for Wikipedia is an introduction of an unpublished idea/argument. There are no reliable sources that I've seen which say that Wikipe-tan is a moe anthropomorphism even though there are reliable sources written about such things (there actually is an extensive discussion on OS-tans in one of the cultural books but there is no mention of Wikipe-tan). On the other hand, the image of Gymnogyps californianus can be verified to have the features of the california condor from reliable sources. For example, there's a picture of such in my world book. If you can find a non-WP:SELFREF reliable source that indicates that Wikipe-tan is a moe anthropomorphism then I'll accept that this illustration has some penetration outside of this website's anime fanclub. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Either way, how is this a matter that requires an administrator's intervention? I propose this section be closed; there's a discussion on the OR noticeboard, linked to above, and more discussion should take place on the article talk page. Meerkat, I didn't follow you around, and I am certainly not a member of any manga fanclub. I am simply trying to ascertain the merits of this particular call for administrator's intervention, and I find no such need. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, Drmies, but I find it extremely frustrating that just when I finally get someone engaging me in an actual discussion of substantive issues, that you want to shut down the discussion. Can we please just move this to the OR noticeboard? I'm just trying to find some outside help, is all, and it's pretty difficult to see how do to that. I saw some tactics from a group of editors that I thought was against the policies of edit warring and tag teaming and I didn't know where else to turn. As I said at the beginning, I apologize if I got the location wrong. I just wanted outside input and there wasn't any to be had at the noticeboard with the anime club following me around and taking turns ignoring my points. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing--this isn't necessarily the place for substantive discussion, it's more a next-to-last resort. That I mentioned "forum shopping" is not meant as an accusation; it can be difficult to find the proper venue, I understand that, and that's why I linked to the OR discussion, for instance. I encourage the editors here (Tarc, Postdlf, etc.) to weigh in at that noticeboard. I have nothing of substance to say on that particular issue; interested editors (Tarc has already been here) may also have a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, which is related to, if not the cause of, this disagreement. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your help. Whatever the reason, discussion seems to be picking up in the locations of interest with outside editors chiming in finally. It was really frustrating being up against a big group of editors who simply talked past me and accused me of all sorts of nasty things in their group discussions, edit summaries, and comments. It'd be good if there was a place where you could just post, "NEED HELP ON A COMPLICATED MATTER". I was looking for such a place but this was the closest I could find. Sorry about not finding the right spot. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, well, you got what you wanted: editor's interest. But for next time--be patient, grasshopper. It's not just one particular crowd that visits the OR noticeboard, though it may take a while for uninvolved editors to check on a situation. Keep in mind also that you come in as a new editor with guns blazing, and some folks here have worked long and hard on these articles and other things; though you might not agree with what they produce, you can understand that they might take this personally. I'm going to mark this as resolved. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nasty things? You're the one implying all of us who like Wikipe-tan are mysogenic pedophiles. You wonder why there's such a harsh reaction? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's move on to the OR board for instance, Melodia--there is nothing more here. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

When the OP said something about it being a "sexualized" character, I suspect he betrayed what's really bothering him about this innocuous cartoon. "Sexualized"??? "Cute", maybe. But sexualized? Talk about "original research"! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.png IvoryMeerkat (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The current cover of Sports Illustrated is more revealing than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing that it would be appropriate to use a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition illustration as a mascot for Wikipedia? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm proposing you should be honest in your arguments against it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's showing that the complains that the sexualization of Wikipe-tan have no merit. And your repeated implications that editors who disagree with you are pedophiles needs to end now. —Farix (t | c) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an overstatement. Is it sexualization to the the point that we should be clamoring for the head of the artist? Probably not. But it most certainly is sexualization.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a cartoon character. But supposing it is, in fact, a cartoon character that's depicted as having a gender, is it therefore a violation of wikipedia policy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Depicted as having her breasts sliding out from the underside of a bikini top goes beyond a depiction of gender. Whether it's excessive is arguable, but the intent was certainly to create a sexualized depiction of the character.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it violate wikipedia rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"having her breasts sliding out from the underside", I think you are looking for something that was never really there in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's clearly depicted in the image, TheFarix: not imagination at all, or something that was "never really there".—Kww(talk) 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the image, by itself, violate any wikipedia rules? The reason I keep asking this is that the OP is complaining about it on OR grounds, but his real objection is apparently that it's "sexualized". Sending this to the OR page is a waste of time, because that's not really what the issue is - it's just a wedge the OP is trying to use. And I'm not saying he's off base to object. I just would like to know, as an ignoranimous here, what wikipedia rules, if any, do this illustrations violate, in and of themselves? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No rule violation, so far as I know. That doesn't mean that the complaint about sexualization is wholly unwarranted, which was my point.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's not against the rules, then the complaint IS unwarranted, as it boils down to "I don't like it." Personally, I don't care for anime in general. But only on artistic grounds. I just don't like the way it looks. But if it's not a rules violation, then the OP needs to find something else to work on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Could they just make her an adult and this whole thing goes away? I am not seeing where it states that this is a depiction of an underage child. But the whole thing is a little crazy IMO. Oh wait, I see now. She was "born" when Wikipedia was started, so that makes her 10 years old. That is a little creepy. But my original questions still stands. David Able 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a cartoon character. Cartoons don't conform to normal aging rules. Peanuts ran for about 50 years, but Charlie Brown only aged from about 5 to about 10 during that interval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the appropriate forum is. Probably an RFC. A group of Wikipedian decided to give the whole project a mascot, but I can't see anywhere that the project agreed that a anime-style image of a young girl was a suitable mascot.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipetan is a Moe anthropomorphism. See the article on Moe (slang), but Moe basically always applies to preadolescence girls; it literally means "budding" like a "budding flower" or "budding girl", to make Wikipetan an adult would make her no longer a Moe anthropomorphism, but just an anthropomorphism.AerobicFox (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The one with the huge boobs ain't no "pre-adolescent". Someone needs to decide whether the illustrations themselves violate wikipedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The one with the boobs is a usermade rendition of Wikipetan as a young adult. Why someone would do this is beyond me, but yes, she is clearly not a child in that picture(which isn't being used on any of the articles in question by the way).AerobicFox (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an anime version of "Growing Up Skipper"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well shit, when put into context it's even creepier. A"budding girl." Sheesh. Japanese culture never ceases to amaze me. But I suppose if essays like WP:PBAGDSWCBY exist, then Wiki-Tan is not too much of a stretch. Still, there is a (perhaps perceived) element of child fetishism here. A very fine line. For instance, the adult Wiki-Tan in a bikini might be over that line. David Able 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IvoryMeerkat now removing Wikipe-tan images from WP:ANIME's templates and portal space

Just saw these edits a moment ago.[59][60][61][62]. This is unquestionably disruptive editing as IvoryMeerkat cannot singleness replace images agreed that have already been agreed to by consensus. —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

!I'm not allowed to be WP:BOLD? I don't think this kind of moe lolicon belongs representing Wikipedia volunteerism. I'm willing to discuss, however. What happened to taking it to the talkpage? Please see WP:HOUND as well. Apparently, TheFarix has declared all my removals of this to be "disruptive" and is using WP:TWINKLE to revert me. I think this is not allowed and ask that TheFarix's twinkle privileges be revoked per Wikipedia:TWINKLE#Abuse. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have a right to be disruptive by remove images that already have consensus. An again, knock it all with your attributions that other editors are pedophiles. If you continues with this disruptive editing pattern and personal attacks, you will find yourself blocked. —Farix (t | c) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is this? Where did I accuse any editor of being a pedophile? You aren't an administrator, you shouldn't be threatening to block me because you don't have that capability. What kind of sick rabbit hole is this? Is it really Wikipedia policy to block someone for pointing out lolicon is being passed off as official Wikipedia communication? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed this has to stop with the anti wikipe-tan war it is disruptive and not the right way to go about things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who started this thread, which is obviously NOT resolved yet. It's blatantly obvious that you're trying to push a particular "moral standard" here which no one has yet demonstrated violates wikipedia rules or anything else for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The way that these people are insisting that their images need to be included and threatening to block those who disagree is really surprising to me. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove my comment again.[63] This is just continuation of your disruptive behavor. —Farix (t | c) 02:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of problems with how the version-control and diffs are handled in mediawiki software, I'm trying to fix them, but I'm not sure if I have. Can someone help? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You probably got snared in an edit-conflict and hit the wrong button, thus wiping out other entries. When you see the "edit-conflict" bar, capture what you wrote but don't hit "SAVE", just go back to the page tab and re-post it at the appropriate spot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. That's different from the SVN I normally use. Why hasn't Mediawiki implemented smarter software? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your war on wikipe-tan needs to stop wikipedia is not a battleground WP:BATTLEGROUND - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How am I warring? I'm just changing some template images so they aren't even a hint of lolicon. The anime eye is a good image! IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're imposing your "moral standard" without consensus. Your ID is only a month old. You had best stop your little crusade NOW, or your first month here is also liable to be your LAST. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What "moral standard"? Are you saying that sexualized anime images that are arguably lolicon are fine for official Wikipedia communication? I just have an opinion that these images shouldn't be highly visible. I'm willing to discuss this, but I'm not understanding why you're attacking me with such threatening language. Also, you're not an administrator, so are you allowed to threaten me like this? You have no ability to block my account, I think. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel an admin should be involved here as this has gone on far enough - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Should he be blocked? For how long? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WHY? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because you knew well beforehand that removing the images would have no consensus. WP:BOLD is not an excuse to be disruptive editing. Also that you attribute a set of image of a fully clothed girl in a non-sexual pose is lolicon a clear attempt to link any editor who defends the images as pedophiles. —Farix (t | c) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew no such thing. The last time I removed an image from moe (anthropomorphism) it was for different reasons. I thought that project space might be a better way of approaching the problem since that's subject only to the guidelines for how to put Wikipedia's best foot forward. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but I'm pretty surprised by all of this. I'm thinking that maybe I should just leave you guys to this activity if you really like to protect images so much. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right? And we are supposed to discuss things, right? I'm wondering why you didn't take anything to the talk page. Also, you aren't an administrator, so why are you even offering your opinion as though you are? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a French-maid costume, a catgirl pose, etc. are all at the very least nose-thumbing the line between "cute" and "sexualized". — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvoryMeerkat (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that view isn't in line with WP:Consensus. You will either respect consensus or be blocked. Final Warning. N419BH 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how you determined that that view isn't in line with WP:Consensus? I'm having a hard time figuring that out from the page you linked. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You all are expressing personal opinions. What rules are being violated??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To consider that what is being pointed out in the -tan images is no more risque than what is printed in legitimate works published in both Japan and the States without age restrictions (which yes, includes schoolgirls in bikinis and other revealing but tasteful outfits), there is no indication that there is anything otherwise wrong with the images. They, in fact, are a fair free replacement for many anime-/manga-/contemporary Japanese subjects without using non-free works. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this a moe-replacement? There are plenty of other forms of anime-/manga- art that aren't so wrapped up in gender and sexual politics with the obviously problematic implications of such. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The biggest things that srike me here is the removal of another editor's comment, and being disruptive multiple times. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• O_o Reading this discussion has been really strange. Are we even looking at the same image? Wikipe-tan is just a anime-esque anthropomorphism of Wikipedia. I don't see anything sexual about her at all, unless editors are pushing their own ideas of sexuality upon her. She doesn't even have any indication of breasts whatsoever. As for her use on certain article pages, well, that's up to talk page consensus to decide. I will say that it's a lot easier to use an image that was made by Wikipedians, so we don't have to deal with issues of licensing, which is one of the main arguments for her use in articles that she would relate to. Silverseren^C 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That seems fair, and I'm willing to discuss this. I guess I was a little taken aback by how omnipresent this image has become. There are certainly very problematic ways in which it is being treated at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. I guess I understand that the anime project might want to encourage the generation of anime content, but why is there this sort of obsession with moe? Why not something less fraught? (See moe (slang)#Criticism for more.) IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a cute cartoon girl. I don't see any sex there at all. Are we removing the pictures just in case someone looks at them and imagines sex? I imagine sex when I'm reading the Rachel Maddow article, but that doesn't mean you should take the picture off of it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this is user-generated content. See above. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The particular image that started this discussion is no more "sexualized" than Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. The anime culture surrounding this kind of portrayal has some pretty seedy elements. I think the Judy Garland implications are mostly with regards to gay male stereotypes. In any case, is this the right place for this discussion? I was told above it wasn't. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? You lost me with your Judy Garland comparison. Silverseren^C 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Baseball bugs was saying that images of Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz were similar to images of Wikipe-tan. I'm arguing that the context is different from a cultural standpoint. The reason that people find Wikipe-tan "creepy" is because it incorporates elements of moe which have very particular artistic sensibilities about poses, gazes, coloration, etc. It's actually a very well-developed artistic sub-culture that suffers from the criticism we outline in the Wikipedia article on the subject. I'm just pointing out that Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz is only holed in a stereotypical gay fetishism culture along with Cher, Streisand, etc. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is just one problem, moe doesn't mean sexualization. It's a loose synonym for cute. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Loose" is definitely the right word. There are plenty of other connotations to it. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Question for IvoryMeerkat, how do you see wikipe-tan as lolicon? Wikipe-tan is fully clothed and there are no real sexuial images of her. Are you saying that any mascot that involves a girl is lolicon too? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think moe (slang)#Criticism summarizes a lot of my problems with the issue. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find a rule that's being violated, this is strictly a content dispute, and you're fomenting disruption over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bring this dispute here. I'm willing to use the talkpages where, I agree, the content dispute should be worked out. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You most certainly DID bring this dispute here, at 15:18 when you posted your first comment about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which I thought was resolved by Drmies. I didn't open this subsection. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did he tell you to continue your attempts to delete this stuff, rather than discussing it on talk pages? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD seems to indicate that you discuss after you edit. Is that not the culture? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It should have been crystal clear that your initial efforts were not well-received. At that point, you enter discussions, you don't keep changing and deleting stuff. STOP IT, and talk about it on the appropriate talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough. We're taking up half the page with nothing more than WP:DRAMA. Is there anything actionable here? If not, is there a discussion occurring on this issue at a more appropriate venue? If not, does one need to be initiated? If not, let's move on. N419BH 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a centralized discussion of how Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan should be used needs to be started. I'm not sure how that's done. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than being disruptive multiple times and removing another editors comment I cant think of much. I do not think this dispute is going to end though but I agree it should be taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the main thing to point out is that IvoryMeerkat should stop removing images of Wikipe-tan from anywhere and should obtain consensus on talk pages first. That's essentially it. Nothing actionable, just that statement. If it is violated, then there is something actionable. Silverseren^C 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that IronMeerkat has already declared a campaign to remove Wikipe-tan's images from Wikipedia so we probably haven't heard the last of this. So I would suggest a preemptive move by having a community ban on IronMeerkat and Wikipe-tan images. —Farix (t | c) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Rules, rules, rule. (Who needs em?) OK, how about this. Wiki-tan was created as an intended mascot of Wikipedia, so the images in which she is portrayed in should be limited to reflect WP culture. Studying in a library, performing a sock puppet show, typing on a computer; OK. Playing volleyball in a bikini not so OK, and would be out of scope. David Able 02:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How does this have anything to do with what's going on? We're discussing a single image of Wikipe-tan, the main one, that is in use across multiple articles. Silverseren^C 03:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To Farix: Have all of Meerkat's deletions been reverted, or is there still work to be done? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I got all of them. But it wouldn't hurt to double-check. —Farix (t | c) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so, how about this: IvoryMeerkat, now that you know consensus is for Wikipe-tan's image to be included, do not remove it unless consensus changes. If you wish to get a view of current consensus on the issue, I'm thinking WP:RFC is the most appropriate venue (the anime Wikiproject would in all likelihood not present a wikipedia-wide view of the topic). Personally, I feel such an exercise would be moot, but if you want to engage in such, feel free. Please also remain mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I believe with that said we have nothing further to do here. N419BH 03:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Silver: Wrong. This is about Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! essay that was put up for deletion and includes a number of questionable variant images that are being put up and that the person who started this thread is being lambasted for removing. So don't tell me this is about one image of a 10 year old pre-pubescent girl in a modest outfit 'cause it's not. David Able 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps originally it was about that MFD but the nominator has moved outside of what is considered good editing and is now trying to make a WP:POINT. Nominating things for MFD is good; witchhunting is BAD. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which of those images are "questionable"? They all seem innocent enough to me. N419BH 03:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see one that's borderline on the WP:Wikipe-tan article but it's of an adult. N419BH 03:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment on that MfD, but IvoryMeerkat's edit warring on Moe anthropomorphism and removal of Wikipe-tan images from the Wikiproject Anime namespace is what i'm discussing here and what i'm saying he should stop doing. I'm not even discussing that essay. Silverseren^C 03:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which it appears he has. If he starts doing it again we block him. If he seeks to work within the consensus model by which we operate here then we have nothing further to do at this time. N419BH 03:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this seems revolved by the time I got here. You can go ahead and start an RfC. You can also go and ask at WP:Village pump where you'll get a broad swath of Wikipedians. Either way, make certain to include the NOR/N link so people can have some context as to what others already think. For the RfC in particular, you need to word your phrasing so its neutral, not dvocating your POV, that she is a sexualized image because of the cultural context, nor those who oppose her. That or give both points of view as to why/why not.陣内_Jinnai 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well File:Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.png jumps out at me. Let me ask you, if someone drew a picture of a 10 year old notable actress as an imagined adult wearing a bikini and posted it on the article, that would be OK? David Able 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

David Able, that image looks like that of an 18 year old WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, it looks like Wiki-tan's head on an 18 year old body...in a bikini. David Able 03:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In Japanese animation, that's common. 18 year old characters really do have those kinds of faces. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apple and oranges. This wiki-tan is strictly a cartoon character. What rule does the cartoon violate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The better comparison would be, What if they imagined the infant Pebbles Flintstone as an adult? Guess what: They did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In a bikini? On an encyclopedia? David Able 03:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is being used in two major places Fan service and as an image for a userbox as such consensus would be best to remove this image if it were to be removed, I do not see any issue with it however. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think the image should go nominate it for deletion and see what happens. N419BH 03:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WHAO, I honestly did not know that would happen when I posted the link and have been getting EC's trying to fix it. My bad David Able 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That image is an example of the problem being discussed, and now, when brought to other's attention, it's just, "oh well, nom it for deletion if you don't like it." I responded to the question request to produce questionable images. David Able 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not the problem that is being discussed. The problem which was being discussed was the no consensus removal of images in a disruptive manner by IvoryMeercat who attempted to use the "OMG ITS LOLICON" card to derail the discussion down the tangent you are treading. In regards to this tangent, however, that image does precisely what it is intended to do in the fanservice article. It is representative of the topic of the article and meets Wikipedia's requirements for images. Taking it out of context you may have an argument, but looked at from within the proper context there is nothing wrong with that image. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Should probably be removed from the Wikipe-tan article though. As for linking to images, put a ":" before the link to just show the file name aka [[:image name]]. If you want to show a smaller version, put a pixel size afterward aka [[image name|100px]]. N419BH 03:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between project space (Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan) and article space. Having a gallery of free images for use in article space, which is what is being done at the Wikipe-tan "article", including ones that contain fanservice is not against the rules as far as I can tell. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's someone's intepretation of Wikipe-tan. That's clearly acceptable by the CC licensing and there's nothing that violates anything so just because someone drew an adult version in a swimsuit doesn't mean its not the same character.陣内_Jinnai 03:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's drawn by the same guy who drew the original. I can see how some people might have an issue with it, although the image doesn't appear to violate any rules/laws/etc. N419BH 03:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Some editors keep asking, "Is this image really OK?" Unless it violates a rule (and no one has yet demonstrated that it does), ANI is not the appropriate place to ask that question, because it does not require admin input, it requires consensus. If there's a specific image that's "debatable", then debate it - on the wiki-tan talk page or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

Seriously, who could possibly think that this was creepy?

