Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730

On September 2 2010

I believe this kind of cut and paste is counter-policy as it violates the rights of contributors prior to September 2nd, 2010. We release most of our rights when we click "save". But we retain the right to have our contributions attributed to us -- and that it obfuscated with this kind of cutting and pasting.

Here is a diff of the two versions -- except for one small paragrpah they are almost identical.

For what it is worth, I believe this was a good faith mistake on Plasma East's part.

I request an administrator merge the revision history of

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, but next time please use the

Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves process rather than posting it on ANI. Cheers, Number 57

21:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.

I wasn't familiar with {{

histmerge}}. I'll use it, if there is a next time. Geo Swan (talk

) 23:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – the offending off-wiki comment appears to have been withdrawn. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am noting that a Wikipedia article about me (Rhys Morgan) had been nominated for deletion by User:Doktorbuk on the basis that it was/I am a "sophisticated hoax" and that I am a "mythical character" (http://twitter.com/#!/doktorb/status/143027459384815616). I made no contribution to the AfD nor the actual page (aside from posting on the talk page to correct an error) as I understand that this would be a massive conflict of interest. Nor did I incite people to take part in the AfD discussion.
Since then, I tweeted to someone saying that it was clear he hadn't read the article, given that there were numerous reliable sources underneath confirming that I am neither a hoax nor a mythical character: http://twitter.com/#!/rhysmorgan/status/143009818666475521
In response, User:Doktorbuk told me to revert the claim or his "lawyers talk": http://twitter.com/#!/doktorb/status/143037703787778049
I don't think anything really needs to be done about this, but was told that this was the right place to let someone know about it.
— Preceding

• It's not on-wiki, ergo, it's not really our business. Maybe Twitter has a comparable policy. Drmies (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to this page. I understand and comprehend the seriousness of the issue, and withdraw any such threat which I made in the quoted tweets. I stand down from this issue and will make no further edits to any articles connected to Rhys Morgan or his work. I will make a public comment on this matter, to Rhys, on Twitter. doktorb _words^deeds 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a good idea. Sounds to me like this is common courtesy, and I wish you had thought of that before (that is my off-wiki comment--I guess I should tweet it). Sheesh, these AfD debates: I wonder when the first AfD victim is listed in the papers. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to give the background to this: Yesterday, Doktorbuk started a deletion debate,

In the past, off-wiki behavior that is intended to have an effect on on-wiki behavior and/or people has been judged to fall under the procedures and norms of Wikipedia. Doktorbuk has withdrawn the comments, however, so I think we should let it slide with no further action being needed here. SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

AlanDHarvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

AlanHarvey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swinton Circle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Harvey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subject account with a D is apparently a sock of the older account without a D; claims to be (and probably is) Alan D. Harvey, founder of the Swinton Circle, and author/subject of the now-deleted article

This looks like a legal threat equivalent to me. Not sure why the master account isn't blocked as well ... ? (

BWilkins ←track

) 00:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Master blocked also to prevent further legal threats. --

(t) (e)

05:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Like if I am too lazy to memorize those templates for asking for an admin to delete old sandboxes...so I just delete the link to them and they are out of my mind...but still floating in space somehow. Is that wrong?TCO (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No. 28bytes (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Woot! TCO (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI, it's just {{

u1}}. Not that hard to memorize. ;) Swarm ^X

02:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

And the pages are easy to locate with the "Subpages" link to Special:PrefixIndex/User:TCO at the bottom of your contributions page. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That helps. copied that link to my page.TCO (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This user

• Not without evidence, no. You're going to have to explain your case. Also, you have an admin userbox on your talk page, but you're not an admin. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That said. VVPushkin is making some pretty unusual edits... Nearly all of them are pushing the Soviet Union over Russia. For example, replacing Jewish with Soviet, changing a sentence from "collapse of communism" to read "the 'so-called' collapse of communism ([1]), and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan&diff=prev&oldid=463894289 renaming the mujahideen as "terrorist fighters against government". The Cavalry (Message me) 05:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent call with the indef. Swarm ^X 06:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TY. The Cavalry (Message me) 06:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. It's a legit article about an architect and associated firms. In this case, as in others that I have created, SarekOfVulcan asserts that there is an item in the included list that doesn't belong, but he chooses not to say which, or explain why. That should be discussed at Talk page. I don't care to create separate articles right now about the son and the son's associated/successor partnership; I happen to think one article suffices. Split could be proposed at Talk, however. If the article is not legit, that should be discussed in an AFD. Frankly, i am building the wikipedia and SarekOfVulcan is disrupting, IMHO. --doncram 20:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This situation is similar to the situations with

WP:OWNs these articles and is willing to talk to death anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. --Orlady (talk

) 20:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Doncram has a very bad habit of creating an article at one name, then dumping the kitchen sink into it and claiming that that was his intention all along. How about knowing what article you want to create _before_ you create it, huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(And I love the way he was so anxious to revert me here that he reverted himself as well. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC))

Umm, i did not revert myself in that diff. I removed a commented-out section and replaced it by better formatted new material. Also the diff is confusing because apparently i accidentally deleted one sentence and a citation, which Sarek has restored (thanks). Are you implying I originally added that citation? It is not formatted as I would have formatted it. For this you post to ANI?! --doncram 22:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally, huh? And I'm heartily amused by your attempt to claim this is thread about you reverting one citation, instead of starting an article about an architect and claiming it was actually about everyone he ever worked with. Again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Huh? What I saw in edit mode when I was adding and removing a lot else, was a sentence fragment "Normand Smith Patton and Grant C. Miller" with some following stuff that I assumed, too quickly, was an unformed reference. I thought it was a stray fragment that should be removed, while I should have gone back to the prior version to check. But I was in the middle of a big edit, and needed several follow-on edits to address ambiguous links that my edit added. I am sorry that I removed it and didn't remember to go back and check that bit. And, I do resent your implication (edit summary "nice try") that I am misrepresenting that it was an accident. Why on earth would you think that it was really intended? Please tone it down. --doncram 23:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To clarify -- it's very clear from looking at my last diff that what you say you did above is not actually what happened. To have restored the categories and underconstruction tag, you went back to your last "good" version and edited that, to save yourself the trouble of removing my changes manually. If you were just "removing a sentence fragment", you wouldn't have reverted every change made since May 10.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it further, Sarek seems RIGHT about one thing but WRONG about his main point that I "self-reverted". The edit I made does appear to have been implemented against a previous version that I must have been looking at, which explains why the UC tag came back in and some categories changed and that referenced sentence got dropped. But the main point of my edit was to add in a list of works, which it did, while dropping them from the And, my making those other changes was accidental. It was not intended. Okay? So what, i made a mistake in editing, accidentally losing a little bit, that has all been added back. And I made a mistake in reconstructing what must have happened, in explaining it here. So what, Sarek was wrong in his assertion to start this subthread. --doncram 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him before for unco-operative behaviour, but really this needs confirmation that a group of people agree with you guys. Is he actually edit warring to support his

Are the people referred to in the "jumble of content" notable in their own right? - Sitush (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell, because almost all of his articles are built off NRHP listings, with minimal other refs tossed in. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