Wikipe-tan appears to have many supporters but there are those who apparently find her somehow inappropriate as an unofficial mascot. Rather than trying to debate the issue here, perhaps it wold be best to ask the community? Instead of threatening IvoryMeercat with blocks, someone could help them to formulate an RfC? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been suggested. We're spinning our wheels at this point. Should probably lock the whole thread; nothing is being accomplished anymore. N419BH 03:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever. I personally don't care whether Wiki-tan stays or goes. I just perceived an editor getting railroaded for a dissenting view (in which I saw some valid points) and thought I'd take up the fight. Anyway, this might be a bit drastic, but I'd like to see the Arb's take on WP:NOTCENSORED as it relates to articles space vs. user space. Anyway, long live underaged Wikitan David Able 04:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I know Wikipe-tan has been mentioned recently in discussions about attracting more female editors, so this may be a good time to gauge community feelings without having accusations flying back and forth. If someone would like to suggest the appropriate venue for this, I am willing to help IvoryMeercat with the wording. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Having an image of Wikipe-tan here violates WP:POINT I understand a link to show your example but come on now... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It is showing exactly what we are discussing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Images are generally not displayed directly here, so as not to confuse editors with certain browsers in which, if they hover over the link to it, the first image on the page displays. That sounds screwy, but I got lectured about it once when I put an image here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've often seen images here (usually trouts), so I'll risk the lecture. Let's leave the image alone - it doesn't break any rules. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Right well if it doesnt then what is the harm of removing the "Seriously, who could possibly think that this was creepy" bit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Notcensored" has nothing to do with this debate, it is a cheap tactic that is being vainly deployed by a handful of people trying to save this Japanese Loli by any means necessary. This entire conversation has become extremely muddled as we debate the usage of this...thing in project-space, article-space and the like. Where this all really started was at the MfD for this retarded think of the children Wikipe-tan satire. By any stretch of common sense and decency, that page should not exist. The other usages can be the subject of separate debates. Tarc (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with this debate. This debate is about the abusive removal of images against consensus and forum shopping by IvoryMeerkat. Your feelings about tangential topics really are off-topic. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing abusive about IvoryMeerkat's removal of the images, nor of coming to this or other forums over concerns about the images. An editor has acted in good faith to purge what he, and many others, view as cartoon child pornography from the project. Tarc (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this debate now and move it elsewhere? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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

No. The subject was changed (IMO purposely) from the "real" discussion about the MFD problem with a group of like-minded editors rallying to support Wikipe-tan, to a sub-thread about the dissenting editor inappropriately removing images w/out consensus (which he, admittedly, shouldn't have done.) Why does WP:NOTCENSORED not apply here? The core of the problem is the perception of child exploitation images. Tell me...please...how does that image on the right in the closed section above improve the article, essay, encyclopedia, etc in any way what-so-ever? David Able 04:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And seriously, could someone please un-close this clearly unresolved discussion, or at least provide a link to where the discussion is continuing? David Able 05:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

See my comment at the top. This board is for incidents requiring administrator attention. If you want to have a general discussion on Wikipe-tan either start a RFC, initiate a discussion at Wikiproject Anime, make a suggestion at the village pump, or nominate the page and related images for deletion. N419BH 05:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion will continue at the Anime and Manga wikiproject. [64] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing the issue now would you care to join? If not then okay either way lets move on from here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where should this orphan talk page be?

See Talk:Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia which shouldn't exist as the talk page of no article. It's going to have to be recreated somewhere else and deleted I presume. I'm not even sure if it's a legitimate RfC. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd slap a db-talk onto it and dump the contents into a subpage of Richard Norton's. If he wants to file a proper RFC, he can do so from there. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved it with no redirect. It's at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia now. I'll leave RAN a note. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I've been involved in one of the 'diaspora' AfDs, and am not exactly happy with this 'RfC', I didn't want to do any of this directly. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we have RfCs in userspace? I see it's 'official', just seems an odd place for one. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<--It doesn't belong in userspace. Could somebody please un-hat this discussion? I am going to try putting something useful at WP:OR/N but feel free to move it if there is a better place. Sharktopus^talk 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I am very involved in the discussion surrounding this, but I find the RfC extremely disruptive. It's creator has already failed to wait for other processes to come to conclusion before taking matters into his own hands - he did so initially by recreating a deleted page hours after he requested a DRV of the deletion result. Now he has started a straw man RfC (that is framed in a way to omit the POV he objects to altogether) while two related AfDs are ongoing. Can someone please ask the user to calm down and let these processes finish before forging ahead. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no connection between an RFC and an AFD, so there is no reason to have one and not the other. It is framed from my viewpoint, of course! I wrote it. How could it not be framed from my viewpoint? I think Griswaldo is confusing an RFC with a DRV. A DRV, if filed, must come after an AFD that led to a deletion. An RFC is just that, a request for comment, nothing sinister, nothing sneaky. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your framing of the issue is as tendentious as if I had made an RfC around the question "Should R.A.N. stop making disruptive rfcs?" or "should articles for which there are no reliable sources be deleted?"·Maunus·ƛ· 23:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"There is no connection between an RFC and an AFD", unless someone explicitly makes one, or two such connections. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I stuck it in userspace as preferable to deletion. If you want to move it somewhere else, feel free. lifebaka++ 00:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge needed at Thunderbolt (interface)

I won't use my admin account from this PC ... so hoping another admin can assist.

It's snowing pretty heavilly at the merge discussion at Talk:Thunderbolt (interface). Need someone to move Light Peak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the existing Thunderbolt (interface) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) content, then undelete the target history so as to merge the history records. --- Barek (talk) - 22:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Stone and Stone

A new user created an article at Stone and Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the username was StonandStone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so the user got blocked; they then apparently panicked - I'm guessing because the article was tagged.

In very short order we have:

• StoneandStone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asparagus123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedygal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedybiographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Between these four accounts, there is only one subject of interest, Stone and Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I have moved to User:StoneandStone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for now. This looks very much like abuse of multiple accounts, or at the least off-site co-ordination i.e. meatpuppetry; if not then it's astroturfing, and from one account, Comedybiographer, there is clear canvassing. That's an awful lot of problems in a very short space of time, so I'm blocking all accounts until we get to the bottom of it.

Anyone who feels disposed to sort it out is welcome to undo any of these actions.

The article's sources look to be unreliable and/or trivial passing mentions, I Googled some, it seems that Stone and Stone are nearly-famous in real life but have some following on the Intertubes. Google was not much help because the word stone is kind of generic. My experience of people who think having a Wikipedia article is Really Really Important and run around looking for help to keep it, has not, in the main, left me particularly inclined to accept their judgement of the vital and pressing need to immediately cover this fabulous topic which the million or however many existing Wikipedians have unaccountably missed for the last ten years. I am somewhat cynical about such things. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• FYI The "StoneandStone" account was blocked, unblocked to change username, but then the user created the target username instead of requesting a change at CHU, so the StoneandStone account was reblocked and they were told to continue with their new name "Comedybiographer" [65]. I don't know about the other two. –xeno^talk 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just my two cents, which I left over at JzG's userpage: From what I've gathered interacting with the user and Alpha Quadrant on IRC, this is a case of a very confused new editor. The user apparently didn't know that logging in under a different username meant that she was creating new accounts each time. Furthermore, I think the canvassing was her simply not knowing what to do -- she'd been on the help channel in IRC a few times without getting much for help. Personally, I think blocking without any information on how to file an unblock request might have been a little harsh. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have to chime in as well. She was not 'canvassing', she was legitimately seeking help in the IRC help channel. She's been asking for advice from us since the beginning of all this, and it's become a comedy of errors after the initial block for having a non-compliant username. That said, the article is written in a neutral point of view, we've stressed that and helped ensure that it is, so being an autobio/COI shouldn't really matter since that was the recommendation for COI's in the first place (i.e. have other editors check your edits to ensure neutrality). Since when did COI become forbidden or an A7? She has also complied with us in providing independent and reliable sources, and agreed to a WP:CHU after the initial block (though she apparently made the mistake of thinking a WP:CHU means creating a new username). To put it bluntly, this seems to be a rather horrible case of biting.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 01:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on my interaction with the user in #wikipedia-en-unblock , I got the impression the user was just new and had problems understanding our complicated policies. I don't think blocking without discussion is very helpful. The user was most definitively not canvassing but asking for help and trying to understand. I dunno about the other two accounts, and think one could have simply asked the user, s/he always seemed very forthcoming and trying to do the right thing. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I had inquired as to why she created two other user accounts. She said she was trying to rename herself, and hadn't realized that she was creating other accounts at the time. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I also helped this user on IRC; they are a confused new user who understands the COI problem and is trying to keep everything neutral and reliably sourced. This is indeed a tad BITEy, to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've unblocked the 'Comedybiographer' account per the above. –xeno^talk 04:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• And I have restored the article Stone and Stone. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My guess is that it will be notable, but anyone who doubts that can use AfD in the usual manner. I really hope we will end up with a good article here, and I express my respect for the persistence of the editors who wrote the article. The obstacles that we pose for beginners can be overcome, but really it shouldn't take special attention to do it;; the sort of help given here in the end should be routine. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with an AFD to contest its notability, however I hope that anyone doing that will first research the topic properly because this topic and newbie has had enough troubles already - don't subject them to more process unless you are confident that it is not notable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• The user is still affected by an autoblock on his IP address and is unable to edit pages. (I am helping him on IRC). Please address the situation, thank you . [[CharlieEchoTango]] 05:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I posted a link to this discussion on the article's talk page as background for the section there discussing the situation and to explain the recent multiple page moves and editor name changes. It would probably help more if an involved SysOp posted there as well to clarify things a bit more clearly and succinctly then I can. Some comments clearing the editor on her talk page may help clear things up for her there as well. (I am just a basic editor, not an Admin) Cheers, Veriss (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan conflict

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

---

Page: Moe anthropomorphism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Melodia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• L-Zwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jinnai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Juhachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: [66]
• 2nd revert: [67]
• 3rd revert: [68]
• 4th revert: [69] — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvoryMeerkat (talk • contribs) 15:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an obvious violation of WP:SELFREF and WP:OR going on, but there is a coordinated group of editors who are fans of Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan that are tag teaming and preventing progress on this front. See them coordinate here and the blatant personal attacks perpetuated by this group which was canvassed going on at this MfD. When trying to get a third opinion on the matter, they totally swamped this noticeboard request with their coordinated attacks. Apologies if this is in the wrong place.

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, it seems like you borrowed the formatting from the 3R page, but that's OK, I guess. I've looked at the history, and I'm no expert in the field of moe (whatever that is--I guess it's an encyclopedic topic). What I do see is you removing of an image with a very tenuous argument to SELFREF. If there is such a critter for the Opera web browser, surely there can be one for this here online encyclopedia. That this should be Original Research, I don't understand. But all of this should probably have been addressed on the talk page; you left a note there, I see, but didn't wait very long before taking it to the OR noticeboard and then charging people here with tag-teaming (a conspiracy, in other words). This last charge is serious, and the evidence suggests to me that instead of tag-teaming we are dealing with a few (more) experienced editors who may well be right.

  Worse, it appears that you post this here since the discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Moe_anthropomorphism (which I haven't read in any detail, and for now it's beside the point) does not seem to be going your way--that's forum shopping, and it's generally frowned upon. Your tone, both in notifying editors ("I reported you...) and on the OR noticeboard, leaves something to be desired.

  In summary, I don't see any need (yet) for administrator intervention, but I encourage the input of other editors. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot get outside input into the actual issues. How is one supposed to get this? All I get is a bunch of people who are fans of Wikipe-tan piling on. I'm fine if administrator intervention is not what is required according to Wikipedia precedent, but what recourse do I have? If someone would read these links and let me know if this is standard operating procedure when a bunch of fans of lolicon get together to try to protect misogynistic otaki illustrations on Wikipedia, I'd appreciate it:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Wikipedia:Think_of_Wikipe-tan.21_up_for_deletion
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!
• Wikipedia:NORN#Moe_anthropomorphism

IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IvoryMeerkat has previously declared his intents to remove Wikipe-tan from Wikipedia altogether.[70] He has also repeatedly remove the image from Moe anthropomorphism despite every response to WP:NORN#Moe anthropomorphism being against his position. In short. And this report is just forum shopping since he can't get the results he wanted elsewhere. —Farix (t | c) 15:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is another member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga. Why is it so hard to get a neutral party to look at this situation? Fans of Wikipe-tan shouldn't be the ones deciding whether their favorite mascot should be in article space. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur, looks like forum-shopping to me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

How is one supposed to get outside help if they follow me from place to place? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm really concerned that people are fans of pushing images of a sexualized cartoon girl as a representation of this website without recognizing the fact that a lot of Wikipedia users, like myself, find that association extremely problematic for such a huge on-line presence. I joined Wikipedia to help add to this encyclopedia but am having a hard time visualizing myself continuing when there is such an entrenched group fighting for a lolicon mascot for the encyclopedia to the point of pasting huge images of her in google-indexed articles. This isn't some kid's blog, this is a highly visible internet site. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Perhaps some people just don't want to see the Wikipedia project-space decorated with what could be construed as lolicon. It seems that the text of WP:OI does support the creation and use of the image on the Moe anthropomorphism article, but to be fair, the initial comments at W:NOR were all from the manga fanclub. When assistance with an editing conflict is sought out at our various dispute boards, it is usually to get an outside and uninvolved opinion on the matter, and it an be a bit disheartening to see the only responses come from the people you're already involved with. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

So the objection really isn't based in WP:OR; instead, it seems like you have a complaint with the tone of the image and what it connotes for Wikipedia. Which seems to me is a matter that is addressed by simple editor consensus. Where the Foundation has not decreed otherwise, editors make Wikipedia what it is, and you're not always going to like it. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The picture itself was invented by Wikipedians. I've looked at two books on Japanese culture that discuss this and neither mentions Wikipe-tan. In the meantime, these people are spamming Wikipedia to include images of cartoon at Fan art and Ren'Py and Adventure game and Bishōjo game and Catgirl. These people invented Wikipe-tan and now this image is suddenly representative of all these things? Where are the reliable sources which indicate this? This spamming has to stop and people need to be told that it's not okay to invent a fantasy cartoon and declare it to be this-or-that so you can get it included in Wikipedia. This goes against everything I read in your policies about the encyclopedia striving for excellence. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If we needed a reliable source to tell us what was depicted in every user-generated image, then bye-bye user-generated images. Can you explain why you disagree with Tarc regarding the application of WP:OI here? If we need a reliable source telling us that File:Wikipe-tan full length.svg depicts an example of moe anthropomorphism, then why don't we need a reliable source telling us that File:Gymnogyps californianus -San Diego Zoo-8a.jpg depicts a California Condor? postdlf (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. (Emphasis in the original.) I am saying that the existence of a moe anthropomorphism for Wikipedia is an introduction of an unpublished idea/argument. There are no reliable sources that I've seen which say that Wikipe-tan is a moe anthropomorphism even though there are reliable sources written about such things (there actually is an extensive discussion on OS-tans in one of the cultural books but there is no mention of Wikipe-tan). On the other hand, the image of Gymnogyps californianus can be verified to have the features of the california condor from reliable sources. For example, there's a picture of such in my world book. If you can find a non-WP:SELFREF reliable source that indicates that Wikipe-tan is a moe anthropomorphism then I'll accept that this illustration has some penetration outside of this website's anime fanclub. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Either way, how is this a matter that requires an administrator's intervention? I propose this section be closed; there's a discussion on the OR noticeboard, linked to above, and more discussion should take place on the article talk page. Meerkat, I didn't follow you around, and I am certainly not a member of any manga fanclub. I am simply trying to ascertain the merits of this particular call for administrator's intervention, and I find no such need. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're saying, Drmies, but I find it extremely frustrating that just when I finally get someone engaging me in an actual discussion of substantive issues, that you want to shut down the discussion. Can we please just move this to the OR noticeboard? I'm just trying to find some outside help, is all, and it's pretty difficult to see how do to that. I saw some tactics from a group of editors that I thought was against the policies of edit warring and tag teaming and I didn't know where else to turn. As I said at the beginning, I apologize if I got the location wrong. I just wanted outside input and there wasn't any to be had at the noticeboard with the anime club following me around and taking turns ignoring my points. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing--this isn't necessarily the place for substantive discussion, it's more a next-to-last resort. That I mentioned "forum shopping" is not meant as an accusation; it can be difficult to find the proper venue, I understand that, and that's why I linked to the OR discussion, for instance. I encourage the editors here (Tarc, Postdlf, etc.) to weigh in at that noticeboard. I have nothing of substance to say on that particular issue; interested editors (Tarc has already been here) may also have a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!, which is related to, if not the cause of, this disagreement. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your help. Whatever the reason, discussion seems to be picking up in the locations of interest with outside editors chiming in finally. It was really frustrating being up against a big group of editors who simply talked past me and accused me of all sorts of nasty things in their group discussions, edit summaries, and comments. It'd be good if there was a place where you could just post, "NEED HELP ON A COMPLICATED MATTER". I was looking for such a place but this was the closest I could find. Sorry about not finding the right spot. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Haha, well, you got what you wanted: editor's interest. But for next time--be patient, grasshopper. It's not just one particular crowd that visits the OR noticeboard, though it may take a while for uninvolved editors to check on a situation. Keep in mind also that you come in as a new editor with guns blazing, and some folks here have worked long and hard on these articles and other things; though you might not agree with what they produce, you can understand that they might take this personally. I'm going to mark this as resolved. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nasty things? You're the one implying all of us who like Wikipe-tan are mysogenic pedophiles. You wonder why there's such a harsh reaction? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's move on to the OR board for instance, Melodia--there is nothing more here. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

When the OP said something about it being a "sexualized" character, I suspect he betrayed what's really bothering him about this innocuous cartoon. "Sexualized"??? "Cute", maybe. But sexualized? Talk about "original research"! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipe_tan_wearing_a_bikini_by_Kasuga39.png IvoryMeerkat (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The current cover of Sports Illustrated is more revealing than that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing that it would be appropriate to use a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition illustration as a mascot for Wikipedia? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm proposing you should be honest in your arguments against it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's showing that the complains that the sexualization of Wikipe-tan have no merit. And your repeated implications that editors who disagree with you are pedophiles needs to end now. —Farix (t | c) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's an overstatement. Is it sexualization to the the point that we should be clamoring for the head of the artist? Probably not. But it most certainly is sexualization.—Kww(talk) 20:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a cartoon character. But supposing it is, in fact, a cartoon character that's depicted as having a gender, is it therefore a violation of wikipedia policy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Depicted as having her breasts sliding out from the underside of a bikini top goes beyond a depiction of gender. Whether it's excessive is arguable, but the intent was certainly to create a sexualized depiction of the character.—Kww(talk) 21:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Does it violate wikipedia rules? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"having her breasts sliding out from the underside", I think you are looking for something that was never really there in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 21:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

That's clearly depicted in the image, TheFarix: not imagination at all, or something that was "never really there".—Kww(talk) 21:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the image, by itself, violate any wikipedia rules? The reason I keep asking this is that the OP is complaining about it on OR grounds, but his real objection is apparently that it's "sexualized". Sending this to the OR page is a waste of time, because that's not really what the issue is - it's just a wedge the OP is trying to use. And I'm not saying he's off base to object. I just would like to know, as an ignoranimous here, what wikipedia rules, if any, do this illustrations violate, in and of themselves? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No rule violation, so far as I know. That doesn't mean that the complaint about sexualization is wholly unwarranted, which was my point.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's not against the rules, then the complaint IS unwarranted, as it boils down to "I don't like it." Personally, I don't care for anime in general. But only on artistic grounds. I just don't like the way it looks. But if it's not a rules violation, then the OP needs to find something else to work on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Could they just make her an adult and this whole thing goes away? I am not seeing where it states that this is a depiction of an underage child. But the whole thing is a little crazy IMO. Oh wait, I see now. She was "born" when Wikipedia was started, so that makes her 10 years old. That is a little creepy. But my original questions still stands. David Able 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a cartoon character. Cartoons don't conform to normal aging rules. Peanuts ran for about 50 years, but Charlie Brown only aged from about 5 to about 10 during that interval. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what the appropriate forum is. Probably an RFC. A group of Wikipedian decided to give the whole project a mascot, but I can't see anywhere that the project agreed that a anime-style image of a young girl was a suitable mascot.—Kww(talk) 22:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipetan is a Moe anthropomorphism. See the article on Moe (slang), but Moe basically always applies to preadolescence girls; it literally means "budding" like a "budding flower" or "budding girl", to make Wikipetan an adult would make her no longer a Moe anthropomorphism, but just an anthropomorphism.AerobicFox (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The one with the huge boobs ain't no "pre-adolescent". Someone needs to decide whether the illustrations themselves violate wikipedia rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The one with the boobs is a usermade rendition of Wikipetan as a young adult. Why someone would do this is beyond me, but yes, she is clearly not a child in that picture(which isn't being used on any of the articles in question by the way).AerobicFox (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an anime version of "Growing Up Skipper"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well shit, when put into context it's even creepier. A"budding girl." Sheesh. Japanese culture never ceases to amaze me. But I suppose if essays like WP:PBAGDSWCBY exist, then Wiki-Tan is not too much of a stretch. Still, there is a (perhaps perceived) element of child fetishism here. A very fine line. For instance, the adult Wiki-Tan in a bikini might be over that line. David Able 00:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IvoryMeerkat now removing Wikipe-tan images from WP:ANIME's templates and portal space

Just saw these edits a moment ago.[71][72][73][74]. This is unquestionably disruptive editing as IvoryMeerkat cannot singleness replace images agreed that have already been agreed to by consensus. —Farix (t | c) 01:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

!I'm not allowed to be WP:BOLD? I don't think this kind of moe lolicon belongs representing Wikipedia volunteerism. I'm willing to discuss, however. What happened to taking it to the talkpage? Please see WP:HOUND as well. Apparently, TheFarix has declared all my removals of this to be "disruptive" and is using WP:TWINKLE to revert me. I think this is not allowed and ask that TheFarix's twinkle privileges be revoked per Wikipedia:TWINKLE#Abuse. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't have a right to be disruptive by remove images that already have consensus. An again, knock it all with your attributions that other editors are pedophiles. If you continues with this disruptive editing pattern and personal attacks, you will find yourself blocked. —Farix (t | c) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What the hell is this? Where did I accuse any editor of being a pedophile? You aren't an administrator, you shouldn't be threatening to block me because you don't have that capability. What kind of sick rabbit hole is this? Is it really Wikipedia policy to block someone for pointing out lolicon is being passed off as official Wikipedia communication? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed this has to stop with the anti wikipe-tan war it is disruptive and not the right way to go about things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're the one who started this thread, which is obviously NOT resolved yet. It's blatantly obvious that you're trying to push a particular "moral standard" here which no one has yet demonstrated violates wikipedia rules or anything else for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The way that these people are insisting that their images need to be included and threatening to block those who disagree is really surprising to me. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove my comment again.[75] This is just continuation of your disruptive behavor. —Farix (t | c) 02:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of problems with how the version-control and diffs are handled in mediawiki software, I'm trying to fix them, but I'm not sure if I have. Can someone help? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You probably got snared in an edit-conflict and hit the wrong button, thus wiping out other entries. When you see the "edit-conflict" bar, capture what you wrote but don't hit "SAVE", just go back to the page tab and re-post it at the appropriate spot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see. That's different from the SVN I normally use. Why hasn't Mediawiki implemented smarter software? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Your war on wikipe-tan needs to stop wikipedia is not a battleground WP:BATTLEGROUND - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How am I warring? I'm just changing some template images so they aren't even a hint of lolicon. The anime eye is a good image! IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You're imposing your "moral standard" without consensus. Your ID is only a month old. You had best stop your little crusade NOW, or your first month here is also liable to be your LAST. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What "moral standard"? Are you saying that sexualized anime images that are arguably lolicon are fine for official Wikipedia communication? I just have an opinion that these images shouldn't be highly visible. I'm willing to discuss this, but I'm not understanding why you're attacking me with such threatening language. Also, you're not an administrator, so are you allowed to threaten me like this? You have no ability to block my account, I think. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel an admin should be involved here as this has gone on far enough - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Should he be blocked? For how long? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WHY? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Because you knew well beforehand that removing the images would have no consensus. WP:BOLD is not an excuse to be disruptive editing. Also that you attribute a set of image of a fully clothed girl in a non-sexual pose is lolicon a clear attempt to link any editor who defends the images as pedophiles. —Farix (t | c) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew no such thing. The last time I removed an image from moe (anthropomorphism) it was for different reasons. I thought that project space might be a better way of approaching the problem since that's subject only to the guidelines for how to put Wikipedia's best foot forward. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but I'm pretty surprised by all of this. I'm thinking that maybe I should just leave you guys to this activity if you really like to protect images so much. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, right? And we are supposed to discuss things, right? I'm wondering why you didn't take anything to the talk page. Also, you aren't an administrator, so why are you even offering your opinion as though you are? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a French-maid costume, a catgirl pose, etc. are all at the very least nose-thumbing the line between "cute" and "sexualized". — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvoryMeerkat (talk • contribs) 02:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that view isn't in line with WP:Consensus. You will either respect consensus or be blocked. Final Warning. N419BH 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how you determined that that view isn't in line with WP:Consensus? I'm having a hard time figuring that out from the page you linked. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You all are expressing personal opinions. What rules are being violated??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To consider that what is being pointed out in the -tan images is no more risque than what is printed in legitimate works published in both Japan and the States without age restrictions (which yes, includes schoolgirls in bikinis and other revealing but tasteful outfits), there is no indication that there is anything otherwise wrong with the images. They, in fact, are a fair free replacement for many anime-/manga-/contemporary Japanese subjects without using non-free works. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this a moe-replacement? There are plenty of other forms of anime-/manga- art that aren't so wrapped up in gender and sexual politics with the obviously problematic implications of such. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The biggest things that srike me here is the removal of another editor's comment, and being disruptive multiple times. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• O_o Reading this discussion has been really strange. Are we even looking at the same image? Wikipe-tan is just a anime-esque anthropomorphism of Wikipedia. I don't see anything sexual about her at all, unless editors are pushing their own ideas of sexuality upon her. She doesn't even have any indication of breasts whatsoever. As for her use on certain article pages, well, that's up to talk page consensus to decide. I will say that it's a lot easier to use an image that was made by Wikipedians, so we don't have to deal with issues of licensing, which is one of the main arguments for her use in articles that she would relate to. Silverseren^C 02:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That seems fair, and I'm willing to discuss this. I guess I was a little taken aback by how omnipresent this image has become. There are certainly very problematic ways in which it is being treated at Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. I guess I understand that the anime project might want to encourage the generation of anime content, but why is there this sort of obsession with moe? Why not something less fraught? (See moe (slang)#Criticism for more.) IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a cute cartoon girl. I don't see any sex there at all. Are we removing the pictures just in case someone looks at them and imagines sex? I imagine sex when I'm reading the Rachel Maddow article, but that doesn't mean you should take the picture off of it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this is user-generated content. See above. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The particular image that started this discussion is no more "sexualized" than Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree. The anime culture surrounding this kind of portrayal has some pretty seedy elements. I think the Judy Garland implications are mostly with regards to gay male stereotypes. In any case, is this the right place for this discussion? I was told above it wasn't. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? You lost me with your Judy Garland comparison. Silverseren^C 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Baseball bugs was saying that images of Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz were similar to images of Wikipe-tan. I'm arguing that the context is different from a cultural standpoint. The reason that people find Wikipe-tan "creepy" is because it incorporates elements of moe which have very particular artistic sensibilities about poses, gazes, coloration, etc. It's actually a very well-developed artistic sub-culture that suffers from the criticism we outline in the Wikipedia article on the subject. I'm just pointing out that Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz is only holed in a stereotypical gay fetishism culture along with Cher, Streisand, etc. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is just one problem, moe doesn't mean sexualization. It's a loose synonym for cute. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Loose" is definitely the right word. There are plenty of other connotations to it. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Question for IvoryMeerkat, how do you see wikipe-tan as lolicon? Wikipe-tan is fully clothed and there are no real sexuial images of her. Are you saying that any mascot that involves a girl is lolicon too? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think moe (slang)#Criticism summarizes a lot of my problems with the issue. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can find a rule that's being violated, this is strictly a content dispute, and you're fomenting disruption over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bring this dispute here. I'm willing to use the talkpages where, I agree, the content dispute should be worked out. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You most certainly DID bring this dispute here, at 15:18 when you posted your first comment about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which I thought was resolved by Drmies. I didn't open this subsection. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did he tell you to continue your attempts to delete this stuff, rather than discussing it on talk pages? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOLD seems to indicate that you discuss after you edit. Is that not the culture? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It should have been crystal clear that your initial efforts were not well-received. At that point, you enter discussions, you don't keep changing and deleting stuff. STOP IT, and talk about it on the appropriate talk pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough. We're taking up half the page with nothing more than WP:DRAMA. Is there anything actionable here? If not, is there a discussion occurring on this issue at a more appropriate venue? If not, does one need to be initiated? If not, let's move on. N419BH 02:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think a centralized discussion of how Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan should be used needs to be started. I'm not sure how that's done. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Other than being disruptive multiple times and removing another editors comment I cant think of much. I do not think this dispute is going to end though but I agree it should be taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose the main thing to point out is that IvoryMeerkat should stop removing images of Wikipe-tan from anywhere and should obtain consensus on talk pages first. That's essentially it. Nothing actionable, just that statement. If it is violated, then there is something actionable. Silverseren^C 02:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

All I can say is that IronMeerkat has already declared a campaign to remove Wikipe-tan's images from Wikipedia so we probably haven't heard the last of this. So I would suggest a preemptive move by having a community ban on IronMeerkat and Wikipe-tan images. —Farix (t | c) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Rules, rules, rule. (Who needs em?) OK, how about this. Wiki-tan was created as an intended mascot of Wikipedia, so the images in which she is portrayed in should be limited to reflect WP culture. Studying in a library, performing a sock puppet show, typing on a computer; OK. Playing volleyball in a bikini not so OK, and would be out of scope. David Able 02:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

How does this have anything to do with what's going on? We're discussing a single image of Wikipe-tan, the main one, that is in use across multiple articles. Silverseren^C 03:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To Farix: Have all of Meerkat's deletions been reverted, or is there still work to be done? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I got all of them. But it wouldn't hurt to double-check. —Farix (t | c) 03:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, so, how about this: IvoryMeerkat, now that you know consensus is for Wikipe-tan's image to be included, do not remove it unless consensus changes. If you wish to get a view of current consensus on the issue, I'm thinking WP:RFC is the most appropriate venue (the anime Wikiproject would in all likelihood not present a wikipedia-wide view of the topic). Personally, I feel such an exercise would be moot, but if you want to engage in such, feel free. Please also remain mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. I believe with that said we have nothing further to do here. N419BH 03:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Silver: Wrong. This is about Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan! essay that was put up for deletion and includes a number of questionable variant images that are being put up and that the person who started this thread is being lambasted for removing. So don't tell me this is about one image of a 10 year old pre-pubescent girl in a modest outfit 'cause it's not. David Able 03:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps originally it was about that MFD but the nominator has moved outside of what is considered good editing and is now trying to make a WP:POINT. Nominating things for MFD is good; witchhunting is BAD. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which of those images are "questionable"? They all seem innocent enough to me. N419BH 03:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I see one that's borderline on the WP:Wikipe-tan article but it's of an adult. N419BH 03:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no comment on that MfD, but IvoryMeerkat's edit warring on Moe anthropomorphism and removal of Wikipe-tan images from the Wikiproject Anime namespace is what i'm discussing here and what i'm saying he should stop doing. I'm not even discussing that essay. Silverseren^C 03:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Which it appears he has. If he starts doing it again we block him. If he seeks to work within the consensus model by which we operate here then we have nothing further to do at this time. N419BH 03:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this seems revolved by the time I got here. You can go ahead and start an RfC. You can also go and ask at WP:Village pump where you'll get a broad swath of Wikipedians. Either way, make certain to include the NOR/N link so people can have some context as to what others already think. For the RfC in particular, you need to word your phrasing so its neutral, not dvocating your POV, that she is a sexualized image because of the cultural context, nor those who oppose her. That or give both points of view as to why/why not.陣内_Jinnai 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well File:Wikipe tan wearing a bikini by Kasuga39.png jumps out at me. Let me ask you, if someone drew a picture of a 10 year old notable actress as an imagined adult wearing a bikini and posted it on the article, that would be OK? David Able 03:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

David Able, that image looks like that of an 18 year old WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, it looks like Wiki-tan's head on an 18 year old body...in a bikini. David Able 03:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In Japanese animation, that's common. 18 year old characters really do have those kinds of faces. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Apple and oranges. This wiki-tan is strictly a cartoon character. What rule does the cartoon violate? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The better comparison would be, What if they imagined the infant Pebbles Flintstone as an adult? Guess what: They did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In a bikini? On an encyclopedia? David Able 03:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The image is being used in two major places Fan service and as an image for a userbox as such consensus would be best to remove this image if it were to be removed, I do not see any issue with it however. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you think the image should go nominate it for deletion and see what happens. N419BH 03:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WHAO, I honestly did not know that would happen when I posted the link and have been getting EC's trying to fix it. My bad David Able 03:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That image is an example of the problem being discussed, and now, when brought to other's attention, it's just, "oh well, nom it for deletion if you don't like it." I responded to the question request to produce questionable images. David Able 03:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not the problem that is being discussed. The problem which was being discussed was the no consensus removal of images in a disruptive manner by IvoryMeercat who attempted to use the "OMG ITS LOLICON" card to derail the discussion down the tangent you are treading. In regards to this tangent, however, that image does precisely what it is intended to do in the fanservice article. It is representative of the topic of the article and meets Wikipedia's requirements for images. Taking it out of context you may have an argument, but looked at from within the proper context there is nothing wrong with that image. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Should probably be removed from the Wikipe-tan article though. As for linking to images, put a ":" before the link to just show the file name aka [[:image name]]. If you want to show a smaller version, put a pixel size afterward aka [[image name|100px]]. N419BH 03:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone that there is a difference between project space (Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan) and article space. Having a gallery of free images for use in article space, which is what is being done at the Wikipe-tan "article", including ones that contain fanservice is not against the rules as far as I can tell. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's someone's intepretation of Wikipe-tan. That's clearly acceptable by the CC licensing and there's nothing that violates anything so just because someone drew an adult version in a swimsuit doesn't mean its not the same character.陣内_Jinnai 03:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's drawn by the same guy who drew the original. I can see how some people might have an issue with it, although the image doesn't appear to violate any rules/laws/etc. N419BH 03:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Some editors keep asking, "Is this image really OK?" Unless it violates a rule (and no one has yet demonstrated that it does), ANI is not the appropriate place to ask that question, because it does not require admin input, it requires consensus. If there's a specific image that's "debatable", then debate it - on the wiki-tan talk page or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

Seriously, who could possibly think that this was creepy?

Wikipe-tan appears to have many supporters but there are those who apparently find her somehow inappropriate as an unofficial mascot. Rather than trying to debate the issue here, perhaps it wold be best to ask the community? Instead of threatening IvoryMeercat with blocks, someone could help them to formulate an RfC? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been suggested. We're spinning our wheels at this point. Should probably lock the whole thread; nothing is being accomplished anymore. N419BH 03:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever. I personally don't care whether Wiki-tan stays or goes. I just perceived an editor getting railroaded for a dissenting view (in which I saw some valid points) and thought I'd take up the fight. Anyway, this might be a bit drastic, but I'd like to see the Arb's take on WP:NOTCENSORED as it relates to articles space vs. user space. Anyway, long live underaged Wikitan David Able 04:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I know Wikipe-tan has been mentioned recently in discussions about attracting more female editors, so this may be a good time to gauge community feelings without having accusations flying back and forth. If someone would like to suggest the appropriate venue for this, I am willing to help IvoryMeercat with the wording. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Having an image of Wikipe-tan here violates WP:POINT I understand a link to show your example but come on now... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It is showing exactly what we are discussing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Images are generally not displayed directly here, so as not to confuse editors with certain browsers in which, if they hover over the link to it, the first image on the page displays. That sounds screwy, but I got lectured about it once when I put an image here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've often seen images here (usually trouts), so I'll risk the lecture. Let's leave the image alone - it doesn't break any rules. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Right well if it doesnt then what is the harm of removing the "Seriously, who could possibly think that this was creepy" bit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Notcensored" has nothing to do with this debate, it is a cheap tactic that is being vainly deployed by a handful of people trying to save this Japanese Loli by any means necessary. This entire conversation has become extremely muddled as we debate the usage of this...thing in project-space, article-space and the like. Where this all really started was at the MfD for this retarded think of the children Wikipe-tan satire. By any stretch of common sense and decency, that page should not exist. The other usages can be the subject of separate debates. Tarc (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that NOTCENSORED has nothing to do with this debate. This debate is about the abusive removal of images against consensus and forum shopping by IvoryMeerkat. Your feelings about tangential topics really are off-topic. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing abusive about IvoryMeerkat's removal of the images, nor of coming to this or other forums over concerns about the images. An editor has acted in good faith to purge what he, and many others, view as cartoon child pornography from the project. Tarc (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we close this debate now and move it elsewhere? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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

No. The subject was changed (IMO purposely) from the "real" discussion about the MFD problem with a group of like-minded editors rallying to support Wikipe-tan, to a sub-thread about the dissenting editor inappropriately removing images w/out consensus (which he, admittedly, shouldn't have done.) Why does WP:NOTCENSORED not apply here? The core of the problem is the perception of child exploitation images. Tell me...please...how does that image on the right in the closed section above improve the article, essay, encyclopedia, etc in any way what-so-ever? David Able 04:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And seriously, could someone please un-close this clearly unresolved discussion, or at least provide a link to where the discussion is continuing? David Able 05:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

See my comment at the top. This board is for incidents requiring administrator attention. If you want to have a general discussion on Wikipe-tan either start a RFC, initiate a discussion at Wikiproject Anime, make a suggestion at the village pump, or nominate the page and related images for deletion. N419BH 05:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion will continue at the Anime and Manga wikiproject. [76] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We are discussing the issue now would you care to join? If not then okay either way lets move on from here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Where should this orphan talk page be?