For example, the recently-created James B. Cook. The sole reference is the NRIS database. No evidence is given that all the James B. Cooks who built these buildings are the same person -- and indeed, Doncram has gotten it wrong before, to the point of essentially inventing biographical details.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, some of these people in those jumbles of content are independently notable, while others are probably pretty anonymous. In the example of Charles L. Thompson, I reckon that the "associates" named Frank Ginocchio and Theo Sanders are notable, but I don't know about everyone who might be treated as an "associate". The history there is (apparently) that Doncram identified Thompson as a prominent architect, (apparently) searched the National Register database for entries that included "Thompson, C.L." (or some variant) in the "architect" field, then created an article-space page for "

original research) for the article.
Back to notability: You couldn't tell this from the current article, but there's enough information available for a reasonably good biography of Thompson -- who designed a huge number of notable buildings on his own, without "associates". Ginocchio designed the Arkansas capital (not when he was working in association with Thompson, AFAIK) and some other significant buildings, so he's independently notable, although I've not seen much in the way of biographical information. The story on Sanders is similar to the story on Ginocchio. --Orlady (talk

) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. It looks like there should be separate articles for some of these people. Any verifiable linkages can be done via See Also; anything else should be binned. The fact that this is not immediately apparent to someone without extraneous knowledge is probably indicative of dubious organisation etc. It is not, btw, just architects who often have multiple collaborations: numerous other professionals go through these cycles and unless the partnerships are notable in themselves then they should not have articles (inherited notability would be the objection).Does this seem reasonable? Can this be discussed at the talk page or, as people have intimated, is it going to lead to another bout of

WP:DRN a suitable venue? - Sitush (talk

) 06:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a standard at some point for writing articles about interrelated architecture firms. For example, the firm of Long and Kees in Minneapolis practiced from 1884 through 1898, producing some nice works like the Lumber Exchange Building and Minneapolis City Hall. But after they disbanded, Frederick Kees partnered with Serenus Colburn and designed buildings like the Minneapolis Grain Exchange, Advance Thresher/Emerson-Newton Implement Company, and Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company Building. Meanwhile, Franklin B. Long teamed up with his son, producing the Pence Automobile Company Building, and then they added Lowell Lamoreaux. You can't really try to tie all of those architecture firms into one article and say it's about Franklin B. Long or Frederick Kees.

In Doncram's case about

By the way, Doncram, I sure hope you aren't accessing any of my NRHP query tools at www2.elkman.net. Since you accused me of about four different forms of lying three months ago, consider yourself unwelcome to use my server. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 23:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the creation of article pages like

WP:OWNership, but the reaction that ensues when anyone else dares to touch those pages (or criticize them) is. --Orlady (talk

) 06:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Non admin: It seems odd that the OP requests that someone (an admin?) "explain" something (policy?) to the user in question. Unless I am missing something...and god knows I probably am...this looks like a content dispute amongst editors who have butted heads before, and should probably be hashed out on the talk page, or specific policy-related boards (or an RFC). Not ANI. Quinn

^{✩ STARRY NIGHT}

01:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

cf. Elen's remarks above. This has come up at AN/I several times. In short, Doncram continues to use an editing style that a number of others have found problematic in the past and this has been communicated to him. This has long since graduated from a content issue to a

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. Choess (talk

) 05:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The current title is wholly misleading as it isn't about a firm called Fred Clausen and associates. Can I recommend that someone
  Boldly move it either back to Fred Clausen, with the list of buildings under a subheading (notable buildings Fred had a hand in), or to List of notable buildings designed by Fred Clausen. I do find Doncram's behaviour extremely disruptive at times, and am tempted to suggest that he be required to go through some kind of process whereby he dumps his data onto article talkpages, and other editors pick through it, as he seems to have no mechanism for reviewing his own edits. Elen of the Roads (talk
  ) 17:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Indiscriminate text dumping as noted here was one of the basic issues that underlay Doncram's three-month block earlier this year. It's not a simple content dispute. Incidentally, these articles don't demonstrate notability for the architecture firms. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to all the separate bits above, as this is not the place for it. Content discussion about the Clausen page should be at its Talk page. But there is no real notability question about the Frederick Clausen article (or about any other architect article that I have started, as far as I recall). I am not doing "indiscriminate" work; I have usefully created many pages about notable architects, or added to existing pages, and linked them well to existing NRHP bluelink articles and also correctly linked them to redlink NRHP article topics. I have a damn good idea that a person or firm is notable every time I have started an architect article. There have been AFDs opened for a few, and I believe that they have all closed KEEP (or no consensus to delete). If there is a real question about Clausen, open an AFD which will be closed SPEEDY KEEP. There is room for discussion about what is the best title for the existing article, but no doubt that there is a notable topic.

Sorry I won't expect to respond here a lot more due to other commitments. --doncram 01:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. If I had a nickel for everytime you've said "I don't have time for this discussion" I'd... well, it wouldn't be much, but at least I could get a coffee. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh... once again, a lot of this could be avoided if Doncram would simply draft his articles in user space before bringing them "live" into article space. This would allow him to create stubs, "dump" material to his heart's content, organize that material as he sees fit, figure out exactly what the subject of the article should be, and generally get the article into decent shape ... without others jumping on him for (once again) creating a poorly thought out stub... a stub that he must then "defend".

Which brings me to an underlying issue here... Doncram does seem to have a knee-jerk instinct to ardently "defend" his work... even when that work is considered problematic. It is his ardent "defense" that leads to the incessant charges of WP:OWN and disruptive editing. It was his need to "defend" his work that lay behind his conflict with Elkman six or seven months ago (and which led to his being blocked). That is an ongoing behavioral issue, not a content issue. And, it is that issue that ultimately must be addressed. Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I fixed up the article (quite pleased with that) and Doncram was really quite co-operative (with me at least). However, the fact remains that this was not suitable to be released into mainspace, and Doncram was unhelpful when people tried to fix it up. The correct place to put data that you haven't yet managed to format into useful content is a
  sandbox, not tip it into mainspace. this is fine - yes it's a two line stub, but it hasn't got any unsorted crap in it, which was the problem last time when Doncram got blocked for 3 months, and he was running Elkman's script without doing any checking as to what he was dumpting into the article. Elen of the Roads (talk
  ) 20:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – unblocked for time served. Horologium (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked William S. Saturn

• I think it would be helpful if someon else stepped in as William is now threatening to repeat his action. [3].
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  06:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think he definitely means well; his attitude, though, leaves a lot to be desired at present. — Joseph Fox 06:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block to me, although I agree with Fox. Edit warring goes through all 4 diffs with the same content being removed. And if he's evading, then yep, increase the time. --
  (t) (e)
  06:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, edit warring is bad, and the approach totally incorrect (and reverting vandalism while blocked is not permitted), but William S. Saturn is correct about the content issue: this edit introduced two red links that are essentially promotions of unknown candidates in
  Template:United States presidential election, 2012 which is transcluded into lots of articles. I would hope that a gentle discussion might salvage the situation, and a clear indication that the alternative account will never be used in a similar manner might result in it's being unblocked. Johnuniq (talk
  ) 06:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Please don't block William Saturn and William S. Saturn differently. Indef blocks for socks are meant for people who use them to sneak around blocks/bans or for people who have been banned from using multiple accounts; it's a wrong use of an otherwise legitimate account. Extending the block was definitely the right thing to do, but both blocks should expire at the same time. Nyttend (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Considering that it was a short block for edit warring he evaded solely to make one vandalism reversion, I would match the alt account's block duration to the main account's. As for doubling his block duration, it's certainly "standard procedure", though I'm not convinced even that is necessary. This is about the most harmless form of block evasion I can imagine. Swarm ^X 06:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: Agreed and modified as so. --
    (t) (e)
    06:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Copied the following three-comment dialog from User Talk page on request... (-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC))