See Talk:Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia which shouldn't exist as the talk page of no article. It's going to have to be recreated somewhere else and deleted I presume. I'm not even sure if it's a legitimate RfC. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd slap a db-talk onto it and dump the contents into a subpage of Richard Norton's. If he wants to file a proper RFC, he can do so from there. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved it with no redirect. It's at User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Use of the word diaspora in Wikipedia now. I'll leave RAN a note. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Since I've been involved in one of the 'diaspora' AfDs, and am not exactly happy with this 'RfC', I didn't want to do any of this directly. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we have RfCs in userspace? I see it's 'official', just seems an odd place for one. Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

<--It doesn't belong in userspace. Could somebody please un-hat this discussion? I am going to try putting something useful at WP:OR/N but feel free to move it if there is a better place. Sharktopus^talk 22:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I admit that I am very involved in the discussion surrounding this, but I find the RfC extremely disruptive. It's creator has already failed to wait for other processes to come to conclusion before taking matters into his own hands - he did so initially by recreating a deleted page hours after he requested a DRV of the deletion result. Now he has started a straw man RfC (that is framed in a way to omit the POV he objects to altogether) while two related AfDs are ongoing. Can someone please ask the user to calm down and let these processes finish before forging ahead. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no connection between an RFC and an AFD, so there is no reason to have one and not the other. It is framed from my viewpoint, of course! I wrote it. How could it not be framed from my viewpoint? I think Griswaldo is confusing an RFC with a DRV. A DRV, if filed, must come after an AFD that led to a deletion. An RFC is just that, a request for comment, nothing sinister, nothing sneaky. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your framing of the issue is as tendentious as if I had made an RfC around the question "Should R.A.N. stop making disruptive rfcs?" or "should articles for which there are no reliable sources be deleted?"·Maunus·ƛ· 23:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"There is no connection between an RFC and an AFD", unless someone explicitly makes one, or two such connections. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I stuck it in userspace as preferable to deletion. If you want to move it somewhere else, feel free. lifebaka++ 00:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge needed at Thunderbolt (interface)

I won't use my admin account from this PC ... so hoping another admin can assist.

It's snowing pretty heavilly at the merge discussion at Talk:Thunderbolt (interface). Need someone to move Light Peak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) over the existing Thunderbolt (interface) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) content, then undelete the target history so as to merge the history records. --- Barek (talk) - 22:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Stone and Stone

A new user created an article at Stone and Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - the username was StonandStone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so the user got blocked; they then apparently panicked - I'm guessing because the article was tagged.

In very short order we have:

• StoneandStone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Asparagus123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedygal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Comedybiographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Between these four accounts, there is only one subject of interest, Stone and Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I have moved to User:StoneandStone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for now. This looks very much like abuse of multiple accounts, or at the least off-site co-ordination i.e. meatpuppetry; if not then it's astroturfing, and from one account, Comedybiographer, there is clear canvassing. That's an awful lot of problems in a very short space of time, so I'm blocking all accounts until we get to the bottom of it.

Anyone who feels disposed to sort it out is welcome to undo any of these actions.

The article's sources look to be unreliable and/or trivial passing mentions, I Googled some, it seems that Stone and Stone are nearly-famous in real life but have some following on the Intertubes. Google was not much help because the word stone is kind of generic. My experience of people who think having a Wikipedia article is Really Really Important and run around looking for help to keep it, has not, in the main, left me particularly inclined to accept their judgement of the vital and pressing need to immediately cover this fabulous topic which the million or however many existing Wikipedians have unaccountably missed for the last ten years. I am somewhat cynical about such things. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• FYI The "StoneandStone" account was blocked, unblocked to change username, but then the user created the target username instead of requesting a change at CHU, so the StoneandStone account was reblocked and they were told to continue with their new name "Comedybiographer" [77]. I don't know about the other two. –xeno^talk 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just my two cents, which I left over at JzG's userpage: From what I've gathered interacting with the user and Alpha Quadrant on IRC, this is a case of a very confused new editor. The user apparently didn't know that logging in under a different username meant that she was creating new accounts each time. Furthermore, I think the canvassing was her simply not knowing what to do -- she'd been on the help channel in IRC a few times without getting much for help. Personally, I think blocking without any information on how to file an unblock request might have been a little harsh. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 01:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have to chime in as well. She was not 'canvassing', she was legitimately seeking help in the IRC help channel. She's been asking for advice from us since the beginning of all this, and it's become a comedy of errors after the initial block for having a non-compliant username. That said, the article is written in a neutral point of view, we've stressed that and helped ensure that it is, so being an autobio/COI shouldn't really matter since that was the recommendation for COI's in the first place (i.e. have other editors check your edits to ensure neutrality). Since when did COI become forbidden or an A7? She has also complied with us in providing independent and reliable sources, and agreed to a WP:CHU after the initial block (though she apparently made the mistake of thinking a WP:CHU means creating a new username). To put it bluntly, this seems to be a rather horrible case of biting.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 01:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on my interaction with the user in #wikipedia-en-unblock , I got the impression the user was just new and had problems understanding our complicated policies. I don't think blocking without discussion is very helpful. The user was most definitively not canvassing but asking for help and trying to understand. I dunno about the other two accounts, and think one could have simply asked the user, s/he always seemed very forthcoming and trying to do the right thing. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I had inquired as to why she created two other user accounts. She said she was trying to rename herself, and hadn't realized that she was creating other accounts at the time. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I also helped this user on IRC; they are a confused new user who understands the COI problem and is trying to keep everything neutral and reliably sourced. This is indeed a tad BITEy, to me. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I've unblocked the 'Comedybiographer' account per the above. –xeno^talk 04:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• And I have restored the article Stone and Stone. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My guess is that it will be notable, but anyone who doubts that can use AfD in the usual manner. I really hope we will end up with a good article here, and I express my respect for the persistence of the editors who wrote the article. The obstacles that we pose for beginners can be overcome, but really it shouldn't take special attention to do it;; the sort of help given here in the end should be routine. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I have no problem with an AFD to contest its notability, however I hope that anyone doing that will first research the topic properly because this topic and newbie has had enough troubles already - don't subject them to more process unless you are confident that it is not notable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• The user is still affected by an autoblock on his IP address and is unable to edit pages. (I am helping him on IRC). Please address the situation, thank you . [[CharlieEchoTango]] 05:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• I posted a link to this discussion on the article's talk page as background for the section there discussing the situation and to explain the recent multiple page moves and editor name changes. It would probably help more if an involved SysOp posted there as well to clarify things a bit more clearly and succinctly then I can. Some comments clearing the editor on her talk page may help clear things up for her there as well. (I am just a basic editor, not an Admin) Cheers, Veriss (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Weston Price, NPOV, and MEDRS

• Ronz (talk · contribs)
• Yobol (talk · contribs)
• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs)
• BruceGrubb (talk · contribs)
• Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

The threat of a RFC/U by Ludwigs2 saying that I had "no consideration for other positions, consensus, or (apparently) common sense." has forced me to bring this mess to here. Furthermore any attempt to collapse ANY part of my comments will be viewed by me as an effort at censorship and a tampering of my posts. There are serious WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS issues with the Weston Price article.

Extended content

"Price was outspoken on the relationship between endodontic therapy and pulpless teeth and broader systemic disease, ideas derived from focal infection theory, and held that dental health - and consequently physical health - were heavily influenced by nutritional factors. These applications of focal infection theory fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities. (Baumgartner, J. Craig; Siqueira, Jose F.; Sedgley, Christine M.; Kishen, Anil (2007), "7", Ingle's Endodontics (6 ed.), PMPH-USA, pp. 221–222, ISBN 978-1-55009-333-9) The problem is that this claim is NOT supported by the majority of the reliable sources (see Wikipedia:NPOVN#Weston_Price_and_Focal_infection_theory and so I want to put in the following which IMHO better shows the state of affairs: The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work. The referenced material in Ingle's Endodontics of 2002 states "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection and called for a return to constructive rather than destructive dental treatment rationale. (Easlick K.An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. J Am Dent Assoc 1951;42:694.)(Grossman LI. Focal infection: are oral foci of infection related to systemic disease? Dent Clin North Am 1960;4:749). and yet that very same year by the very same publisher it was stated "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory. The detrimental effect of focal infection on general health has been known for decades. Prophylactic antibiotics are routinely prescribed before some dental procedures to immunosuppressed and other at-risk patients, to combat the spread of oral bacteria into the blood stream." (Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" Page 159) THEY CAN"T BOTH BE RIGHT. Despite the following sources presented that support Silverman and contradict Ingles regarding focal infection theory itself user|Ronz and Yobol insist on ignoring the relevant points and going into side issues: 1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111). (1952) Southern California State Dental Association journal; pg 27) Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) "Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology", Wiley; Page 33 O'Reilly, PR Claffey NW "A history of Oral Sepsis as a cause of disease" Periodontal 2000 1997 Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich Textbook of Endodontology Wiley page 135-13 Pallashe TJ (2000) "The focal infection theory: appraisal and reappraisal" California Dental Association Journal 28: 194-200 Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS; MS, and Michael J. Wahl, (2003) "Focal infection: new age or ancient history?" Endodontic Topics, 4, 32–45 Blackwell munksgraard Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) "Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology", Wiley; Page 33 Ghom (2009) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 459

I wanted to add in the more neutral:

Extended content

The dental part of focal infection fell out of favor in the late 1930s (Thomas J. Pallasch, DDS, MS, and Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal", Journal of the California Dental Association.) with a special 1951 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stating "Many Authorities who formally felt that focal infection was an important etiologic factor in systemic disease have become skeptical and now recommend less radical procedures in the treatment of such disorders."("An Evaluation of the Effect of Dental Focal Infection on Health" JADA 42:609-697 June 1951) though the idea never disappeared from the dental community.(Editorial. JAMA 1952; 150: 490.) (Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009). Textbook of Endodontology. Wiley. pp. 135–136) While, recent discoveries have caused a cautious reevaluation of focal infection in dentistry ((2001) Fowler, Edward B "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001)) and there are studies on the quality of diet regarding oral health in adults (Bailey, RL (2004) "Persistent oral health problems associated with comorbidity and impaired diet quality in older adults". J Am Diet . Assnc. 104:1273.) these are independent of Weston Price's work.

and yet I have been repeatably stymied by Ronz and Yobol and now get this RFC/U mixed with insult by Ludwigs2

User:Ronz has already has issues with pushing certain POV in the Weston Price article (see [78] and Yobol has insulted other editors with /groans and /rolls eyes (see [Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2].

Ludwigs2 ignores the fact that Billings (referenced to in some of these sources as the main driving force behind focal infection theory) himself stated "A focus of infection may be defined as a circumscribed area of tissue infected with pathogenic microorganims. Foci of infection may be primary and secondary. (...) Primary foci of infection may be located anywhere in the body." (Billings, Frank ScD. (Harvard) MD (1916) Focal infection, Lane Medical Lectures (Delivered Sept 20-24, 1915 Stanford University Medical School); D Appleton and company, pg 3) a point repeated in several MODERN journals and textbooks.

Furthoermore "In the 1920s, Dr Weston Price ) published a series of rabbit experiments and case reports of remarkable improvements in various medical conditions after dental extractions and asserted that ‘practically all’ infected non-vital teeth should be removed rather that endodontically treated to prevent or cure focal infections." [...] "The three most documented, publicized and litigated examples of focal infection are bacterial endocarditis, brain abscess and orthopedic prosthetic joint infections. Opinions abound on many aspects of these infections, but little attention has been paid to the absolute risk to the patient that these infections pose from dental-treatment-induced bacteremias" [...] "Numerous studies have attempted to determine the significance of various microbial pathogens in pulpal and periapical infections" [...] "Once again it appears that the Focal Infection Theory fails to pass scientific scrutiny. While isolated reports of focal infections appear, there is no evidence that focal infections or even antigenicmimicry are responsible for anything other than sporadic abscesses/infections and possibly rare autoimmune disorders." (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS; MS, and Michael J. Wahl, (2003) [2] "Focal infection: new age or ancient history?" Endodontic Topics, 4, 32–45 Blackwell munksgraard)

So here we have a peer reviewed article by Blackwell munksgraard whose web sites "Wiley-Blackwell is the world's premier dentistry publisher, representing the very best in academic research, student learning and clinical expertise." which is supported by two textbooks also printed by Wiley and even mentions Weston Price and we're supposed to ignore it in favor of Ingels who contradicts about every source I have found because doing so has "no consideration for other positions, consensus, or (apparently) common sense." How does THIS make sense common or otherwise?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGrubb (talk • contribs)

Comment

• Woah, holy wall of text, Batman. This seems to be a content dispute, though. Also, please, it is spelled Munksgaard, not munskgraard. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• This appears to be a content dispute - open an RfC or go to WP:MEDCAB. Ironholds (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have collapsed your comment above. I'm sorry if you view this as attempted "censorship", but this is not the forum for this conversation. Administrators have no special powers to settle content disputes except in enforcing clear community consensus or addressing clear policy violations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm concerned that BruceGrubb needs to brush up on WP:DR processes-- he has posted twice to WP:RSN, where I pointed out to him that his posts were confusing and WP:TLDR, and that he was asking RSN to mediate a content dispute. He may not understand dispute resolution, but this is looking like forum shopping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say that the above kind of response is precisely the reason I am considering an RFC/U. I've seen dozens of variations on this same wall-of-text, a new one every time someone objects to the addition he keeps trying to make. Content-wise, the issue seems clear to me:

• The argument about the putative resurgence of focal infection theory belongs on the focal infection theory article, not on the Weston Price page.
• Any effort to connect Price with any modern forms of FIT (be it real scientific work or pseudoscientific material coming out of more fringy sources) has to be carefully balanced so as to (a) not give Price undue prominence as a misunderstood genius, and (b) not diminish the significance of Price's work in his own time period.

As far as I can tell, what we have is a few reputable modern sources suggesting that FIT may be redeemable (despite the problems with Price's earlier methodology), and a few less reputable sources trying to build something off of Price's old discredited work. Why Bruce objects to that kind of balance I don't know (because it's such a pain trying to parse his massively repetitive posts); all I really know is that trying to get the point across is a bit like trying to have a debate with a cruise missile. --Ludwigs2 18:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone can attempt some form of mentorship before an RFC/U-- I just don't have time to wade through his wall of text, and frankly haven't been able to determine what is up with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I will happily barnstar anyone who wants to undertake that task. I'm even tempted to offer $5 via paypal, if extra incentive is needed. --Ludwigs2 19:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Ludwigs2 is ignoring the fact that administrator Will Beback stated ""WP:MEDRS limits what we can say about medical topics, so that may be appropriate. But we shouldn't use this article as a backdoor to discuss medical claims that we wouldn't make elsewhere."

Regarding focal infection theory the Weston Price article currently states "These applications of focal infection theory fell out of favor in the 1930s and are not currently considered viable in the dental or medical communities"

Ludwigs2 has just admitted with his statement that there is a currently a revival of oral focal infection theory; several peer reviewed articles express concern that given focal infection theory's easy explanation and economic incentive one could easily see the same application as seen in Price's time. Ergo the not currently considered viable claim is NOT a valid MS:MEDRS statement!

More troubling is just what the Ingle article actually says--a point that everyone keeps avoiding like the plague.

"In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection and called for a return to constructive rather than destructive dental treatment rationale. (Easlick K.An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. J Am Dent Assoc 1951;42:694.)

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection ; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111).

"This introduction to the focal infection of disease should not be construed to mean that the theory has no basis in fact. There is little doubt that under certain circumstances microorganisms can move from one area of the body to another to establish their customary pathology in another locale. (Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association)

Ingles: "However, a recent book entitled Root Canal Cover-up Exposed has resurrected the focal infection theory based on the poorly designed and outdated studies by Rosenow and Price. (Meinig G. Root canal cover-up exposed. Ojai (CA): Bion Publishing; 1993.) This body of research has been evaluated and disproved.

New York Academy of Dentistry 1994: "[h]owever many clinicians appear today to have lost sight of the fact that endodontical treatment shall be based on biology and not on the use of various gadgets to sweep canals. Also, one-visit treatment of necrotic, infected teeth is being advocated and practiced even if no long-term study has been performed to investigate this kind of treatment. The work of Dr. Weston Price is therefore still to a great extent valid and important and the role of infection can not be underestimated."

I AGAIN ask how can Ingles can be reliable given that what it actually says (In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection) can be proven to be wrong. How can a theory "refuted" in the 1930s still be presented as having validity clear into the 1950s?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has tried, in vain, to discuss this situation with BruceGrubb for months now, I could ask for no better example of what it is like to discuss anything with him than the above text. Comments, suggestions, rebuttals, or reply is more often than not met with a repeating of multiple walls of quotations from various sources that do not address any points raised. It is almost impossible to collaborate with someone who responds like this, and I now actively avoid discussion on any talk page with Bruce for this reason. (As an aside, I note that Bruce has also spread this conflict to yet another venue. RFC/U, mentorship, anything to get this to stop, please. Yobol (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The response by Yobol above is a perfect example of what I and other editors over at the Weston Price article have been deal with--a bunch of text that avoids the actual issues raised. Note that no attempt to even address the issue of what is being said by focal infection theory either in the article and by the source itself being demonstratively wrong is made.

I must again ask how can the statements of "focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine" in 1947 and "There is little doubt that under certain circumstances microorganisms can move from one area of the body to another to establish their customary pathology in another locale." in 2000 be reconciled with Ingels 2002 statement "In the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection"? Answer is it can't.

Given that I have provided Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS; MS, and Michael J. Wahl, (2003) "Focal infection: new age or ancient history?"Endodontic Topics, 4, 32–45 Blackwell Munksgaard

1) talks about Weston Price

2) goes into the history of focal infection theory,

3) in greater detail goes into the current situation focal infection theory

and we still have Yobol harping on Ingel it is he not me that needs a RFC/U or mentorship.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving along, can you explain to me precisely what administrative action or intervention is needed in 80 words or less and without resorting to bold text? If not I suggest you accept what plenty of people have told you above and move this discussion to a more appropriate place Nil Einne (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

1) address misleading (or inaccurate) WP:MEDRS being put in under guise of "doesn't talk about Weston Price" (per concern of administrator Will Bebac) even though one source does talk about Weston Price.

2) address removal of WP:MEDRS material and pushing of one source over several others in apparent violation of WP:NPOV without any real discussion.