Does IAR even mean anything? I ignored a rule preventing me "from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" yet I remain blocked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See also

WP:LAWYER — Joseph Fox

06:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, that is not my intent. Also, please note that the 3RR block occurred 28 hours after the incident, after it was already settled. And I used an account that redirected back to my main account to do nothing else but revert vandalism. Why is this looked down upon?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Considering that a) There was nothing covert - the alternative account redirects to the user's main one, and he openly stated what he did, b) The second account was not used to further the edit-war, c) All he did was a single edit to revert blatant vandalism, d) The original block was 28 hours after the edit-war had ceased: Is there not a case for leniency here? I'd support shortening both account blocks to time served, as they are already over the original 24 hours -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the "

WP:IAR is a good and useful rule, but it should not be involved frivolously. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 11:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The right way to handle it would have been to make a note about it on his own talk page, to remind himself to fix it once the block expired and/or to alert someone else to fix the item. Socking should not be tolerated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't know why it should not be allowed. The block was placed to stop edit warring. The alternative account did not hinder that in any way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand the above points, but I see someone who was just a bit pissed off at being blocked a full 28 hours after the edit war in question had stopped - and I think I would have been too. It was right to block the second account, but in the circumstances I don't think the extension to 48 hours was necessary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Right" is never a reason for either a) 3RR or b) block evasion - I'm not sure how many hundreds of times that's used to decline unblock requests, etc. A user like William S. Saturn should know better by now, and IAR is not ever an excuse on this. There are specific reasons to allow alternate accounts, and this is not one of them. The alternate account should be indef blocked, just as we would extend to anyone else who used their alt acct while their main is blocked. The block on main account being instituted 28hrs later is potentially questionable, which means an unblock request should have been used instead of
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 12:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  Indef blocking a new account created to evade a block, yes, but not one that has been around for years for doing good work and which is openly associated with the main account, but has been used for just *one* minor infraction. Admins are not supposed to be blind rule-followers, we are expected to apply case-by-case evaluations, and in each individual case arrive at the solution that is best for the encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Look, I understand that temporary blocks are meant to stop people from editing for a while and get them to reflect on what they've done wrong. But all he did was revert blatant vandalism under his alternate account. I don't understand why people adhere to such a strict interpretation of Wikipedia's policies; a minor infraction committed with good intent should not be a hanging offense. William's action was very much within the spirit of
  Talk
  ) 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also, having examined the edit war on
  Talk
  ) 15:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• And just as a side note, I don't think it's fair or accurate to accuse him of
  Talk
  ) 16:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would agree with that summary. The last one was removing inappropriate content when nobody else seemed to be around to do the job (and it looks like there had been an effort to bring extra eyes onto the issue). I don't think that deserves an increased block. In an ideal world it may not have been necessary; but that's an ideal world where edit-warring IPs stop if you simply explain the problem to them, and an ideal world where neutral editors will promptly come and help out with any dispute. Many political articles are a long way from there. bobrayner (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you everyone for taking the time to review this. I must confess that the gap between the last revert and the block was larger then I realised at the time of the block and arguably I could have called the AN3 report stale. Given this, and the views expressed, I'd be content for any other admin to reduce the outstanding block to time served. I'll do it myself if there is a quick consensus but I'm sick and not very alert so feel free to act without waiting for me to check back in if that is the agreed outcome.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  16:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There is NO EXCUSE for sockpuppetry and/or block evasion. Keep the block length as is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• I have unblocked (reduced to time served) as per Spartaz, the blocking admin. That template might be a good candidate for protection; it (just like everything that intersects with US politics) turns into a black hole whose gravity is so strong that even logic cannot escape. I have also let William S. Saturn know that use of alternate accounts is not appropriate, even if they are properly disclosed. Horologium (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In nearly five years of editing here on Wikipedia, I don't think I've every actually brought somebody to ANI. But I feel compelled to do so now. There has been a long and contentious discussion going on over at Talk:Pregnancy relative to the lead image. In September, an RfC ended with no-consensus. ("If properly verified consent is obtained directly from the subject, issue (2) would disappear and there would be no consensus in this discussion.")

Everybody, including HiLo felt the original RfC was poorly executed/run. The last RfC was a disaster, totally confused and confusing, guaranteed to deliver a conclusion that could be misinterpreted. [...] I will not repeat my comments. I don't have the time. HiLo48 24 October 2011 Yet, even acknowledging that the first RfC was a disaster, he chooses to use it as the primary reason not to discuss the subject further. According to him, further discussion is not allowed and any arguments presented should be "deleted" because the "umpire" declared that no-consensus existed.

Well after the first RfC ended, another RfC was opened. I initially didn't like the new RfC so close on the heels of the original, but during over a months worth of discussion, have changed my mind. Numerous new arguments/positions have been added. But HiLo refuses to acknowledge them because according to him we had a "perfectly good" decision already---no-consensus. Since I've chosen to take an active role in this RfC, he now accuses me (and anybody else who posts) of bad faith. He's been insulting and refuses to discuss the issue. I think his own words summarize why he should be topic banned:

• Since the new RfC began I have actually not debated the merits of any of the images. (Surely you've noticed that!) So I haven't said anything about liking any picture. I have certainly discussed censorship. Too many people here seem keen on that.[9]

HiLo has declared that his role is to "persist in highlighting" the bad faith editing by poor losers. He has also declared, "Some people may be prepared to compromise Wikipedia's standards and guidelines. I am not. [...]The argument must not be won by those who don't." In other words, compromise is not an option and that he will hold dogmatically to his stance regardless of the process. HiLo refuses to acknowledge any argument that does not conform to his own position. When presented with an argument, he accuses the editor of bad faith and being motivated by conservatism or "anti-breast" campaign. He holds firmly to the mistaken notion since the closing admin of the first RfC found no consensus, that the first RfC "which DID NOT convince the closing admin that the image should change, all countered by me and a small number of others pointing out the bad faith behaviour of those who wouldn't accept the umpire's decision." This week he declared, "I have not initiated ANY discussions. I reserve my right to treat garbage posts with contempt, as should you." Garbage posts, based on his comments are any that come from the "anti-breast" "conservative" camp---which is how he views anybody who wants to move the image.

Beyond that I want to give you a taste of his contributions to the discussion. He "strongly believe[s] everything [he] have posted on that page"[10]

In closing I want to quote the post I made at 17:47, 19 November 2011:

Perhaps that is why I have found you to be particularly unhelpful in this thread... all you seem to do A) Whine about how this issue was decided (via a no-consensus) !vote in the previous discussion B) attack others for bad faith and other reasons, and C) whine about censorship without actually addressing the issues presented. You've added the most to this discussion without adding anything of benefit.

If he actively engaged in constructive dialog regarding the image, I would not be here... but he has drawn a line in the sand and has declared that anybody who posts on the subject is doing so in bad faith and should be ignored. He has not added a constructive comment relative to the discussion, he merely criticizes the current discussion and anybody who partakes in it.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC) NOTE: It should be noted, that I waited until the RfC was closed before filing this ANI report, lest he accuse me of arguing in bad faith.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 12:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing much I can add here. It's not as if you were the only one who noticed the problem.

Your post was full of asterisks where one would have expected colons. I fixed that to make it easier to read. Hans Adler 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I had written it with colons to start every quote, but realized that was hard to read when I posted it here... so I did a find/replace in NotePad to make them asterisks... guess, that didn't work ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's too bad there was such a negative reaction to the nude photo, which was beautiful and harmless. And it's hard to figure why Wales got involved with this brouhaha. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear your opinion on the images but that's not what the AN/I is about. It is also not about the totally uncontroversial close of an RfC by an admin (who happens to be Jimbo Wales). Let's not make additional drama here please.Griswaldo (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. What an ungracious win on a Sole Flounder decided RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Griswaldo, this isn't about the way the RfC was closed or about the image itself, but rather about HiLo's behavior during the discussion. If he contributed to the discussion in a meaningful way, other than to impugn the motives of people who commented, then I would not have opened this.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the RFC, it's about your fee-fees being hurt - we get it. Show a little compassion for someone that put a lot of heart and soul into a project that he believed was an egalitarian, free, uncensored attempt to broaden the world's knowledge who, found that when the curtain was peeled back, it wasn't quite as egalitarian, wasn't quite as free and wasn't quite as uncensored as he thought it was. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Without comment on the evidence I do want to say that I find responses like this entirely unhelpful. People need to realize that it is behavior that is or is not problematic not intentions. Surely good intentions can mitigate the response the community has to problematic behavior, but first we need to determine if the behavior was problematic or not. So Hipocrite, while I appreciate your reading of the intentions and emotions involved here it simply doesn't convince me to dismiss the complaint, which appears to be your aim. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The "complaint" is more like a novella. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Side comment. On pregnancy there were two alternatives: either keep the image in the lede; or move it further down in the article to a more appropriate place swapping it for the other image of the lady in blue. The image has been deleted and not moved; presumably someone can fix that. As for topic bans, I think that is a more general issue with several users, providing too much unconstructive and disruptive input on images (mostly on pregnancy and Muhammad). I am not sure that can necessarily be decided here, although it's worth a try.

While not disputing Balloonman's evidence, could he please find a more condensed way to present it? At the moment it is tl;dr. Perhaps a summary with details collapsed for readability? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

SF certainly reviewed the RFC when closing it as replace one image with another, remove replaced image entirely, right? Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's supposedly at 26 weeks, so I placed it in the second-trimester section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Good call. It should not be removed.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mathsci, I went back and hatted all of the quotes/supporting evidence. The key points are now highlighted.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Beat me to it by a minute or two. I was just going to collapse all the evidence in one collapse box, but your way works just as well. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The evidence would be a lot more condensed if OP didn't split/duplicate single posts and place them into different categories. For example:

1. And that is a bad faith post. 18:36, 10 November 2011 (In response to a post explaining an !vote)
2. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants18:36, 10 November 2011

• These are part of a response to Balloon: "And that is a bad faith post. This regurgitated, out of place RfC is being ignored by many of the earlier participants, for several reason, least of which is that there was no reason for it to even start... "-10 November 2011

1. Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision. 02:45, 13 November 2011
2. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision 02:45, 13 November 2011 {Notice, the "umpire's decision" is a common theme in his post. According to him, the first RfC which resulted in "no consensus" is binding.}

• These two lines are also both from a single response to Balloon: "Why should I or anyone else have to take action because of your bad faith editing? There are no more reasons to change things now than there were two months ago. There are also no reasons for you to continue your acknowledged unethical behaviour of failing to accept the umpire's decision." HiLo48 (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? 19:58, 17 November 2011 (Note: He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt.)
2. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
3. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• All from one 3-line post "OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?" HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

There are more. If we just deleted the duplicated lines and merged the different lines back into their original post then all of this evidence could be shrunken down and be more manageable. Balloon, considering you have spent weeks arguing over the finer points of syntax and the importance of the context wherein you place things I find it more than dubious that you would split a single post into multiple lines, taking them out of their original, intended context, and place them into separate, unrelated categories, and I feel it's hypocritical that you condemn his distrust of your motives for only caring about the subtext/placement of the image while you distrust his motives for editing on the talkpage. Also, if you are going to omit a line from the middle of a quote then you should place an ellipsis(...) in between the two lines your using to indicate that there is omitted content in between them.AerobicFox (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• My only comment here is that my behavior at
  WP:POINTY and to cause some editors, including HiLo, to retaliate. Not my finest moments, but I want to clarify so HiLo isn't judged on issues he may have been provoked by me.--v/r - TP
  15:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban - To put it bluntly, I'm astonished that this user has a clean block log after all this time. The examples presented above are unacceptable and should not be tolerated from any editor. And, sorry, but there's no way that sheer mass of examples is all a result of baiting by TParis. But most importantly, this is not just an issue on that talk page, where people are provoking each other and things are getting heated, it's part of an overall pattern of incivility, bad faith accusations and otherwise inappropriate comments (which can be easily seen just by scanning their talk/user talk contribs). I've also witnessed disruption on the part of this user at
  ITN/C, which led to a topic ban proposal against them in August. The proposal received unanimous support, but was never formally closed or put into effect. Anyway, it's absolutely time we do something about this editor, and if kicking them off the Pregnancy talk page is the first (and hopefully last) step, I'm firmly in support of that. Swarm ^X
  18:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. My turn. I won't say much. Despite insulting predictions to the contrary, I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have, even though I am disappointed by it, largely because it is clear and simple. Obviously Balloonman doesn't like my style, and I don't much like his, but I actually regard many of the things for which he has criticised me as positives. Unlike others, I have been completely consistent and honest in my position on both the process and the choice of image here. I do suspect the real motives of most of those wanting the nude image removed or moved. I doubt if some realise what is really driving their position. But I will no longer fight that fight. I am not from the same culture as most of those arguing for hiding the nude image. I know that means that my style doesn't always fit the "don't upset anyone" approach that they believe we must ALL follow. I am happy to accept different styles of behaviour, and admit that I do enjoy vigorous debate. I hope that is never stifled here at Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I haven't looked in to the evidence but personally I would be be mildly opposed to a ban at this time. The RFC just closed, let's see how everyone including HiLo48 moves on from there after a week or two. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The topic is already heated enough from both sides, and since I have issues with this ANI being used as a

".... Speaking as a sample of one, the thought of natural childbirth never, really never, even crossed my mind till you raised it. I hav to agree with LO. Sorry 'bout that, mate! JonRichfield (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)"

"Wow, can you be any less eloquent in your rationale."---Balloonman Poppa Balloon 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "it expresses one more thing; that pregnancy is also a state of mind"? WTF? Pregnancy is a state of mind? Please show that to me in a medical journal?
• "Now that is pure rubbish... your argument is strictly WP:ILIKEIT."
• "HiLo has essentially admitted that he is not contributing to the discussion on the merits of the image. His contributions are nothing more than 1) this is censorship 2) this was already decided ergo everybody who contributes to the discussion now is doing so in bad faith, and 3) making snide comments about users and their motives. He has added the most to this debate while adding the least amount of merit."