3) address insults of other editors with /groans, /rolls eyes, and avoidance of actual issues (per Yobol's comments to me and The Founders Intent as seen in Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_2#arb_break_1--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is administrative action/intervention needed to address anything? As has been explained to you many times and the headers itself explains, administrators don't rule on content disputes. Nor does the behaviour you've claimed here of other editors require any. As explained in the header, there are plenty of ways to get help if you have problems with a user behaviour not amounting to that requiring a block, including Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but ANI isn't one of them. (From what I've read you've started so many discussions in other places I'm sure one of them would be an appropriate place so I don't recommend you start further discussions.) In other words none of your allegations even if true, warrant adminstrative action/intervention therefore you still haven't answered my question. So again can you explain to me in 80 words of less what adminstrative action/intervention is required here, this time I'll include the caveat please do not include anything which people or the header already explained does not require administrative action/intervention. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio-pictures in Ol' Dirty Bastard

Hello,

User:Vdn12 constantly uploads copyvio-pictures (en, commons) and puts them in mentioned article. No response to talk page messages. He also uses IPs to vandalize his copyvio pictures in to the article [79]. This has an international dimension, because after uploading he replaces existing pictures in nearly all language versions with his copyvio-ones. When his copyvios get deleted, CommonsDelinker deletes all the references to the pictures, so the article becomes pictureless. Please block the user and semi-protect the article. --bluNt. 12:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked both the account, and the IP, for one week, to see if they will just get the hint and go away. However, this only applies to the en: Wikipedia. If this user is causing trouble across multiple wikis, you may want to ask for wider enforcement than a single admin can deliver -- I can't do it, but I'm sure someone here knows someone who can. -- The Anome (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the big problem in the scenario you describe would be his ability to upload to Commons. We can't do anything about that here; accordingly, I've courtesy-listed this at the administrators' noticeboard on Commons. If you have further input, you may wish to give it there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll like to thank both of you. Even though I'm on ArbCom in the German Wikipedia, it's really hard to find the right page, template etc. here or on commons. You sort of feel like the newest newbie… --bluNt. 13:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Understandable. :) When I run up against OTRS issues that take me to other language wikis, I face the same thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

He appears to have been blocked on commons. Does anyone have an AWB script that can restore the original images on a multi-project level? It sounds like we have a lot of red links in multiple languages thanks to this guy. N419BH 16:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It took care of that, by hand. bluNt. 12:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Vdn12 evades his block as User:Vdn123. bluNt. 07:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks for the notification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Can I get some eyes on Spliced (TV series)? Girloveswaffles (talk · contribs) has started an edit war with me over the inclusion of several one-shot characters and fancruft; see this edit as an example. The user has made no edits whatsoever to any other article, suggesting possible WP:OWN issues. I've left two warnings on the user's talk page and both have gone completely ignored. What should I do now? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Some eyes on Talk:Spliced (TV series) might be useful. I note a distinct lack of discussion by either party. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I placed a comment there, but does it really matter? Girloveswaffles clearly isn't reading anything except the article. I've pointed out twice on their talk page that they're adding indiscriminate info, but they won't listen. Please don't turn a blind eye to this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

So far as I know, failing to let a deletionist win a content dispute is not yet a formal offense against Wikipedia policy. There's nothing in WP:IINFO saying that minor characters can't be mentioned, or defining a minor character for that matter. I see no harm in allowing the article to be more informative rather than less. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The information that Girloveswaffles keeps on adding is lacking in reliable sources - and so TenPoundHammer is well within his right to remove it; for all we know, it could be a load of nonsense. GiantSnowman 23:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of it does seem valid. I've watched some of the show, and a couple of the one shot characters do match up to the episodes (for instance, Entrée does get a twin in one episode). Unsourced and indiscriminate are my two main concerns — Wikipedia is not a fansite, nor a collection of indiscriminate info. I would appreciate at least one other set of eyes on the article, because this editor strikes only in spurts. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

72.87.217.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be the same editor logged out. Also, Girloveswaffles finally responded on the talk page with the following:

There is no reason to remove an entire section because some of listed characters are only one shots. Many of the minor characters are reoccurring (i.e the Wunny Sharbit, Sid) there is also information about people who have done guest apperinces doing voice work of these characters. If you feel that some of the information is wrong, correct it, but don't remove the work of others because you personal don' like the minor characters.

I think the user needs more cluebat. Mine's tired right now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I know TPH has been here a lot so I guess he/she knows the purpose of ANI. What particular administrative action/intervention is required here? Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I need some sort of intervention here so that Girloveswaffles will stop edit warring. They're showing a complete lack of clue here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Er I don't care whether 'they're showing a complete lack of clue', it's not something that requires administrative intervention. They seemed to have initated discussion with you, so I would suggest you take part in this discussion. It seems clear their behaviour doesn't require a block, so it seems clear no administrative intervention is needed since there's nothing special about an administrator asking someone to take part in discussion and/or warning about the possibility of a block and/or explaining to someone why the material they're adding is inappropriate and should be removed which is all the intervention that may be needed at the current time. I suggest the plenty of other avenues for dispute resolution which I presume you're already aware of like Wikipedia:Third opinion. If GLW continues to ignore any attempts at discussion then perhaps they'll need to be blocked in the future which is unfortunate but that's life and in any case given that they did actually initate discussion it wouldn't surprise me if they'll accept any consensus that is achieved all without requiring any administrative intervention but simply the normal involvement of other editors in a dispute. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

BLP violations on Rick Scott

Resolved

 – put Pending Changes on the BLP. Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please look into Rick Scott? This article has been hit by IPs inserting negative material for several days now. Most recently they've been inserting this material, using a source that doesn't mention Scott, to cast a negative light over one of his decisions. The IPs look related so a block may suffice over protection, but at any rate admin attention is needed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've glanced over the page histories and concur with Cuchullain; the IP editor is inserting WP:SYNTH material. I've also warned the IP editor for edit warring. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Howabout1/Welcome

• At 23:24, 29 August 2005 someone moved Template:WelcomeH1 to User:Howabout1/Welcome, and at 17:36, 6 October 2009 someone blanked it. But over 500 user talk pages still transcribe it: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Howabout1/Welcome&limit=500 . Should this have been done? Should User:Howabout1/Welcome be reverted to text and moved back to Template:WelcomeH1? (There are deleted edits in User:Howabout1, and long deleted and non-deleted histories in User talk:Howabout1.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've restored it for now. The contributor who blanked it offered no explanation. I don't know if it needs to be moved back; because of the redirect, it still works from User space. But at least it's functional again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Gagoy

Gagoy (talk · contribs) just moved Spy Hunter to Ephesians Road Chase, with no explanation, I asked why on the user's Talk page, and he responded by blanking the page (on which he was building up a number of warnings for other things too). I think it needs to be moved back over the redirect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it's already done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko and AWB access

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

---

Resolved

 – User retired: at present no need for administrative action. --Kumioko (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed AWB access from Kumioko (talk · contribs) for persistent violations of the AWB rules of use, specifically rules 3 and 4. Kumioko has been on a campaign of making trivial edits to article talk pages, under the guise of "cleaning" them. I am involved in this in an administrative capacity.

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#WikiProject_banner_tagging about whether there is a requirement to avoid redirects for talk page banners. The first few comments in the thread show several responses that there is no such requirement. Someone even pointed out that when this was proposed as a requriement, it failed to reach consensus (Wikipedia:Banner standardisation). Kumioko recently posted a note in the discussion there that effectively says, "sod off, I'm gonna do it anyway".[80]

Because that completely ignores the actual discussion in the thread, I intervened in an administrative capacity, pointing out on that page that there is no consensus for a bot to do that, and reminding Kumioko on his/her talk page to follow the AWB rules. Since then, Kumioko has continued to make the same sorts of edits wile giving various "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" explanation. For example, [81]. I specifically warned Kumioko today that I would disable his/her AWB access if the same edits continued. Unfortunately, Kumioko has refused to stop and find consensus, which is an abuse of AWB.

This sort of editing has previously gone before ArbCom in the Date Delinking RFARB. ArbCom made this finding [82]:

"Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change."

Note that this is not about AWB in general. The problem is only Kumioko using AWB to make large-scale sequences of edits to enforce his/her personal opinion as a fait accompli while knowing there is not a general consensus behind it. Removing AWB access is a very mild, targeted remedy to pause the edits to allow discussion to take place. The best resolution here would be for Kumioko to agree to follow the AWB rules, at which point his/her AWB access should be restored promptly. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There are several items identified above so I will attempt to answer each in turn.

• I want to state that I do not believe what I was doing was in violation of 3 or 4 and I believe CBM's actions of removing my AWB access is an abuse of his admin powers. Additionally his writeup above is totally POV and comepletely misrepresents what was actually said.
  • Rule 3 states "Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding". There is noting controversial about removing deprecated or unused parameters. The projects themselves say they shouldnt be there if not being used. They are only there because some editor added them needlessly.
  • Rule 4 states "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." Nothing in this covers the edits I was doing. Therefore no violation.
• I asked CBM repeatedly to tell me where I cannot use AWB to delete deprecated parameters and unneeded, unused and unwanted parameters from banners when the templates and the projects both state that if they are not used they should not be there. Removing these makes the banner parameters that are being used easier to read and identify, it reduces the page size (frequently more than 1000 bytes), it speeds rendering times, etc.
• I didn't tell CBM to "Sod off". After leaving threats on my talk page I said was 1 editor did not warrant a lack of consensus and if he had a problem with my edits he should open up a discussion at the village pump. I even told him that if the consensus was that removing these parameters was a minor edit that I would stop and we could update the AWB rules accordingly. I did tell him that I wasn't going to stop because one editor told me too.
• The ongoing discussions related to the standardization of Wikiproject banners and only loosely relates here. I only "standardize" the talk page banners when doing other things of more significance.
• CBM did not intervene in a an admin capacity in fact his comments were very POV relating to his personal feelings that these were minor edits.
• This action and the Date delinking action are completely unrelated and there is zero correlation to them.
• Large scale is defined as about ten today, only a few over the past week and in fact it has taken me more than a month to clean up about 1800 a few at a time. I am now down to 347.

I recommend restoring my AWB rights immediately and instructing CBM to next time open up a discussion if he disagrees with an editor over a personal feeling of what constitutes a minor edit. --Kumioko (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an open discussion at the WikiProject Council, which you have decided to ignore by continuing to do the edits. The comment that can be summarized as "sod off, I'm gonna do it anyway"[83]was in that thread, not to me. 1800 edits certainly seems like a large number to me; in this edit [84] you said is was 2200 edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No the discussion is completely unrelated and as a seasoned editor you should be able to see that. Just because I did 4500 edits this month doesn't mean I have done anything wrong. In fact it means I have been doing something right. Contributing to WP. Honestly though I think you acted completely out of line but well see what everyone else thinks. --Kumioko (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what the downside to bypassing the redirects is. I could understand there being no requirement that we bypass redirects in talk page headers, but what's the downside if someone wants to spend their time/energy doing it? "We are not required to do X" is not the same as "doing X is not permitted". --B (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What's the practical value of this work, for the reader? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea of making these edits was proposed at Wikipedia:Banner standardisation and failed to become a guideline. Several people in the thread at the WikiProject Council again objected to the idea, but Kumioko seems to have decided to just ignore them and do it anyway. Using AWB to force your opinion onto articles is a violation of the AWB rules; it bypasses the consensus-building process. Also, the AWB rules generally prohibit making trivial edits, such as edits that have no effect on the rendered page. These edits are perceived as clogging watchlists with edits that don't actually change the pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please let me understand. Kumioko's current work consists of 3 parts:

• Assessing in WPUS
• Bypassing redirects
• Cleaning parameters

First part is uncontroversial. The third seems to have some benefits as noted above. The discussion on Wikipedia Council is about the second part and not the third. Many bots do the second and third part while doing tasks similar to the first one. What is exactly the problem?

• The second part in general?
• That the second part is done without the first part? (This is my concern)

And a small comment: If we do more than 300 posts on this one then it's not worth. Kumioko was about to finish. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, the second. It is a controversial change, evidenced by the opposition to Banner standardization from becoming a guideline. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we OK, if he keeps doing 1 and 3 till we end to some consensus with 2? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If "cleaning parameters" means removing unused parameters that have no effect on the rendered output, that's not permitted by AWB rule #4, since it's a trivial edit. In particular, there's no need to clean out "nested=yes" with AWB. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Human editors using AWB are expected to manually review every edit and avoid saving the ones that only do (2). I reminded Kumioko about that yesterday, and he/she claimed at first that they were errors. But today it's the same pattern of trivial edits, which makes it clear that they are being intentionally saved. AWB is not a tool for imposing decisions on the community; it's useful for implementing things that do have consensus. The thing that made me think that some admin action is needed is the combination of the pattern of edits is combined with the posts to the WikiProject council where Kumioko essentially tells everyone he/she will ignore them and just keep making the edits. That sort of bad behavior is what led to the date delinking RFARB; the lesson from that is the people need to stop sooner, rather than later, when others object to large-scale edit patterns. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That's not always correct. In Infobox character we made a tracking category to detect pages with many unused parameters because they slow down page rendering. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit of deja vu. There was some guy some weeks back who was making a bunch of edits that did nothing except take some spaces out of infoboxes. No benefit to anyone. How much would it be slowed down, assuming you're not on 2400 baud dialup or something? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

@M: You should really get a bot approval to do that sort of thing, because they otherwise that sort of trivial edit isn't permitted for AWB. The existence of AWB doesn't eliminate the need for many tasks to go through the bot approvals group, particularly when the tasks are meant to be large-scale and not require actual human discretion.

If there is actually a slow-down with unused parameters, it should be reported as a bug, so it can be fixed in Mediawiki. Many WikiProjects intentionally pre-include blank parameters to fill in later, and AWB users shouldn't go around removing those unless the specific WikiProject asks for it, since they were intentionally included. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We have to ask WikiProject Aviation what exactly they want to be done with the unused parameters. I can only talk about WikiProject Biography on that matter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if they want to get rid of them they they should get a bot or AWB op to do it, nobody can complain too much about that. The other change that Kukiomo seemed to be making was to remove the nested=yes parameter. But if it has no effect any more, there's no need to go through and remove it (since it already has no effect). — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree on the nested too. I wonder how many are left. I can't perform a database scan for talk pages. :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be offline for a little while. Like I indicated originally, I have no objections to Kukiomo's AWB access being restored once the issue at hand is resolved, or even sooner if he/she agrees to stop these "cleanup" edits. I'll check on back this thread here in a few hours. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Reply To B - Most of the opposition stems from 1) they don't think its necessary, 2) they believe it to be a waste of time or 3) they just prefer the other naming convention and dont really care if its harder for non-experienced editors and don't care that from a programming perspective it requires over 1000 lines of code to account for all the variations of wikiprojects (without the WikiProject X convention) rather than just one with all the banners saying WikiProject X.

• Reply To Baseball Bugs - From the readers point of view that question frankly depends on the edit. I have a list of about 2000 edits give or take a few plus whats in the Find and replace fields on my AWB. Basically though it falls into one of the following; It simplifies what the reader sees, it reduces the page size by eliminating uneeded items, I rearrange the order of things according to talk page layout rules, I fix broken parameter values such as - instead of =, clas instead of class, add equals between certain parameters and their value if its missing, etc. In my opinion the problem that CBM has is with standardizing the talk page banners and removing deprecated and uneeded parameters from talk page templates. He does not feel that removing 1000 characters of empty parameters constitutes a significant enough edit to use AWB. I think that is basically it but I don't want to speak for him and he clarified his comments above. Just to clarify another thing. I am not eliminating all empty parameters, just certain ones. [85] is one example of the type of edit he is opposed too and shows what this is all about. Feel free to stroll through my contributions for more though.

• Reply to Magioloditis - I cannot do many of the edits from 1 and 3 because they assume that the naming convention is WikiProject X. Others rely on those so whats left may not work correctly.

• Reply to CBM - Yes you identified a couple of errors and I admitted I was not perfect and that I do occasionally make mistakes. My mistakes equate to trivial edits so no harm no foul. I am not harming the articles if I do 1 or 2 out of 4000 edits that are trivial. And I still maintain that most of the edits you mention are not trivial. Trivial are things like standardizing redirects, not deleting parameters. There was and is no need for admin action. I still maintain that it was inappropriate and you should have opened a discussion to see if there was more than 1 (you) editor who had a problem with it. I also want to clarify you comment about a large scale edit pattern. You make this sound as though I was doing massive numbers of inappropriate edits but you still IMO have not shown that deleting parameters is trivial other than vaguely written rules of AWB use. I DID NOT do anything that was mentioned as a violation of AWB.

• Regarding to the cleaning of parameters - {{MILHIST}} and {{WikiProject Aviation}} both state "To avoid needlessly cluttering up talk pages, it is usually appropriate to remove any unused parameters from the template." on the template documentation so IMO there is no need to "Get consensus" because consensus is implied by the statement from the projects. Additionally there is no need to have unneeded and deprecated parameters on the talk pages for the reasons already discussed above. Aside from claims that these edits are not allowed I disagree that these are minor edits (with the exception of standardizing the talk page banners). There is no need to force me to do these changes manually when I have a tool like AWB available to use. And as for these parameters not changing anything on the rendering of the page. Of course not they are garbage. Just like if I added a parameter to the template for | it would not display.

• regarding the bot comment - I tried that avenue but after about 6 weeks I withdrew it in frustration. In six weeks I was never even asked to run a test.

• AWB access - at this point I am not really concerned with AWB access. I may take a brake from WP for a while or I may continue editing. I haven't really decided. It seems lately that too many editors just want to debate every change rather than accept that people are trying to make WP better. I can't even make an edit without someone complaining about my edit summery, debating on whether its minor, drowning me in disucssions about why I would try and restart WikiProject United States and how dare I. All the drama is burning me out from wanting to contribute at all. --Kumioko (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait, let me get this straight. You were wise enough to know you needed BOT approval, you submitted a request, it was never even approved for testing, so you said "fukkit, I'm doing it anyway?" Can I get a "WTF"?(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So, let's solve first the "remove empty parameters" part where I think Kumioko is right. WPMILHIST, WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Biography state explicitly that the values should be yes or not exist (exception is the |living= in WPBiography). Just in case I left a note in Template_talk:WPMILHIST#Unused.2Fempty_parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the milhist template, removing empty B-Class assessment parameters can be inconvenient for editors that come along later to assess the article. Our project how-to guide on using the template recommends including them as placeholders when articles are tagged for the project, and there are some additional commented instructions on how to assess included in the template that would be unhelpfully removed along with the blank parameters. I see no problem with removing other empty parameters though. EyeSerene^talk 12:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Bwilkins - To clarify your comment I never thought I needed a bot and if you read my comments on the bot approval page you can see that in more detail. I submitted it only as a convenience and as a courtesy so I could use the bot flag due to the large scale of tagging and a passing comment (not really even a complaint) by another editor. That tagging is largely done now though because the bot group never stated I had to stop I kept on rolling and finished the run. The bot as requested was to allow me to do some WikiProject tagging and would have allowed the edits mentioned above to be done at the same time. I would have had to request an additional allowance to do these edits exclusively.

Reply to EyeSerene - The B class parameters are not included in the removal. Only empty or = no taskforce parameters or parameters like Portal, peer review, A class review and the like if = blank or no. Never living, importance, class, bclass checklists or other parameters where having no is meaningful. Every parameter I delete is specifically identified individually. The full list is [User:Kumioko/Talkpage|here] but here is 1 example

ArticleText = Regex.Replace(ArticleText, @"\|[ ]*peer\-review[ ]*=\s*\r*([\|}{<\n])", "$1", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);. This removes the peer review parameter if = blank.

Since the B Class issue was mentioned though I personally feel that the B class checklist should only be on Start and B class articles. If an Articles is a stub then the B-Class checklist info is self explanatory and the article usually contains no's across the board filling up the checklist categories and distracting from the meaningful ones. If the article is GA or above the status itself indicates a B-Class yes so again its implied and IMO unneeded. but that's a different conversation and I wasn't removing any of those with the logic.

The provided list on my subpage also gives an idea of how much coding is involved if you want to account for every project (I am missing a few and add them as they are found) and their redirects rather than being able to program simply WikiProject foo. Adding that much code makes the program bigger, it makes it run slower and process slower because it has a lot more logic to look through and its way harder to program and maintain. --Kumioko (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First result of the discussion as I understand it. Kumioko:

• Assessing in WPUS is a plausible task. While doing this you can:
  • Clean empty parameters as you do
  • Bypass redirects unless the wikiproject disagrees. Bots have been approved to do that as secondary task.
• If you are planning to mass clean empty parameters you better first fill a BRFA. It's very likely you 'll get approval since many projects recommend deletion of empty parameters. (|nested= must have less than 100 transclusions left). I will support it since it's in the manuals.
• Bypassing redirects as a sole task won't have the same fate.