The whole debate on that page just circles around, escalating in tension with each loop. The appropriate response to such circumstances is not to ban/block the first editor to cross the line, that will only escalate tension, generate distrust, and promote back-handed "civil" attacks on other editors while avoiding outright incivility. The correct response should be to try to cool down tensions on both sides, and not just comments on Hilo's talkpage such as "Please don't start trolling". Imagine the circumstances of an editor who is being singled out for incivility that they feel is justified, while others are being similarly uncivil but not receiving such criticism; when this type of one-sided criticism occurs there is a very reasonable and foreseeable possibility of your criticisms being viewed as a dishonest way to attack those who disagree with them, and not a genuine attempt to cool down tensions. Instead a promise to cool down yourself as well, an assumption of good faith, an apology for any misunderstandings, and a sincere request to remove hostility between you two would have been a much preferable path.

Balloonman, there is much you can do to be aware of your own actions and responses to editors, and how that affects the discussion as a whole. You frequently dismiss all the arguments made by the other side as

AF you are missing a couple of key points:

First, if a person posed an argument, I either addressed the argument or ignored it. HiLo takes pride in the fact that he didn't address the merits of the images. HiLo boasted that his role was simply to prevent compromise and to prevent the otherside from winning. This is not an attitude conducive to wikipedia.

Second, yes, I attacked ideas and posts. If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it shows that pregnancy is a state of mind, then you need to be prepared to support that notion (last I checked it isn't so having an image that shows it is, is not a valid argument.) If you are going to argue that the image is the best because it is the "best illustration... conveys so much emotional and human impact... sterile image... beautiful... meaningful...transcends the actual photo." Then I'm going to call it rubbish and decry it as ILIKEIT. Attacking ideas and positions is one thing. Accusing everybody who posted of acting in bad faith and having low morals/ethics... which HiLo did on a repeated basis... is a different story. He didn't attack ideas/posts, he attacked people. I could live with his attacking ideas/positions, but he didn't attack people for what they said, but rather because they said anything.

Like I said, if he were actually to have discussed the issue, I would not have come here. Hell if he hadn't boasted that he hadn't contributed to the actual discussion I might not have come here. Instead he chose to make his argument based upon making ad hominem attacks against anybody who posed an argument in favor of moving/removing the image. A handful of comments going back several archives, does not equate to the scores of quotes.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• "No justification has been presented for requiring another decision so soon."
• "There was a valid decision. It should stand. HiLo48 08:13, 8 November 2011"

I don't why you think HiLo was unjustified in making comments like these against starting another RfC a month after another one when no significant change has occurred. Many of these comments aren't even impolite, "Let's not mince words. Moving the current picture anywhere would be censorship," "What some here are calling compromise is actually a lowering of standards."; I have never seen such harmless quotes brought to an ANI before.

• "And there's the bit I cannot comprehend. If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling? Makes no sense 18 November 2011 ("

Why have you characterized this as "he tried to mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument.", this is a perfectly valid argument.

• "I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument?"

Your description of this "He acknowledges that he hasn't added to the strength nor soundness of any argument---merely there to disrupt), is extremely odd, he is not stating he is only there to disrupt. In fact, you have characterized him as stating he is only there to disrupt several times, but I have yet to see any evidence of him stating as much. Reading through many of these quotes I am feeling that you are taking way too much in bad faith on his part. While a handful of these quotes are concerning with their accusations of bad faith and dishonesty the majority of these are completely harmless, and indeed all of this could be handled much better.AerobicFox (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

AF, out of over 50+ edits, you pick a few... but let's see... the quote on the 18 was in reference to an issue that had been explicitly explained to him on numerous occassions PRIOR to his making this statement (look up the section where I talked about constructing a film/book/article with a controversial opening and explained how shocking events/scenes can be built up to and thus become acceptable---which he was involved in and is only one occassion of explaining this principle.) Rather than address the new argument/point, he routinely said, "No new evidence/arguments." As for disruption... when you brag that you haven't discussed the merits of any of the images and that you have drawn a line in the sand. That is disruption. When you routinely accuse others of bad faith for presenting an argument, then start saying that anybody who is participating in the RfC has low morals and ethics. That is trolling/disruptive.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 05:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose a ban. I don't like his style in any of that discussion and he's pretty annoying in it at times, but I do not think it's at all within policy to topic ban him for the tone in which he asserted his point. The most bothersome aspect of HiLo's behavior is the badgering. HiLo is perfectly free to declare that he will not budge in his position or to muse about motives. The only grounds here I would see for a ban is if the continued reassertion of his position crosses over to disruptive (not just annoying), meaning that it keeps others from having the discussion. Some may say that line's been crossed. That's fine; that's a reasonable disagreement and grounds for a ban. But I do not think it's reasonable to ban based on "civility" or bad faith. It would be ironic if
  WP:AGF became a ban bludgeon. Shadowjams (talk
  ) 23:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  Civility is perfectly suitable grounds for which to ban someone. We have a policy against it for a reason. We can't have people acting like that in a collaberative community.--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

  It's more nuanced than that. Our policy says "Civility is a goal rather than an objective standard. Wikipedia editors from around the world may have different cultural standards of civility, so a certain amount of tolerance is required. We do block for major incivility. When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." We block for the disruption or the attack, not for the incivility. In the same way we strive to have proper spelling and grammar in articles we strive to have civility in discussion. We don't block for misspellings (I'd be gone a long time ago if we did that). We do block if I go through and purposefully mispell.
  It's perfectly fine to say he's been disruptive, therefore needs to be banned/blocked. But taking administrative action due to his tone is unacceptable.
  I also am unconvinced that bans/blocks like this do anything to increase the level of civility. That's an issue of culture on Wikipedia; an issue not helped by extending battles onto ANI or bringing out the threat of ban. That's why I think it's critical that the touchstone of all administrative action needs to be around disruption, and I think longstanding policy backs me up on this point. It's my informal impression but I notice more calls for action based in incivility now than before. Shadowjams (talk) 23:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• support some action I took part in the discussion briefly and immediately encountered Hilo and find the characterization above to be quite accurate. It was quite obvious from the start that Hilo was not there to constructively discuss anything. They often ran around in circles, ducked direct repeated questions, and claimed evidence they never provided, all while hurling insults, misdirecting and making false characterizations. Having not encountered Hilo previously, that I can recall, it becomes a question of whether or not this behaviour was limited to Pregnancy or if this is a general editing style on the part of Hilo. The fact that Hilo sees this as positive behaviour in a community is fairly troubling, and gives me no hope that the behaviour won't continue. At the least I'd support a block until the community can be assured that the disruptive behaviour won't be repeated, and clarification can be given as to whether this is a localized issue or indicative of a greater problem with their editing.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• I had actually intended to bring a proposal to block or ban of HiLo48 on the grounds of his abuse of Wikipedia as a battleground. My apologies if any of the following is redundant.:

HiLo48 has been abusing Wikipedia as a battleground, waging ideological warfare and attempting to "win" and "beat" the other side. The strident rhetoric is part and parcel of the partisan battle. Some examples from Talk:Pregnancy include