I hope Carl agrees with my conclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks that's pretty much what I have been doing since I usually did not solely fix redirects (I made a couple accidental saves but nothing consistent) but could you clarify what "mass clean" means for the sake of the BRFA? Also in regards to the cleaning of the empty parameters whats the point of getting a bot for less than 1000 entries? If its just so the edits won't appear on watchlists then I already have them set to minor so they won't show up anyway on the few people who are actually watching these talk pages. --Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I just came back to write the same thing. If we are talking about some hundreds and with your edit rate then I would say just go and do them. The task of removing empty parameters from these specific templaates+WPBS is uncontroversial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Which specific templates are we talking about? EyeSerene asked for the parameters in MILHIST to be kept. Edits like [86] [87] look like trivial edits to me - do they change the rendered article in any way? "Cleaning up" is not on its own a justification for a bot job. This is the problem I posted about originally here. It's one thing for a project to tell its own members that they can remove the "n" parameters; it's another thing to do it with a bot, and yet another thing to do it with AWB.

For the WPUS assessments, if the actual assessment is changed, that's should be fine. If not, then that isn't a justification to save the edit. It was actually very difficult for me to tell what the justifications was, with an edit summary like "Cleanup talk page templates, set importance, formatting template/section order &general fixes". — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the comments a little closer CBM. Eye Serene asked for the B class checklist parameters to stay which I have never touched. Lets clarify that just because CBM deems them trivial does not make it so. I personally do not think that removing garbage parameters to be trivial and against the AWB rules simply because it doesn't render any difference on the page. Also CBM that is not what you posted about. You posted about removing my access from AWB after you refused to open a discussion as I requested. As for the assessments I am pretty much done doing the mass assessment for WPUS which others had a problem with. So it seems no matter what I do it upsets someone which is why I told you before that just because 1 editor didn't like it I wasn't going to stop unless they get some kind of agreement from a discussion. This is Wikipedia there are always some editor who takes exception to every change and if we stop editing every time well never be able to accomplish anything. Your whole argument CBM is just smoke and is a complete waste of everyones time. But you did accomplish one thing which was to divert enough of my time into discussions that I can't actually edit any articles and has given me just one more reason why I shouldn't edit. Knowone wants an editor who does thousands of edits a day. They want a quite editor who edits once or twice and day, who doesn't make too many articles appear on watch lists, who doesn't disturb the delicate balance of editors to articles. Its really a shame that the editors who do the most edits are the ones who get spit on the most. --Kumioko (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was already ongoing at the WikiProject Council. Comments such as "I told you before that just because 1 editor didn't like it I wasn't going to stop unless they get some kind of agreement from a discussion." are exactly the problem, and one reason why I thought it was important to discontinue your AWB access temporarily. In this case, more than one editor has objected. I quoted above from an Arbcom resolution that editors who make widespread edits are expected to stop and get consensus when disagreements arise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, as a bot operator, the onus is on you to show that your edits have consensus, or to resolve issues with someone who raises an objection to your edits. So far, you've done neither (and as this discussion indicates, there is no consensus on banner standardization, regardless of your protestations that there should be one), and your attitude that you will continue to ignore complaints because they must be wrong is what gets people under ArbCom restrictions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reply to CBM - Thats only partially true about the discussion CBM. The discussion at the WikiProject Council deals soley with the cleanup of WikiProject banners, specifically when done as a standalone edit which I agree should be avoided. The issue here is whether removing 1000 characters of unneeded garbage is a trivial edit as you suggest and that I told you needed to be discussed for agreement with others because I do not agree with that assessment or if it constitutes a significant enough edit to do as its own edit and at the same time do the WikiProject banner fixes. The 2 discussions are only loosely connected and its really confusing the issue at hand. You removing my AWB access before discussing them was really only a poor way of stopping an editor from doing something that YOU personally did not agree with. It didn't violate a policy and it wasn't part of an ongoing discussion. You just didn't like it and thats why I believe it was an abuse of admin powers.

Reply to Titoxd - Your comments about my attitude are really out of place here tito. First lets clarify that I do not, nor have I ever ran a bot. I use AWB which is an application that can be used by a bot but I do not have the bot flag so its semiautomatic meaning I have to manually hit enter every time I save. I use AWB because it allows me to do a large number of changes to an article at one time rather than having to manually go through the whole thing. I can essentially built the calculation once and AWB will change it as it finds it. If you really intend for all the users of AWB to be required to get a BRFA in order to use the application (which is a really stupid idea I do not advocate) then I suggest you right it up and try and get consensus on that.

The primary issue of consensus is that I have not, nor has anyone proved that I have, violated policy in deleting garbage fields other than to give a vague statement of the AWB rules 3 and 4 that DO NOT state that these edits are not allowed. In regards to the banner standardization there was consensus, all of the projects templates except for t3 or 4 were changed to the standard (with no complaints except for those that are not changed). So the consensus is there. Just because 1 or 2 editors of one project didn't like the change didn't mean that it didn't get consensus from the project. WikiProject United States has about 200 members and if 150 voted for it and 4 voted against it your comment implies there is no consensus when there actually was. As I stated at the WikiCouncil discussion. If an editor does not like the naming convention they should bring it up for discussion on the talk page of the project affected. Also explaining that they would not be supported by logic in certain apps like AWB if they decided to change back. The right is with the project in what they name the banner though and I have always supported that. --Kumioko (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone made a decision on this yet? I would like to know if anyone has decided on whether the decision to remove my access was acceptable or not since I never broke any rules except for the perception presented by CBM. --Kumioko (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

About "unusued" parameters: I think it's important to keep |class= |importance= present even when empty, because it encourages people to fill in the blanks. And I would very much prefer that nobody bypassed the widely used {{WPMED}} in favor of any of the other available options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for my frustation buyt I have already stated this several times. But Again, I did not, nor do I intend to delete class or importance. I did have some of the priorities and work groups from WP Biography if they were Equal to no. I also did not delete living from Biography or any other parameter where no actually means something. Just task forces or fields such as portal links, peer review or A-class Review. --Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why are you still changing the spacing around headers? [88] I thought you were going to stop doing this. –xeno^talk 14:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. Wikipedia serves store any version so it doesn't save disc space. In fact in increases it since the diff is bigger. The same happens to rendering time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to Xeno I thought that only applied to the bot not to my edits in general. In reply to Magioladitis it only increases it for that save. In every subsequent save of the article the size is reduced because those extra spaces aren't there progressively reducing the amount of space needed for the historical copies of the article. In the example given by Xeno thats 58 characters less for each time the talk page is saved. Times that by a modest 5 historical saves and times that by 3, 500, 000 articles. Yes not all talk pages are that long but if you include the main space articles in that then thats a lot of space saved over time. Plus it makes it easier to read without a bunch of extra spaces around everything. Although I admit that last part might be arguable for some. If that little edit is all thats holding this completely frivolous action back then Ill stop doing those.

Honestly I am reconsidering doing many edits anymore so its likely I won't need AWB anymore anyway. All I am trying to do is make things better and easier but all I get is sucked into frivolous discussions like this because one respected editor disagreed with an edit and rather than DO THE RIGHT THING and open a discussion he revokes my AWB rights. Thats is the real issue here. This whole issue should have been dismissed upon suubmission and seen as the sham it is with my AWB access restored but instead its drawing out for days in lengthy discussion and every edit of mine is being scrutinized. Of course if you dig enough your going to find things. Im not perfect and never claimned to be but I dare say that 99% of my 220, 000+ edits have made the pedia better including the removal of garbage charcacters that do abolutely nothing for a banner but take up space on the talk page and make it confusing to see whats actually going on. CBM does a lot of high end things but he does not do very many edits. 10 - 20 a day at most. Whereas I usually do upwards of 1000 varying from talkpages, regular pages, categories, templates, stuff for deletion or promotion, WikiProject US and others, etc. CBM might be an admin and a respected editor but he is not above reproach and I beleive I have earned just as much respect as he has. This whole submission and revokation of my AWB rights has really pissed me off and again is causing me to reconsider whether I wnt to continue to participate in this nonsense.

Ill keep watching the page but I think at this point I have answered all the questions and comments and there is no further need to continue to respond to these allegations that I violated a nonexistent policy. You guys let me know what you decide. --Kumioko (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, editor is forum shopping expressed concerns at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Inappropriate_ANI_against_me,I've suggested the discussion remain here. Gerardw (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Gerardw (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that is just more evidence of Kumioko's unfamiliarity with our usual practices and policies; I don't think it was an attempt to do anything wrong. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I've rephrased my comment.Gerardw (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No actually I understand them perfectly well I just think that mixing in a complaint about your your innapropriate etiquette in dealing with the problem is a different matter from what you submitted me to ANI for and felt that was the better venue for such a complaint. That you beleive that this venue is a better place for complaints about the way you handled the situation is frankly surprising. Especially given the length this thread has become. You could have handled this situation much differently. All you had to do was open a discussion to see if there was agreement that was what the AWB rules of use said since they say absolutely nothing about the rendering of a page. Maybe I am wrong on my interpretation of the rules but if I am its only because the rules are vague and poorly written and left open to interpretation. I also find it rather amusing that you say that I don't understand the rules seeing a how I have 220, 000 edits and have been around for several years I find that a rather poor argument. --Kumioko (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting further comment about what is a minor edit

Although I completely disagree with this ANI against me and in CBM's removal of my AWB rights I want to ask for further comment on the actions I am Accused of. CBM believes that edits like this one where I removed over 1000 characters of garbage is constitutes a minor and trivial edit which I disagree with. From a fundamental standpoint, whether it changes the rendering of the page or not adding or removing this much data cannot constitute a minor edit. I am requesting additional comment from others on whether this constitutes a minor edit or not. Based on the determination I will then suggest to update the AWB rules of use as appropriate so others won't fall into the same gray area trap as I did and have their AWB access revoked when some editor decides on their own volition that an edit was against a policy when it doesn't state so clearly. Especially when other places state that the data should not be there. --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One rule of thumb is that any edit that has no effect at all on the rendered page is a trivial edit. Other edits may or may not be trivial, but this is a "bright-line" rule of thumb. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok my first point to that is: Where is that stated except in your thoughts? Second, A rule of thumb is a guideline not a law from which there is no debate. Normally that statement is perhaps true but in this case it benefits the articles to remove all this garbage. Now I know what your feelings are I would like to hear from others. If the result is that doing this sort of edit is against the rules then we can update the AWB rules of use so that others will not fall into the same gray area trap I did and have some administrator that decides to revoke their access rather than do the right thing and bring it up for discussion first when 2 editors disagree. --Kumioko (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue was not that there was a grey area. Rich Farmbrough received an edit restriction for making such edits; the principle is pretty clear. If you had simply stopped editing to find out, someone else (besides me) could have explained it to you. The fundamental problem with your editing, which you still have not acknowledged, was that you were insisting on doing whatever you wanted regardless whether other people objected, as they did on the WikiProject Council page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It's wrong to call a non-trivial edit trivial. It's not a problem to call a trivial edit non-trivial. So err on the side of calling it non-trivial, and under no circumstances should anyone be dinged for failing to click the "trivial" check box - even it it's habitual. Rklawton (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry you list me on that one. --Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely was not forum shopping. This ANI was started by CBM against me and the comment below here is addressing clarification of how CBM determined it to be a minor edit. The Wikiqutte alert was submitted by me on my perception that CBM acted innappropriately in his actions towards me. Now if knowone cares about how CBM acted then fine close it and I'll just chock ut up as one admin protecting another. But if you want to take a serious matter seriously then look into it and make your own judgements. --Kumioko (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Rklawton: the question is not about "minor" edits as in that checkbox when you edit. In the context of AWB, there is a specific concept of a "trivial edit", which users are not supposed to make with AWB. Edits that don't actually change the rendered page are one type of trivial edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The point that needs to be clarified and that you still fail to produce is where is that stated? Its not, not in the AWB rules of use, not in the MOS, knowhere and thus your removal of my AWB rights was a breach of policy. Other than a gray passage that says minor edits. I still contend that I have done nothing wrong and just the virtue of not rendering a change to the article does not make it a minor edit. Maybe that was agreed to in secret before but now its out in the clear and it needs to be discussed and fixed and we clarify what a minor edit means because regardless of its rendering removing 1000 characters from and article is not minor. 10 maybe but not 1000. Maybe the group determines that it is a minor edit but since the can of worms is opened now we need to spill them all out and get everyone in the clear and when its clear what a minor edit is then we can update AWB so that the thousands of daily edits currently being done to fix all these problems will stop and and we can make everyone do the manually. Because that certainly will be better for WP than using an automated or Semiautomated tool like AWB to fix these problems. --Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If you felt that the AWB rules weren't clear, the right thing would have been to stop to ask about it (e.g you could have asked Magioladis). The right thing was not to continue doing the same thing after being reminded about the rules. The reason I removed your AWB access was a combination of several factors. You were not only making trivial edits, you were simultaneously changing WikiProject banner redirects, and at the very same time you were engaged in a discussion at the WikiProject Council in which there was clearly not a consensus that what you were doing was appropriate. AWB access is restricted for a reason: editors using AWB are expected to adhere to higher standards than editors working completely by hand. That includes not fixing "problems" with AWB if you know that there is no consensus that they are actually a problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Your assessment of the situation is completely wrong and misrepresents the issue here. First you revoked my access because I told you that I wan't going to stop editing because 1 editor didn't like it and you didn't want to take the time to start a discussion about it. Instead you used your admin powers to revoke my access and open this here at ANI, which is destroying my reputation in WP with this outragous allegation that I violated an editing policy. I just wish that someone would actually take the time to address that. In contrary to your statement about my understanding of the AWB rules I believe that are perfectly clear. I disagree with your definition of a minor edit and mean to clarify it before you revoke some other editors rights like you did to me. There are lots of editors doing good edits like this and they should be allowed to continue to contribute. I could have done over 1000 edits by now but instead I have to deal with this stupidity. The redirects are minor edits, but I only do them when I do something more significant like removing the garbage. The issue at WPCouncil is regarding the standardizaton of the wikiproject banners that only a couple of editors had a problem with and as I stated there if a project decides they don't like it fine. But 1 editor does not have the right to decide for that project. As I told them they need to take it to the project for discussion because all the projects except for 3 have been ok with this for months. There is a consensus to do these edits even if you don't like it. If you don't understand the AWB rules or do not think there is a consensus for the changes then I say again you need to bring them up for discussion. Not revoke my AWB access because you personally don't understand the AWB rules of use or don't like an edit that I have made. --Kumioko (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an informal principle called WP:BOLD that says if you think some edit is a good idea, then go ahead and make it, since it can easily be undone if it turns out to be a mistake. That's reasonable in the context of normal, manual editing that affects a single page and can be undone with one click. It does NOT apply to bot edits, AWB edits, or large mass-editing campaigns across dozens or 100's of pages (even if done manually). The only thing that can really undo an ill-advised AWB or bot operation is often a custom-written bot, which burns the time and energy of skilled developers, so the "easy to undo" justification is destroyed. Or if the issue is diff noise from trivial edits, it can't be undone at all. So, automated editing operations on any scale should only be done if they solve a problem that has already been recognized by other users. Anyway, I think Kumioko is overreacting a bit in general, regardless of who is "right". 71.141.88.54 (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

AWB rules of use

Users of AWB should be aware of, understand, and respect, AWB rules of use. They are:

1. Check every edit before you save it. Make sure you understand the text and have NOT changed the meaning.
2. Don't edit too quickly; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute.
3. Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate WikiProject before proceeding.
4. Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists.
5. Abide by all Wikipedia guidelines, policies and common practices.

Repeated abuse of these rules could result, without warning, in your software being disabled.

Rule 3 combined with Rule 4 seems to indicate fairly clearly that the onus is on an editor to demonstrate that the edits they wish to make have community support, and are worth doing on a large scale using AWB. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

So removing parameters when the manual says so isn't controversial, has community support and it's a non-trivial task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that it has no effect on the rendered page, just removing empty parameters (or non-empty parameters that have the value "N") is a trivial edit. As a side point, people need to be very hesitant to use template documentation as a justification for doing something; template docs can be very wrong.

However, the issue of removing parameters was just one of several factors that led to me temporarily removing Kumioko's AWB access. Kumioko was using these trivial edits as a justification to make other trivial edits to bypass WikiProject banner redirects. But at the same time Kumioko was engaged in a discussion on the WikiProject Council page where people were complaining about the redirects being bypassed. And, simultaneously, Kumioko was telling these people that he/she would continue doing what he/she wanted, regardless what consensus was. That combination of factors was the issue here, and I was looking at all of them rather than just one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK since the AWB rules of use are right above. Show me where it says anywhere in there the statement "has no effect on the rendered page" or that "non-empty parameters that have the value "N" is a trivial edit". I think I missed them! Oh right, you can't because there not there.

You are right that template documentation can be wrong. Since I have been here for several years with literally hundreds of thousands of edits under my belt I can say without hesitation this is not one of those times and that argument in this case is without merit and I think even you know you are reaching by even bringing it up now to support your bogus allegations.

I did these NON TRIVIAL edits because they needed doing and at the same time yes I did the redirect cleanup because they do have concensus. Do you really expect an editor to stop making an edit because one or 2 editors don't like it. Do you really want us to stop making every edit that has consensus whenever there is a discussion about it. The discussion on the WikiProjec Council page doesn't even begin to ask or address that the WikiProject redirect changes should stop and if it did that page is not the right venue anyway. It should occur on the WikiProject talk page of the project that an editor has a problem with or something like the village pump where its in the open and many editors watch. One editor Does not speak for the entire project. Not the WikiProject Council page that few even know exists. It is a discussion about the merits of doing it because those that have a problem with itCOULD NOT get a consensus or support anywhere else on their views that the change s bad. Its basically forumshopping.

I told you if YOU had a problem with my edits that you should start a discussion about it but no you revoked my access and drowned me in discussions because you didn't agree throwing out there that you were an admin. You sir are out of line.

Now because of you I have this ANI on my record ruining my reputation on WP because you didn't want to do the right thing and follow the rules. But so far knowone cares about that. All they think is that I violated some rule and got this ANI for it when in fact this ANI was opened erroneously by you because you didn't agree with an edit I was doing citing a policy that doesn't even mention the argument that is your reason for the access removal.

It may be a minor edit but at least I am doing edits, a lot of them that even if they turn out to be trivial make the article and its talk page a little better each time. As the old addage says "if you watch the penny's the dollars will mind themselves". The same goes for articles. Even small edits if done progressively over time improves and has a longterm effect on the improvement of the article. After doing a little research I found that I have done as many edits this month alone as you have done Since May 2010 to Current combined. In December alone I did almost as many as you have done since you started in 2006 so maybe you are just upset that I am making you look bad because I have done more edits. I don't know and I really don't care but this needs to stop because the articles are suffering because of this petty baseless action. I freely admit I have made mistakes. I have made edits in the past that were wrong and when I did I fixed them (if someone didn't beat me to it) but this is not one of them. --Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Rule #4 includes edits that have no effect on the rendered page; this led to an editing restriction for Rich Farmbrough, and would lead to one for you if you were to continue that type of edit. If no one editor can speak for a project, that includes you. AWB is only intended for non-controversial tasks; if people disagree with some AWB edits the AWB user needs to stop and resolve the issue with discussion. It's not up to other people to convince the AWB user that they have to stop. See the quote from ArbCom in the orignal post at the top of this thread. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

If that is the intent of rule #4 then it should say that. Which it does not and the reason it does not is because there has never been any open discussion I know of that determined it. It may have been a gentlmens agreement between you and others I don't know but what I do know is that the definition you are touting is not what the rules say.

Also that is NOT why Rich got an editing restriction. That restriction was much more than I have the time to get into and which I believe had some merits but has since turned into one or 2 users Wikistalking him around checking every edit until they find something.