• • Yes, I find it sadly astonishing that there are so many prudes in the world. It's not the case where I live. Where do you all come from? Middle America? HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is it so important to hide nipples? Is it an instruction from God? HiLo48 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And there is a point where your argument goes right off the rails. If the picture is offensive, how can it possibly be OK for people to encounter it as they scroll through the article? Logic has failed. Irrational conservatism MUST pushing this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • John Carter - you have failed to state the fundamental argument against the existing image. It is "I CAN SEE HER BREASTS!!!!!" This is often acompanied by comments to the effect that "It doesn't bother me but there are some people I believe it will bother." This is pro-censorship, conservative rubbish. Without that argument this debate would either not exist or would have been a lot shorter. It is NOT an argument that says there is anything wrong with the image. Breasts have never hurt anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not here to cooperate with those who want to move Wikipedia towards Conservapedia. So shoot me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • OK. I'll rephrase. I love a good debate with people who disagree with me but who play ethically. I suspect all the prudery is based on some strong conservative moral code. Does that code also allow you to win debates like this by attrition, rather than strength and soundness of argument? HiLo48 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • No That's NOT an acceptable step. It's a win to the conservatives and censors. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Sets the wrong tone" Eh? That'a almost laughable. What discussion are you looking at?It's such a culturally loaded, "I don't like it", pro-censorship statement. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. It is not sexual. It hurts nobody. This MUST be an issue concerning your conservative values. It can be nothing else. And that means you want censorship, which I will continue to aggressively oppose when it is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • And this gem From a related dispute on WT:What Wikipedia is Not: Some very popular reliable sources, particularly from the Murdoch stable, feature Page Three girls. A link from that article takes me to The Sexiest 100 Page 3 girls. Breasts and nipples everywhere! I suspect these would be unacceptable in conservative parts of the USA, but are obviously OK in the UK and other countries where they exist. It's impossible to declare a clear, single community standard on this stuff. Do the conservatives really want to ban from Wikipedia material that is commonly published in the daily press? HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are also numerous and wild accusations of bad faith that I have not bothered to catalog here.

While not nearly the sole culprit, HiLo48 has been ratcheting up the rhetoric throughout this entire (and rather foolish in my opinion) dispute. The pervasive disrespect he's shown others has poisoned the editing environment and corroded the quality of the discussion and the Pregnancy article as a result.

It is my opinion that this behavior is grounds for an indefinite block for

disruptive editing in his abuse of [WP:BATTLE|Wikpedia as a battleground]]. If I was not involved myself, I would do that now that now. In the alternative, I suggest something lengthy, around 2 weeks, or a six month topic ban from Talk:Pregnancy and "censorship" related policy discussions. --Tznkai (talk

) 23:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I make no comment as to the appropriateness of sanctioning any other user on any side of the discussion. It was widely ugly with a lot of bad behavior. HiLo48 in my opinion, stands out, but I am open to further action, including against myself if needed.--Tznkai (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• I looked briefly at Talk:Pregnancy a long time ago when the fuss started, but have not followed it, and have only quickly skimmed the long discussion above. However, this comment by HiLo48, which includes "I do accept the clear and simple umpire's decision we now have", may be a statement of intention to back away. Perhaps if HiLo48 were to clarify that, this discussion could be closed? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm unusual here, but I when I post something I try to choose my words carefully so that what I say is EXACTLY what I mean. I am not backing away. I am accepting the umpire's decision. This is entirely consistent with a point I have repeatedly made throughout this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you routinely assumed bad faith on those with whom you disagreed. You routinely said that people who commented had low morals/ethics/and operated out of bad faith. Rather than discuss the issues, you chose to make it a battlefield and make blanket statements about everybody who had commented----if that isn't the epitome of trolling then I don't know what is? There was no way to discuss issues with you because you assumed bad faith and refused to recognize any position based upon a previous RfC which was closed as "No Consensus"---and if somebody pointed out that the previous RfC was "No Consensus" you accused them of not representing the truth and distorting the closing admins statement (which clearly said no consensus.) Like I said, in 5 years on WP, I have never opened an ANI case against anybody, but your behavior and desparaging remarks against everybody who posted does not epitomize somebody who was on the page to discuss the subject---but rather to disrupt.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 04:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a failure to communicate happening here. You are seemingly not understanding what I am saying. (And much of what I said on the page we're discussing.) You're certainly not responding to the actual words I say. (At least as I intend them to be read.) Maybe I don't understand all of your points either. As I said earlier, it's obvious that we come from different cultures. If you cannot for some reason respond to what I actually say here, there is not point in me continuing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Whatever acrimony was on the original talk page, it's clearly spilled over here. This is not constructive, I don't think there's any consensus for any bans right now, and nobody is looking any better from this. This feels like a continuation of the arguing on Talk:Pregnancy under a different premise. It would be best for everyone if those at odds would disengage. Seems to me it's much better to treat this as water under the bridge than a chance to argue again. Shadowjams (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

^^Agree, there is absolutely no chance of something constructive coming out of any of this. This dispute wasn't productive to begin with and should have dissipated with the failed RfC and not escalated into AnI. Drop the conflict, it isn't worth fighting over, there's nothing actionable and continuing will just make everyone involved come out worse. AerobicFox (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta love going out for a bit only to come back and find the discussion closed. These things are supposed to archive after 24 hours for a reason. The "multiple" requests to close were a grand total of 2 made by two people who've already stated their positions as opposing any sanction against the user, no wonder they'd request a close. There did see to be at least 4 users who disagreed with Hilos behaviour and supported sanctions, and others who disagreed, but didn't explicitly state they supported sanctions, and yet there is no chance to go from there to an actionable result?--

What Crossmr said. Two in favor of close, 4 in favor of action...---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The personal attacks where not nice and did not address the matter at hand, hopefully all will

talk · contribs · email

) 05:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I can only sit back and sadly laugh. Do you guys understand irony? I was reported because of my alleged over-reaction to what I described as some editors failure to accept the umpire's decision. Now we have this topic reopened because some editors failed to accept the umpire's decision to close it, and went off to hassle and annoy the closing admin about it until he did what they wanted. I say no more. HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

They're called administrators, not umpires. I have no idea where this umpire obsession of yours has come from. You were reported for the whole of your conduct for the duration of that discussion. Not just the reaction to the closing. Your repeatedly hurled insults at other users, assumed bad faith, made claims you refused to back up despite being repeatedly and directly asked to. All this added up equals a whole big pile of disruptive conduct, which is why it was brought here.--

Crossmr (talk

) 08:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

...twice. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling out a bad close is not bringing it here twice, nor does it change the way you conducted yourself over a long period of time, nor your apparent inability to see what was wrong with the way you acted. As I asked above, if this is indicative of your interaction with other editors on all subjects, you should probably be blocked. If it's limited to a hot button subject, then a topic ban is sufficient.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You are showing no sign that you really understand the point I am making. I don't know how to achieve that. I spoke earlier of cultural and communication issues. We sure do have them here. I should probably give up. HiLo48 (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be under the false impression that "umpires" are infallable and can't be overturned/reversed. You put too much weight into "no-consensus" closes... but that isn't why you are here... it is your continual assumptions of bad faith on the part of others. Drawing a line in the sand and refusing to discuss issues and to attack the anybody who posted a contrary opinion as somebody with low morals/ethics is classic trolling.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that "umpires" aren't infallible, but they must exist to maintain some order in structures such as this, and their rulings must generally be followed, or we will have chaos. You're part of a group that seems to challenge or ignore decisions you don't like much more than I would. Repeated challenging and/or ignoring administrative rulings, as was done most recently here in this very thread, can obviously be defined as disruptive behaviour. Can you see that perspective? HiLo48 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's a matter of how it's done. People are free to challenge and debate all kinds of things. They aren't free to continually and repeatedly insult and assume bad faith of a varied group of editors.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You see insults. I see guesses at true motivations where those publicly stated were pretty weak, because it's important to understand the real goals of those one is discussing a matter with. I'm still not convinced that I guessed wrongly. Oh, and I still believe that starting a new RfC so soon after the closure of the earlier one was bad faith behaviour. We obviously see that matter differently, but hey, vive la difference. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Which are irrelevant