As for the non-controversial edits statement. There is an editor on WP that will debate and disagree with just about anything. Some don't like the typo fixes, some don't like the persondata logic, some just flat out don't like AWB or any bots, etc. Would you really hold the point that know matter what the merits of the disagreement that the AWB operator must instantly stop and dive into a long discussion. I hope not because if that's the case then nothing will ever get done and we may as well turn of the lights, Shut off the servers and call the project a failure. Its not a matter of convincing the AWB user its a matter of what consensus is. I could start a debate about the merits of using server resources for bots like the ones you run that do not render any changes to the articles. Since we are building an encyclopedia it could be argued that such bots really only serve the purpose of satisfying curiousity and don't really contribute anything. I don't agree with that but it could be argued. Wouldn't that put them into the trivial and minor edit category as you have described them? Would that mean that you would then have to immediately stop what you are doing until our debate concluded? No, because there would be no merit to the argument just as there is no merit to your argument that removing garbage from an article is a minor edit regardless of the number bytes simply because it doesn't render anything to the page. How about this. Although I largely agree with rule 4 it clearly needs to be clarified so it doesn't continue to be used as a bludgeon. I agree that individually the minor edits should be avoided but I think our servers are powerful enough at this point that we can relax them slightly were multiple minor edits are being done at one time. How about we change rule 4 slightly to clarify what a minor edit is by adding a sentence of clarification. Here is the wording I propose to add to the end of rule 4. It has been mentioned to me that my grammer is not the best so feel free to reword it if you like. I highlighted the addition in bold:

• Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as individual changes that only add or remove some white space, move a stub tag, convert some HTML to Unicode, remove underscores from links (unless they are bad links), bypassing a redirect, or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists. However, if the edit changes the article size by more than 25 bytes (increase or decrease) or if the change contains more than three edits perceived to be minor at one time (not including removing white space or removing underlines), then it can be considered to be more than a minor edit. (i.e., if the edit moves a stub tag, fixes some HTML coding or removes deprecated, unused or unneeded template fields).'

I admit it makes the rule longer but it retains the same effect while removing much of the gray area and allows for us to fix some of the "minor" problems that have persisted for so long because of the argument that were going to clog a watchlist (the servers are really not an issue. They can handle millions of changes an hour). I agree that individually these changes should not be done but if there are multiple minor things on the article then it could have a substantial impact on how the article is perceived by the reader. For example look at this version and then look at this version. It has a huge section of blank space, underlines, an out of place stub and if you view it you'll see the garbage I added to the template as an example. Individually they don't amount to much but together they significantly change the article and all are minor edits and are currently not allowed by the current rules. --Kumioko (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: it may or may not be helpful to revise policy or AWB rules, but this is not the place to discuss it. The only real issue for ANI seems to be the question of what is required for Kumioko's AWB access to be restored. CBM might be best placed to state clearly (as a proposal for Kumioko and/or the community) what AWB use commitments Kumioko should make. Further discussion can then take place elsewhere about policy/rules and specific content issues in relation to what Kumioko would like to do. Rd232 ^talk 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually what should happen is for my access to be restored because CBM should not have removed it in the first place because the rules he is citing that I violated do not exist!. --Kumioko (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

@Rd232: I think that the main point is that Kumioko needs to stop editing when people disagree with his edits. That goes a long way, because other people can always point out if he is violating the AWB rules. Kumioko also needs to cease from making trivial edits - every non-bot edit made with AWB is already required to be manually inspected, so it's easy to just not save them.

If any other admin is satisfied from Kumioko's statements that he will follow the AWB rules going forward, don't wait for me, you can restore his access right away. I have said from the beginning it was only intended to be a temporary removal. However, at the moment, Kumioko seems to be ignoring the conversation here, and denying that his edits violate the usual standards for AWB. So I am not yet comfortable restoring the access myself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The main point is still and has always been that I Never violated any rules. The rule does not say what you say it does. Anyone can clearly see that. Now drop this stupidity and restore my access. In fact, At this point I really don't care if you restore my AWB rights because this ANI has shown me that my help isn't particularly wanted. If I am the only one that can see that CBM acted improperly then clearly knowone has read the rules and simply views me as any other nuisance editor out running amok. Who really cares about the thousands of edits that I would do to help the encyclopedia so I may as well invest my time elsewhere. Between the nightmare I went through trying to get WPUS started again and now this, Wikipedia just isn't fun anymore. I don't care to participate in discussions and drama unlike some. I want to build an Encyclopedia and make information available to all. Its a lost cause at this point I fear so keep the access and I'll just practice my french and get something useful out of my time. --Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

You know buddy, You might want to take a few days off. A wikibraek so to speak. No reason to get so bent out of shape over what should be a fun hobby. Just a bit of friendly advice.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Your right. In fact I think I am pretty much done for good. Its just not fun anymore so you hit the nail on the head there. I was going to draft a bigger response but it just doesn't matter. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for even long-term contributors to run into problems getting their way, when they think they're obviously right; and they can end up feeling unrespected and unvalued. I've been there myself, and had several very long wikibreaks as a result. If necessary, take a break and get some perspective. I think even if you don't eventually recognise that you were in the wrong here, you will be able to put it down to experience as a disagreement of the sort that happens occasionally on a project like this; you have to take the rough with the smooth, even if sometimes it seems very rough. Anyway, the specific issues here which led to the revocation of your AWB access and a lack of clamour for it to be reinstated (that nobody has yet yelled "admin abuse" in this thread ought to tell you something) absolutely do not mean that your past and hopefully future contributions are not valued and respected. Rd232 ^talk 02:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I took a week off one time as a self imposed block. I didn't even go to wikipedia to look anything up and took the link to wikipedia off my toolbar on my computer to keep me honest. It was refreshing.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@RD232. I don't know why I am even taking the time to reply because its obvious knowone agrees or knowone really cares either way enough is enough. I'm tired of all the drama for just trying to improve articles. The problem with your statement is I don't believe I am in the wrong because I didn't do anything wrong. The edits aren't minor. Period. CBM didn't like the edits I was doing and refused to start a discussion to see if there was consensus for his view. So he revoked my access to AWB and threw a couple of general policy's and left. The policy he said I broke doesn't exist and the violation isn't listed in the policy he stated I violated. To be honest it doesn't surprise me that you support CBM because you have been pretty vocal that you don't care much for AWB but it surprises me that few others have said anything. Honestly that tells me that most probably think this is stupid as well and it isn't worth their time to respond. This ANI certainly isn't worth the length it has become.

@Jojhutton. I'm sorry to hear that but its pretty typical for this place to run people off. That's why I am considering scrambling my password so even if I wanted to come back I couldn't. I almost left last month and it was only because several editors talked me out of it but editing just isn't fun anymore. Too many editors spending too much time nitpicking edits and wanting to debate and argue every edit. There has been a dramatic decrease in editors in WP and I believe its largely because of these types of reasons. Too busy worrying about the policies instead of the content. --Kumioko (talk) 03:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that is a disappointing response. I'd suggested to you that in the long term you might be able to see this situation differently, or at least put it behind you in a "shit happens" sort of way, and your response is to reiterate your current view and to attack me. (For the record, I have used AWB quite a bit at times; my view is simply that it is a powerful tool and its power has to be used cautiously.) It looks more and more like you really could use a break, for the idea that people aren't chipping in at an ANI thread because they think the issue is stupid is well, novel. Rd232 ^talk 08:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It should be disappointing. We should be encouraging editors to participate in building an encyclopedia not beat them down with vague policies that a re poorly written and left so open to interpretation that any editor can challenge any edit made by implying that a rule means something it clearly does not state. Maybe I am wrong in my interpretation of the AWB policy but since I just looked through the edits of over 100 of the AWB users and they are all performing and least some of the edits that my rights were revoked for I doubt it. Knowhere in any of the AWB rules state anything about the rendering of the page which is why he wanted me to stop. This ANI isn't about my ability or lack of it in policies its in CBM flexing his muscle as an admin to set an example to others. That's it and one of the reasons I lost the desire long ago to be an admin. Too many of them don't actually care about doing what they have the power to do. They just hang out in the discussion boards and debate. Personally I think this ANI is just retaliation from CBM because I hurt his feelings when I told him I didn't agree with his interpretation of the policy and wasn't going to drop everything just because 1 editor had a problem. Your right though that AWB is a powerful tool. That's why I use it so much and a small part of the reason why there is little point editing without it. I also am very surprised that everyone has been so supportive of CBM in this. I haven't seen one person say you know what maybe he acted rashly. Maybe he should have opened up a discussion first before he blocked this contributors rights. After all he is a senior editor who has been around for a while with a very high edit count, not some new novice editor. Nothing. No assumptions of good faith on my part. Just assumptions of well he's here so there must be a good reason. I shouldn't half to take a shit happens sort of attitude because another editor acted rashly. Of course I'm pissed off and want to go down fighting that CBM is destroying my credibility with the baseless accusation that I don't know what I am doing. The AWB rules are even posted in this thread and'clearly anyone can see they don't say what he says they do. But no because hes a bot operator and an admin he is above reproach and therefore I must be in the wrong. The sad thing is that although this has chipped awy at my desire to participate the thing being hurt the worst by my absence is the articles. CBM and his max 20 edits a day aren't going to replace the hundreds of edits I do a day fixing problems, doing reviews, discussion policy changes, helping other users, etc. At a modest 5000 edits a month (I have done over 10000 a month for the last 6 months or so) that's about 60, 000 edits that won't get done. But the minor edit policy is all anyone wants to talk about. We should be concentrating our efforts on the articles not this. --Kumioko (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

A way out of this

Kumioko, I 'll give you back your AWB right if you agree to do the following:

• Assess pages for WikiProject USA as your primary task
  • Remove the parameters you were removing (nested, etc.) as secondary task
  • Bypass redirects only if something else is happening and not do it for the cases the WikiProject disagrees
• Stop fixing whitespace until you convince the community this is a useful thing to do.

I am OK if a small proportion of your edits is the removal of the parameters, but this shouldn't not become a main task. You are dedicated editor but you have to realise that some tasks can be done in combination with other to save edits and some other stuff can't be done when the community disagrees. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Im fine with the last bullet and I appreciate that but the problem with that proposition is that I submitted and stopped doing the assessments because some other editors opposed them. I had to stop tagging articles with the Wikiproject US banner because some editors disapproved and I submitted and stopped doing that as well. This time an editor (CBM) complained about deleting the parameters quoting a BS complaint about fields not rendering the page was in a rule (which it clearly isn't) and I got fed up and told him that I wasn't going to stop for 1 editor this time and my AWB access was removed. So you see my quandry. It doesn't really matter much if you restore it at this point because there is no edit that can be made on WP that isn't or can't be contested so as long as the AWB rules are open ended and forcing any AWB user to immediately stop or face the consequences I'm just wasting my time. Wikipedia is clearly more of a social network now more interested in enforcing policies and participating in discussion over the symantics of what constitutes a minor edit than writing an online Encyclopedia and that's not what I'm interested in participating in. Its also obvious that having a 1000 characters of garbage on the banners is preferred so here is no need in removing them which also pretty much wipes out the list of suggestions you presented and why I deleted all the coding I wrote to fix it. Of course in that was a lot of code to fix other problems like broken parameters, template order, missing fields for banners and the like but those really aren't important either I guess. --Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I also want to add that since multiple editors have commented that I did something wrong. Whether I agree or not is an indication what needs to be done. With that I am going to go back and start reverting my recent changes as being without consensus. --Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing unused parameters in the cases you did it, has consensus (not cleaning all empty parameters) but if you are seeking to do this massively you have to get approval. The reason is that this will upset a lot of watchlists and it is better if this is done in additional to something better and more valuable.

Removing spaces in headers has no consensus and causes bigger diffs which make control of your edits more difficult. This is the controversial part of your edits by the rules of use of awb.

Bypassing redirects has consensus in many cases but not in all. Moreover, it should not be the sole reason to edit a page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Although there is logic to what you say I must admit that really don't think we should worry if watchlists are filling up. The parameter cleanup obviously doesn't have consensus because Carl has been touting all along that because it does not render the page it is a minor edit and against the rules of use for AWB. Same with bypassing redirects. Another part of Carl's argument for this ANI is that those are not allowed because of the ongoing discussion at the WikiProject Council. The third is partially true but only in the sense that it was one of the changes I was doing. Your statement that the first 2 are not against consensus is in contrast to what Carl has been saying all along with my edits and what I have been screaming about all along. I said long ago I would stop removing the useless and unneeded spaces but Carl doesn't want me to do the others either stating these are against the AWB rules. Now I am not trying to put you on the spot here but which is it are they allowed or aren't they? --Kumioko (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So, why you don't assess page doing your cleanup as I described it at the same time? If you want to do mass cleanup address too BRFA. I don't understand where is the drama. You gave the impression that you want to skip the discussion in the WikiProject Council. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I contrary to Carl I believe that a BRFA for cleaning parameters would be successful. I support you on this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Its alright regardless of the outcome once this ANI is over im out. It been fun and I learned a lot but Im not interested in the drama and games anymore. --Kumioko (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that you have not realized that 'not breaking rules' is not the same as having 'consensus'. jmcw (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

i understand the difference very well what you are not understanding is that there is consensus for the changes I was making, the rules do not state what CBM is saying they do, and the act of revoking my access was nothing short of absurd. If I am missing your point please feel free to clarify. --Kumioko (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that because you thought that you were not breaking any rules, you could make the changes that you wanted: you had assumed consensus. If you had exchanged a dozen sentences stating your intentions, you would have save these thousand sentences here at ANI. You are not wrong - but you still have not formed consensus - anything that affects thousands of articles needs a bit of explicit consensus forming. A single edit may be based on your own assumptions (Be Bold) but a bot needs explicit permission. Fast AWB lies somewhere in the middle. I hope you continue your good work at Wikipedia (with a bit of pleasant interaction with the other people). jmcw (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Once again those who value process over people triumph. Let us hope that triumph is short lived. Rich Farmbrough, 00:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

A completely useless, antagonising statement. Process is not intrinsically useless. Process includes things like issuing driving licences and ensuring that complex surgical operations follow best practice procedures. And there is no particular process at issue here, merely the prior demonstration of consensus for actions which are hard or impossible [you can't unbump 1000s of watchlists] to undo. Rd232 ^talk 13:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This is absolutely appalling, this narrow-minded harassment of a productive editor over what is essentially nonsense. The removal of rights without adequete discussion was flat-out wrong, and the constant criticism and CBM's outright misleading statements have done the entire project net harm. You've driven away a good editor simply because you disagreed with how he cleaned up the obscure inner workings of the encyclopedia... It's like manipulating the janitor's union to fire a man because he mopped a different way than you did. If you thought he was wasting his time, then you should have let him. Process, however much you value it, should never be valued over a dedicated contributor. For shame! bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for listening, and for a most helpful contribution. You've won me over: I'm now an anarchist! Oh, wait. Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the snarky flame-bait-trolling response. I was totally advocating anarchy. Oh, wait. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Just fighting fire with fire. You threw out unsupported accusations, strange metaphors, and a general cloud of WP:ABF. Rd232 ^talk 14:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think its an assumption of bad faith when bad faith is being presented all over the circumstances of this ANI. But of course I am a bit biased in that statement. --Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How is it bad faith to criticize what is in front of me, plain as day? Where does faith, good or bad, come into this at all? What strange metaphors? And what is unsupported or accusatory about my criticisms? Bah, this drama is useless. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course process is not inherently useless, but in the end process is to serve us and not the other way around, even with medical procedures. The consultant who informed me that the the treatment of cancer involved 400 separate steps expected me to be impressed. Quite the opposite, it seemed a recipe for disaster, and so it proved. And in the Wikipedia context, we are a partnership between interested parties working positively for a common goal. Allowing (or worse using) process to drag good faith editors through the mud does not sit well with that partnership. Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC).

I don't check ANI regularly but saw this thread today. I'm hugely disappointed! The AWB edits appearing on watchlists isn't a huge deal. In edits like this, he is uncollapsing the WikiProject banners and I think that can be regarded as more than a minor edit to the talk page. Kumioko's work on organising the WikiProject United States and other wikiproject banners had been enormously helpful. Kumioko was also helping with Smithsonian wikiproject, tagging articles and helping us assess them, so we can determine priority articles to work on. (with help from Smithsonian curators/staff) If Kumioko doesn't help with it, someone else will need to do it. If I did it, sure I would make more mistakes and missteps on policies, due to less experience with these sorts of edits. Yet, the talk page edits to do assessments, priorities, and cleanup banners, are part of the greater good of organizing work on improving content. (why are we all here anyway? to write an encyclopedia!) Thanks Kumioko so much for your help, it is very much appreciated. I'm sorry to see this dispute here on ANI and encourage everyone to not dwell so much on trivial matters and let's be focused on the greater good, why we are here. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit you linked is exactly the sort of edit that was the problem. It has no effect whatsoever on the appearance or function of the article; the banners were not collapsed before. Moreover, there is an ongoing discussion in which it looks like there is not consensus to bypass the redirects like he did. So there are several reasons not to make that sort of edit. But Kumioko refused to stop, which led us here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

CBM you didn't look closely enough. I think this discussion and the whole situation is upsetting you because you didn't notice it does change the page because it was collapsed. Therefore it changed the rendering of the page by removing the collapsed state thereby in your own definition it is not a minor edit. Lets also be clear that there was consensus prior to that conversation at the WikiProject Council talk page, multiple editors and a couple bots are also changing those redirects and continue to do so since. That conversation does not constitute a lack of consensus. In fact if anything it shows a lack of consensus for not doing the standardization changes. It shows that some projects might not desire the change. However that debate started because the submitter failed to get any support in the other venues he attempted the discussion at. Most of the WikiProjects are fine with it and those that didn't support it are being left alone but in most cases the logic that fixes various problems doesn't work on them. Which is fine. If you want to find the consensus then submit it to the Village pump or the individual project but as I stated at the Council page 1 or 2 editors cannot determine the consensus of the entire community and not for a project they are members of. Especially after multiple failed attempts to do so. --Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, your argument is that one or two editors cannot determine the consensus of the whole community, unless they are you, in which case you can edit as many articles as you like to implement your taste regardless of other editors' objections. That's not very compelling.

You're right about the collapsed thing; I somehow thought it was uncollapsed. But if there was consensus to get rid of the "collapsed" parameter we would just turn it off in WPBS; there's no reason for AWB users to go around removing it randomly. Again, you seem to be arguing that your taste is more important than the taste of whoever else edited the article before. Similarly with the empty parameters, which a real bot would remove if there was consensus to do so. Someone else thought they were helpful when they were added. There were plenty of other trivial edits beyond the collapsed one, for example [89].

As far as I can tell that entire AWB run was intended to simply press your personal ideas of how you preferred for the template invocations to appear, regardless whether there was consensus to do them. Since then, you've continued to ignore a lack of consensus for your edits, which I view as confirmation of the original problem. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That's quite nitpicky to argue about collapsed vs. uncollapsed banners. I don't see consensus to not do the edits to uncollapse and cleanup the project banners. Out of curiosity, I checked Special:Random/talk and found 75% of talk pages (of sample of 20) with multiple banners had them uncollapsed. I also found, perhaps equal number, of pages that were unassessed for quality or importance. Yet, as we've found with the Smithsonian project or doing "Wikis Love Monuments" and such projects, these assessments and banners are so very helpful. From what I see, Kumioko has been helping facilitate assessments for Wikipedia:WikiProject United States (thank you!), and in the process making Wikipedia:WikiProject United States talk pages banners more consistent. No big deal, really. Let's get out of the weeds and look at the bigger picture.

Equally, CBM, your work on mathematics articles is awesome and hope you don't get too sidetracked on ANI. I think that's not good for anyone's wiki-health and stress. I wish both you and Kumioko well. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

How about taking discussion back to Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser? I see some discussion about AWB rules there that could be useful, but not sure how useful the ANI discussion is at this point. --Aude (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• It seems that there may be a mix of consequential and inconsequential edits being discussed, and there is some conflation of the two. It also seems to me that the breaches Kumioko is being accused of are largely 'technical' in that some artificial line has been crossed. Many of the edits have consensus and are non-trivial, as demonstrated by Aude's comments above. Kumioko has combined several marginally trivial tasks into one AWB run that will most likely result in a series of marginally non-trivial edit, at worst. CBM has been unable to demonstrate that there are no benefits or that harm has been done. In view of the existence of consensus on, for example, the removal of white spaces, or removal of deprecated or empty parameters within templates, perhaps this task can be incorporated as a feature (MOS style fix?), so that it can be triggered when one of the thousand AWB users uses AWB for their gnoming?

  I would concur that this discussion would be more fruitful if adjourned to WT:AWB. It is also my opinion that K's AWB access be restored. I would also add that I appreciate what Kumioko is trying to achieve, but feel that xhe is showing signs of stress/distress. But it's nothing that cannot be cured by taking a few days off, IMHO. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ohconfucious, and especially on the restoration of Kumioko's AWB rights, even if Kumioko does leave the project - this is simply polite after it was removed by an admin who firstly in in dispute over this particular matter, and secondly maintains the only WikiProject banner that doesn't have at least a redirect from the project name - effectively the last completely non-standard compliant naming. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

(edit conflict)"In view of the existence of consensus on, for example, the removal of white spaces"...Umm, what consensus? Where was this consensus established. As far as I know, there is stil zero consensus for the removal of e.g. single white spaces from section headers, and this certainly shouldn't be done by AWB or bots. To take an examle given earlier in this thread; [90] would be a much shorter and clearer diff if only the Wproject renames were done (assuming those have consensus), and the unneeded and unwanted header changes weren't done. With AWB and bots, stick to things that are generally wanted and needed, and avoid the unnecessary, trivial, or controversial stuff. Fram (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate it but at this point theres no need to restore my access or to worry about wether I can be trusted to not do trivial edits or changes that some deem to be unwanted or unneeded especially since both those terms are subjective to the editors personal preference. Fram I don't think that was a very good example because I would suggest that diff was pretty darn clear even with the header space removal and if an editor can't read the changes (and no offense intended here) they probably shouldn't be editing. I have done some in the past though that were very difficult to read the diffs on though. Those are fairly rare though and I just went ahead with them rather than split the change into multiple edits. Anyway I have already stopped editing articles and am only dealing in discussion pertaining directly to this ANI or the associated problems so once these are done Im out and both sides will be free to do as much or as little as you feel appropriate. If the project gets more serious about content than whether an edit is or is not a minor edit and other such uselessness I may come back but in the meantime peoples priorities just aren't in the right place so I think I will start editing Knol or something else. I will still contribute to something. Jut not here. Theres too much drama. --Kumioko (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Kumioko, your insinuation that those who are asking you to stop making trivial and unnecessary changes are not "serious about content" or improving Wikipedia is ringing rather hollow. Deprecated parameters in talk pages are not serious content matters, they're harmless bits of vestigial wikicode - their presence or removal make no substantive difference in the quality of the project. Your failure to accept this fact is what is causing continued friction here. –xeno^talk 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That example is just one of the literally thousands of changes I was making. Whether deprecated parameters matter or not is a matter of debate. Unfortunately so is everything else. If I started adding Inofboxes to the people without them someone would complain, if I started to fix problems with citations as Rj and Citationbot does, someone would complain. If I create an article on a Medal of Honor recipient someone would likely argue it was non notable (it happened frequently). My point is that everythign is contestable as long as you are working with content. Ironically the things that don't change content like creating newsletters, updating portals, working with many of the bots that don't do anything with content, etc. All important tasks mind you but all have minimal contestability because they don't actually "render" any changes to the content. They don't change anything in the content at all thereby keeping the individuals for the most part out of the line of fire. --Kumioko (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - OMG, are we still on this? Kumioko, you were given a chance to get the tool back a few days ago and you continue arguing. I am so at a loss for words.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can continue to act as if you are being persecuted, but the fact remains that many editors use AWB day-in, day-out, without issue. Many editors run bots using the AWB framework without issue.

Stop making the trivial changes (on their own, or at all) that people are complaining about, and be on your way. If they are desirable changes (removing nested=yes), they can be done in conjunction with substantive edits (tagging/assessing). If they are undesirable changes without consensus (changing spacing around headers), just don't do them at all.

Or, just keep arguing about it and building straw men until no one wants to argue with you anymore. The choice is yours. –xeno^talk 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that I do not agree that changes like this where I removed 1000 characters are minor because it didn't render any changes to the page whereas changes like this one where 1 character is changed and isn't considered minor by the definitions because it does render a change. That logic is flawed. I am also sorry that because I do a lot of edits I pop on peoples radar a lot more than say someone who only does a few chanegs a day. And jsut because a bot uses AWB to deliver newsletters or the myriads of other things that its used for that it doesn't get this much attention. My problem is less about that I was blocked but why and how. You are right about one thing though and that is that in the end this really doesn't matter. The rules for AWB use are now even more restrictive than before, the editors who are the champions for allowing garbage and deprecated parameters to stay because garbage "doesn't hurt anything" have won and I have opted to retire rather than to edit articles in light of the requirement that I must submit to questioning every time someone complains for any reason about any edit regardless of the merits of the complaint. --Kumioko (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The change to the article you have linked is minor but nontrivial. –xeno^talk 17:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

A slippery slope though when determining what is allowed and what is not and I would say these types of edits are of no consequence and changing or not changing them does nothing meaningful to the reader. Normally wouldn't bother the user or anyone else to complain about such things because I personally believe that even relatively minor changes like this can and do incrementally improve the article of time. But the ongoing discussions and strong opinions to the contrary seem to indicate that a minor edit, regardless of the utility over time, should NEVER be done with AWB and this type of edit, trivial or not, is a minor one and according the rules of use for AWB should not be done. If the rules are so stringent as they are made out to be here and on the AWB talk page discussion then we should strongly encourage our users not to do such edits because they " waste system resources and fill watchlists". --Kumioko (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits are not prohibited. Trivial edits are. Making an edit to correct a typo (adding an accent) is minor and nontrivial. If you continue to advanced straw man arguments, I am going to withdraw from this conversation. –xeno^talk 18:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If you choose to withdraw from the conversation that is your right but your statement is not inline with what the rules currently state nor with the general consensus of the conversation that has trasnpired above. --Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating "minor" with "trivial". They are distinct. –xeno^talk 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Xeno knows what he's talking about, here. Kumioko, you can continue to argue the wording of the rules, or you can accept that your edits were not within consensus and move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that Xeno knows what hes talking about but your comment sounds as though you think I do not. This is not Wikilawyering but a difference of opinion. So based on your comments then The Hand That Feeds You I presume that you agree that edits like this where I removed 1000 characters are minor because it didn't render any changes to the page whereas changes like this one where 1 diacratic character was changed are not? --Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, please stop saying "minor" when you (presumably) mean "trivial" or "insignificant". A minor edit can be either trivial or nontrivial. –xeno^talk 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm You're obviously not getting it. Xeno is right. Your 1000+ edits were trivial, while the single diacritic one was not. More to the point, the main problem was the mass of 1000+ trivial edits together with no overall consensus nor bot approval. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You apparently don't realize that the 1000+ characters I mentioned was to one article. One article with 1000 bytes of garbage. There is no need for bot approval for that trivial edit or not and the cinsensus for removing these is the same consensus that drafted the template documentation stating the information should not be there in the first place. If the consensus didn't agree with that they would have said in the documentation that garbage left behind that doesn't do anything to the article either way may be left behind. It does not say that however and states that it should not be there. If you don't agree and think that adding every field for every template is the appropriate thing to do then I suggest you try and get consensus for that. Otherwise consensus does exist wether 1 or 2 editors disagree or not. I would argue that the 1000+ members of Wikiproject MILHIST constitute a much higher conensus than those 2 editors arguing otherwise. But your right I may be wrong about how Wikipedia gauges consensus and how much weight a vote for lack of a better term is given for administrators over reguler editors. --Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

"Harmless bits of vestigial wikicode" is an oxymoron. Mostly harmless would be nearer the mark. Given enough time or enough pages these items accumulate and become harmful, affecting load time of source pages, increasing the time take to navigate the page, polluting template and parameter namespace. Per Wikipedia:Pruning article revisions bundling these clean-up tasks into one edit that is being made for another reason is a good thing. the necessity or even wisdom of particular items can be discussed, but there is a broad consensus that we try to avoid these types of edit as stand-alone edits. And indeed that is what Kumioko was doing. However CBM had inferred from spuriously combining the phraseology of my "editing restriction" and rule #3 (or possibly 4) of AWB use that any AWB edit that doesn't affect the rendered page is verboten. He decided that it was sufficient grounds to revoke Kumioko's AWB access. This was a poor decision for three reasons. Firstly he made up a rule. Secondly he was in dispute. Thirdly he is not neutral over banner standardisation. For all these reasons he should personally restore Kumioko's AWB rights. Of course if he chooses not to it's no big deal, since Kumiko is finished with the project, but it would still be the right thing to do. Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC).

Thanks but please don't restore my AWB access. I wanted it back but now 8 days later I clearly don't need it. WP has gone without the 3 or 4 thousand edits I would have done between then and now and its clearly survived in my absence. 'If I come back later I can rerequest it otherwise I would rather the access wasn't on my account in case my account becomes compromised. I have always thought that the access should be removed from inactive accounts and I may as well set the example. --Kumioko (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you presenting yourself as a gallant, self-sacrificing hero to this process about consensus? What would satisfy you to continue as the valuable editor that you were before you encountered AWB and these issues about consensus? Tell us something positive! jmcw (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a hero at all but that would be cool if that's how some users thought of me. I doubt it though. What would satisfy me is to recognize that I am trying to get rid of garbage that doesn't belong on the articles and that they are better off for it. Not to mention that 1000 characters doesn't equal a minor edit/trivial edit. Since that is unlikely to happen I'm not sure I have much positive to say at the moment I'm afraid. --Kumioko (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really understand bots, and what they should or shouldn't be doing. But I'm curious to know why this kind of edit is so serious that it's regarded as reason to remove AWB access. I understand that it's trivial, almost pointless, but why is making pointless edits grounds for removal? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a conversation at the WikiProject Council, which Kumioko was also participating in, where people were objecting to that very kind of edit. Kumioko took the opinion that he would just ignore the conversation (even though he was contributing to it) and run an AWB job to do what he wanted. The fact that trivial edits are also against the AWB rules was an additional factor, but ignoring the ongoing conversation to run an AWB task despite disagreement was the main one. That was the sort of thing that led to the date delinking RFARB and which needs to be nipped in the bud. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I just want to clarify that I agree that I shouldn't have done the particular edit identified above. I believe that represents a minority of the edits I did and is not representative of the type of edit I am arguing here. BTW the conversation that CBM is bringing up yet again is discussing' WikiProject banner standardization and does not represent a lack of consensus. The issue is being discussed because they could not get any support in other venues and so they brought it up again to the WikiProject Council where, although several have spoken against the standardization, still doesn't have support. But there is no reason to dwell on who is or isn't right. I have seen that the policy is more important than the result. --Kumioko (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec; to Carl) I was just wondering what the harm is of pointless edits. I see people do it all the time, changing reflist to Reflist, and Infobox person to Infobox Person, or maybe the other way round. I'm curious to know why it's worthy of AWB removal, or why anyone cares one way or the other—cares enough to do it (assuming there's no technical reason for it that I'm not familiar with) or cares enough to object. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Manually, here and there? No problem. In conjunction with other substantive edits? No problem. But trivial edits done by themselves on a mass scale can disrupt watchlists and recentchanges, unnecessarily consume editor attention and other resources, and make article histories longer than they have to be. And in the past, we've seen two different tools flipflopping and warring back-and-forth over the same trivial detail (first-letter template capitalization). In any case - from what I understand - the reason AWB was removed in this instance was not simply for the trivial changes, but for the user's stated position that they would continue with the changes while they were in dispute and under discussion. AWB (and other automated tools) are not to be used for mass-editing campaigns seeking to achieve fait accompli. –xeno^talk 23:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that makes sense. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Its fine now. The articles are safe and you don't have to worry about me doing edits that show up on watchlists or consume editors attention anymore (but look how much attention has gone into this ANI string instead of the 3 or 4 thousand articles I would have edited if I wasn't here). Besides, Since discussions happen daily and on every coneivable subject relating to editing I can't see how I can be effective with AWB if I have to stop editing whenever any editor starts a discussion. --Kumioko (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. After all this discussion, you still don't understand that being questioned while you do automated editing is something that should immediately stop you from using AWB, to understand the complaint. If you are very "effective with AWB" but in the wrong direction, you are very harmful to the project. If you elect to continue editing after being questioned then you are a loose cannon, potentially harmful to the project. Binksternet (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Er. He has stopped - he made that quite clear. And he stopped to have a discussion. On the other hand since filbustering cannot continue for ever he elected to continue with legitmate edits. Only to be blocked by one of his opponents on spurious grounds. Well like I say, the blocking admin won. The project lost. Rich Farmbrough, 00:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC).

Nobody was blocked. Removal of AWB access - which I have always stressed was to be temporary - doesn't stop anyone from editing, using discussion pages, etc. It's not a block.

On the other hand, Kumioko did not stop to have a discussion. Instead, he kept editing through the discussion and said things like, "I am not going to stop because 1 or 2 editors out of thousands think its not needed." At first he claimed that the edits were actually mistakes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I agres with Rich. Its time to let this go. Removal of AWB rights is essentially the same as a block. Just for AWB use. And I didn't stop to have teh discussion because you refused to start one as I asked you too. I only hope that folks actually go to my talk page and see that. I told you specifically to start one if you didn't agree and I would abide by the result...You revoked my rights instead. And I agreed with you that 1 or 2 of the examples out of the thousands I did were errors. I'm not perfect and I make mistakes and the worst that happened was a couple of extra unneeded edits. Nothing harmful to the articles in the slightest and certainly not enough to crash the servers.

I still 100% stand by the argument that I made that removing deprecated parameters and trash fields from articles and talk pages (whether in the talk page banners, infoboxes, citation templates, etc) is a worthwhile edit regardless of whether it is minor or trivial or whatever because they don't render a change to the page. I also do not agree with the argument that regardless of the reasoning or how absurd the argument an editor must immediately stop and spend ours discussing a change. For example if 1 editor thinks states that he doesn't think we should use AWB to edit any BLP articles because he has them all on his watchlist and he can't check them fast enough or that we should make all the BLP articles bright yellow if we edit it with AWB doesn't mean its a good idea worthy of stopping all edits. Whereas your argument doesn't distinguish between the true problems worthy of discussion and those that are utterly absurd like those I presented above. To expect every editor to stop every single time is utterly and completely absurd.

My feelings on those arguments will not change and since I am clearly the one that doesn't understand that rules of actually getting consensus apply to both making a change and stopping a change that has consensus if you don't agree with it, and that I clearly don't care about how full I am making a watchlist, or that I think that the editors actions should merit the block and not have the block doled out on the virtue of "catching ones attention", because they are making too many edits too fast or simply because I don't like the change and this allows me to stop it for just a little longer, I need to go.

I do feel a bit better about my decision since I have received support from some here and some via EMAIL (I received some hate mail too but that's ok). In time when the articles and the talk pages are full of deprecated parameters and junk and someone looks back on this and says you know what that guy might have been right all those years ago...wait I won't know...because I gave up in frustration and retired. The drama is really over. You can stop replying and arguing. Just archive this thread manually and I can go about my business and the folks who don't like doing content changes will go back to blocking those of us that do. --Kumioko (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"the folks who don't like doing content changes will go back to blocking those of us that do." You were making "markup" changes, not content changes (e.g. [91]. AWB is in general not used for content changes at all. Fram (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how much time it took you to find that one going through the 15000 edits Ive done since then and the thousands and thousands of assessments, changes for WikiProject US, Portal US, formatting problems with articles, the US newsletter, adding categories, etc. I don't know why you want to keep discussing this but that wasn't a very good example since along with those markup changes I also moved the notes section above the references section to be in accordance with MOS Layout. I still find it funny that AWB users cant do any changes that don't change the rendering of the page but other applications like Wikipedia Cleaner seeems to be exempt from that. --Kumioko (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Special:contributions, namespace:article, view:500, search! If you then start looking for AWB in edit summaries, you soon come across them. I wasn't claiming that that edit was good or bad, but that the edit, just like 99% of AWB edits, are not "content changes", but changes to markup, layout, accessability, compatibility, ease of use, ... This is your most recent AWB edit in the mainspace. All it does is change a type of dash, and add or remove some spaces and empty lines. That's not a content change. This one, clearly a good edit, again is not a content change. This has a completely incorrect edit summary, and no content change, only a necessary correction of wiki-markup. The reason I replied is that your claim that content editors are blocked by those that don't like making content changes is incorrect at nearly all levels, considering that you aren't blocked, you weren't making content changes, and the people complaining about the misuse of AWB make quite enough content edits. Fram (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhpas the term content changes was ill chosen on my part but what I meant was edits to the articles, talk pages, etc as opposed to those that spend the majority of time AFDing articles for notibility, spending all their time in discussions or the like. Its easy to criticize an editor when the make a mistake if you aren't the one doing the edits. I do literally thousands of edits a month so just from sheer volume I am bound to make a mistake or too whether that be the occassional poor edit summery as I pull in a new group of edits to be made, hitting save instead of skip for a minor edit or just making a mistake. But in general the edits themselves are not harming the articles other than nitpicking the details of the occassional mistake that I think, for the most part, I have gone out of my way to correct. I just don't think we should all have to cater to every dumb argument because one editor cries lack of consensus about a change they don't agree with. BTW according to the arguemnts from Xeno above the changes between dashes would likely fall under the trivial but not minor category and therefore allowed. --Kumioko (talk) 15:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant to say minor but not trivial. And yes, adherents to MOS:DASH would probably agree with you there that the edit was significant. –xeno^talk 15:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

All you have to do when one editor cries "lack of consensus" is show that there is consensus for such a change. Just claiming that the opposer is using "dumb arguments" and is alone with his opposition won't help you though: whether he is alone or not with his opposition is something to check, not to assume, and an argument that may seem dumb to you may well be important to someone else (and vice versa). And at least some (maybe all) of the people opposing those trivial AWB edits spend a lot of their time on contributing fresh or improved content to Wikipedia, and not just on AfD discussions and so on (things which are also necessary). It would look much better if you would solely defend your position by emphasizing the strength of your arguments, and would drop the over-generalized attacks on your opponents. IF you try to convince people of your point of view, arguing that they use "dumb arguments" and "don't like doing content changes" is not the best tactic... Fram (talk) 15:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with your argument Fram is that I did say that but CBM didn't want to hear it because he does not agree with it. I also encouraged him to start a discussion to see if others shared his thoughts but he revoked my AWB access instead citing a discussion on a page knowone even watches that was started by editors who couldn't get support anywhere else. I have tried to argue my point from the beginning but the assumptions have been that since this ANI was opened it must have been for a reason. Most of the original responders didn't appear to even read the whole context of the problem and simply assumed I was some random editor gone rogue. At this point I am not defending my position because my position is that I am fed up with the drama. 100% and unwavering complaiance with the rules has clearly become more important than the edits being made and a zero defect mentally is currently practiced so since I make mistakes sometimes and I don't want to spend 2 weeks in discussions about why I did a minor edit or why I didn't change an edit summary I chose to retire from editing. --Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

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