Crossmr (talk

) 07:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• So this got reopened? Really, what do you expect to happen here? Your "scores" of quotes are a handful of quotes spliced into multiple parts, the parts then spread or duplicated in multiple categories, with many harmless(some not even remotely rude) beefing them up. Advertising emphatically that this is your first time ever starting an ANI isn't going to make your post seem more credible as ANI is littered with first time complaints that go nowhere and never should have been started because they will go nowhere. Civility blocks are hugely controversial, and testing the waters with an example so mild is not going to work out, it's going to drag on, make those involved look worse, waste time and lead nowhere. If to you the opinions of myself and another uninvolved editor just don't stack up to 4 editors with personal histories asking for actions from temp topic bans to indef civility blocks then feel free to continue, but if you want to take my advice then I would recommend moving on and not stewing on the past.AerobicFox (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  This is limited not just to uncivil behaviour, but generally disruptive behaviour of which civility was only a part. Balloonman has more than once described Hilo's behaviour as trolling, and I find it to be a rather apt description. Hilo spent a great deal of time doing anything but discussing the actual content, especially for someone who was so involved in the page. Especially for someone who was repeatedly pressed to actually discuss the content and provide genuine support for their position. Despite false claims that they'd provide mountains of evidence to support their position, they instead spent the time hurling insults, making "guesses", and generally stirring the pot than participating in the discussion in a useful manner. Individually, specific issues are not great concern, but added up into the package that Hilo delivered during that discussion it's a cause for concern.--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 07:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  None of that seems at all different from what many users consider the opposition in long drawn out disputes to be doing. Just about everybody right now at the 740k discussion at

  WT:NOT would describe members of the opposition as dancing around the issue, repeatedly attacking other editors instead of focusing on content, not being at line with policy, wearing down the opposition, etc. Various points he has brought up are legitimate points, yet have been totally dismissed in bad faith. How is this comment:"If a nude image is unacceptable, how can it be OK for readers to encounter it by scrolling?" being used as an example of trying to "mock their arguments by using the slippery slope argument." Why did you start an RfC so soon without any clear reason for expecting a different outcome? The only difference between HiLo's behavior and what is commonly is exhibited is that he has made a few off-color remarks about other editors starting an RfC and pushing a tiresome discussion in bad faith which, if communicated more diplomatically, would have been perfectly acceptable comments. You can disagree with the way he discusses things, and you can try to genuinely express moving towards civility with some sort of peace offering, but you can't engage in a prolonged dispute with opponents you repeatedly characterize as trolls with nothing to offer, and then bring them to AN/I the moment they appear to be crossing the line.AerobicFox (talk

  ) 08:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I see plenty of evidence above of disruptive behaviour, as well as plenty evidence that the community tried to warn him against it. And again, it's the total package. Hilo seems to gone above and beyond everyone else in all aspects of the behaviour which is why it's here, and I didn't bring it here, I simply pointed out that I witnessed that behaviour and agree that it cannot happen here. Every discussion can sometimes get a little side tracked, everyone can sometimes make a little sniping comment here or there, everyone can try and dance around the issue when they can't defend their point. Sure, it happens in tons of discussions across wikipedia all the time. But the continued degree to which he did so and the way in which he did it are the problem. For a day and a half I had to repeatedly and directly ask him to explain himself and frankly he came up with one of the lamest reasons ever after promising the evidence to end all evidence, with a nice little insult tossed in on the side. At the time I did a quick search on the page and found him to basically be acting the same way in at least a half a dozen other parts of the page, and from the looks of it, his behaviour wasn't limited to the day and a half I spent there. If you think there are some other users who similarly acted up to this degree then feel free to bring them here with diffs to support it, regardless of the side. This kind of behaviour isn't needed or wanted and does nothing to benefit the encyclopedia. More trouble is Hilo's inability to

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 23:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Just about all editors(myself included) have problems with civility and with trusting other editors in heated disputes. Current talkpages across Wikipedia are littered with this mistrust. HiLo has made it clear on the talkpage he doesn't trust that your actions in creating a new RfC so soon are in good faith but an attempt to wear down opposition—a sentiment I can assure you is quite common—,but you do not trust him either, so I don't see how his distrust of your actions is different from yours of his. As far as behavior goes he stated right on the talkpage that he doesn't think you are acting in good faith, and you have stated the same thing here in an ANI, does a different forum make the same comments more appropriate, or is it that you can call him disruptive/trolling/acting in bad faith because you are right about him but that he cannot call you these things because he is wrong about you? What you have is a failure to communicate, and I would recommend better dispute resolution over seeking administrative action.AerobicFox (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with disruption in discussions about images lies elsewhere. A reasonable mutually agreed scholarly compromise on the use of historic images was worked out for the article Muhammad, involving careful exploration of secondary sources and current trends in academia. That is normal procedure in developing consensus. But now, after lying low for a period, a single user has reemerged, editing as if those lengthy discussions had never taken place. [12][13] Mathsci (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't start any RfC. So I have no idea how that is relevant to how Hilo addressed me, or any other user, except the one who started the new RfC. Whoever that was, I don't even think I was participating when that happened. Once again, there is a difference between a distrust of another person's actions and outright insults being hurled around during a discussion and repeatedly failing to answer a question despite it being the main crux of your argument. That is classic trolling 101. I only had about 10 contributions to the pregnancy talk, you're free to scrutinize them. I made a couple of good faith comments [14], [15], [16] and then Hilo showed up with his act. He become confrontational immediately, despite my just joining the conversation. [17], his first reply to my rather benign comment ended with Is that OK with you?. Despite my directly asking him to actually explain and back up what his point was (and a search of the page revealed that he had in fact NEVER explained what that meant, despite repeating it several times). When I again directly asked him to explain his argument, his response was to devolve into insults [18]. Despite his assertion that he could provide mountains of evidence, when further pressed all they would say was "it's the whole woman that's pregnant". No citations, no educational and pedagolical theory as they claimed they could provide, that's it. A day and a half spent trying to coax a coherent point out of him and that's all he could come up with. it was extremely obvious at that point that Hilo was nothing but a giant time sink, with a side of uncivil behaviour to cover up the shortcomings of the argument. The difference between Hilo and your standard person who gets involved in these debates is that Hilo appears to have repeated that behaviour excessively, with many editors and for a long period of time. That was the extent of my involvement in the debate, and I left with a sour taste in my mouth due to Hilo's actions. I've no idea why you keep addressing me as if I'm the person who started a new RfC, or did any of those other things.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"a giant time sink, with a side of uncivil behavior to cover up the shortcomings of the argument."

Being an uncivl timesink(which I don't believe is the case here) is not a blockable offense. We have had plenty of this, and indeed I could bring forth a stronger case than this here against a few other editors. The fact of the matter is that ANI is no place for such a discussion to occur. I find starting RFC's quickly after a failed RFC to be more of a time waste then arguing against said RFC's(I'm not meaning to imply that you started that RFC), and I find starting an ANI without a clear blockable need to be a timesink. If people are having troubles with an editor then they need to act like an adult, bring forth a civil(but not patronizing) discussion to their talkpage and genuinely try to make peace with said editor, and not start an ANI discussion which will doubtlessly make conditions less civil on Wikipedia. If you think HiLo is beyond the point of being able to talk with about things sincerely and without being attacked then I recommend you exert some more good faith, he isn't being a troll this is just the way he is used to arguments being, and if you are having problems with that then you need to address him sincerely and try to work something out.AerobicFox (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It most certainly is a blockable offense. It's disruptive and when done excessively enters into tenditious behaviour. "this is just the way he is used to arguments being" is a cop-out. it's not an appropriate way to conduct a debate in a group. It doesn't matter if that is what he's used to. Someone might be used to deleting the opposition and editing warring until the cows come home to get their position into an article, it doesn't mean its okay. The reason this was brought to AN/I was due to the breadth of the problem. This isn't a one on one situation. This is Hilo effecting many many editors, which is what ramps this up from the usual talk page crank to an issue that needs to be dealt with. Hilo is in control of his actions, and despite his disagreement with a new RfC, no one forced him to edit in the way he did, no one held a gun to his head and made him talk to all those other editors as he did.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Being uncivil or acting not in an "appropriate way to conduct a debate in a group" is not disruptive—you can just ignore him—"deleting the opposition and editing warring" is disruptive because you cannot ignore it. If what he was doing was forcing others to take time to deal with then an ANI would be perfectly acceptable, the fact of the matter is that your constant responses to him either a)means he has a valid point or b)means you feel needlessly responsible to comment on others bad behavior. I see an RFC started with no discernible need as well as an ANI as being more disruptive. Nobody is pointing a gun at your head telling you to respond to a post that doesn't add anything to a discussion, and HiLo is not just posting to be a troll, but is arguing what he believes in and what many other editors agree with. We don't start banning people because they're being impolite, you and other editors are perfectly capable of either trying to work something out with HiLo or ignoring his occasionally pointy comments; unless he actually starts disrupting a conversation by deleting posts or edit warring then there is nothing administrative to be done.AerobicFox (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Following your logic, why? No one forced you to reply to this or any other discussion right? Plenty of AN/I topics get completely ignored from time to time and simply disappear off the page. How could they be more disruptive than someone who is attacking several users in a debate? Being repeatedly uncivil is disruptive. From

Crossmr (talk

) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

An ANI or RFC are disruptive because users are forced to respond to them. An admin must review pages after pages of text before making a decision, the user brought to ANI must make an appearance, etc. See

dispute resolution which should be attempted before sanctioning.AerobicFox (talk

) 00:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly performing the same behaviour against several users in a discussion over a very long period of time, is harassment. As for Dispute resolution, several people already went by his talk page, this is beyond wikiquette as perspective has already been established by the several users going to him and telling him to stop, RfC is a non-binding waste of time which the user can choose to ignore, Hilo has already made their position clear that despite all the users who told them they shouldn't act like that, they see no problem with it. which leaves us with AN/I. Oh..look where we are. There was a clear on-going pattern, and several users spoke out against it. There is nothing imagined about his disruptive behaviour. The initial request was only for a ban, not a block. I only suggested a block if there was evidence that this behaviour spilled out beyond the pregnancy issue.--

Crossmr (talk

) 05:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm writing in to report a user for repeated copyright violations. It's User talk:Jerardmathew. As you can see from his talk page, he's repeatedly had pages deleted for copyright violations. He's been warned about this, but still continued to attempt to add pages that contained copyrighted information. I came to notice this while looking at an article that he'd had up for AfC. I noticed that he had a past of copyvios, so I decided to check into the matter and sure enough, this was copied off of a website. Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Kanjirapally_Pazhayapally_or_Akkarapally It looks like he isn't going to stop any time soon.

He's posted yet another attempt at creating a page (although this one is in his userspace) with yet another copyvio from the website Kajinrappally. User:Jerardmathew/Kanjirapally St. Mary's Church "Pazhayapally or Akkarapally".

I also want to note that there seems to be a large amount of people posting to the pages about Kanjirapally with copypaste information from the

• I've removed that draft and have given them a final warning with some commentary. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Early today I placed a notability tag [19] on an article created by

This guy is escalating, and frankly is getting to be a little scary. I think that a short cool-off block might do the trick. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, there's no such thing as a "cool off block" (

BWilkins ←track

) 23:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, then perhaps he should just be blocked for harassment, or at least warned to stop. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

NPA warning given, at least - accusations of being a troll are absolutely

personal attacks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}

23:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The user also refactored a post of mine from an AfD at which I pointed out that he had been following around my edits, which he obviously has been doing.[27]. Note also the comment below. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You are escalating the case. This is a clear PA, written to damage my name and fame. It is ScottyBerg who deserves a block.

_talk

00:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, and you refactored another editor's comments, which is not allowed. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed a PA, this is allowed. You have just placed a second PA.

_talk

00:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I reinstated the talk page post that you removed. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the warning, but is remarkable that mr. Berg has seen several of my edits that I had already removed as being written while angry. But I repeat, it was mr. Berg who was escalating the case. I don't think it is a strange request to "review" a notability-tag placed on an article about a TWO starred restaurant with independent sources.

About the trolling. Please look at this and this edit about mr. Berg accusations of trolling.

_talk

00:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you defending your comment "Go get a hamburger and stay away from real restaurants. You clearly have not a clue about the value of Michelin stars."? ScottyBerg (talk) 00:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I should have written it more politely, but I defend the meaning of it.

_talk

00:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about your personal attacks. I am concerned with your harassment. I asked you to stop following me around to AfDs and PRODs I have created, and you told me to "feck off" and removed my "bullshit" request. It is not a "bullshit" request. What you have been doing is clear

harassment. That is why we are here. ScottyBerg (talk

) 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm about to say "feck off" to the both of you. Is this type of behaviour from BOTH of you what we would normally expect, or is it just late on a Saturday? I don't see harassment or wikihounding... maybe some wikipoodling, but you're both looking at interaction bans perhaps being the best option. "Go eat a hamburger" is a PA? Crikey! (

BWilkins ←track

) 00:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You see nothing wrong with his following me to an AFD and two PRODs within the span of a few minutes? I thought I made it pretty clear that I was here because of that, not because of his comments.ScottyBerg (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Please, mr. Berg, calm down.

_talk

00:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

ScottyBerg: you'd be better off not getting baited by NotBW during your ANI post. Any time that an ANI looks like a tit-for-tat kerfuffle, uninvolved parties are apt to stay clear of it. NotBW: allegations that ScottyBerg is in the wrong here are pretty transparently disingenuous. Along with refraining from the petty retribution which brought this here, you'd do well to stop doing that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So while he is hounding me, I get all the blame? Nice way of problem solving.

_talk

01:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I advised both of you how to de-escalate this trivial bit of drama. The next step is to observe whether you both take that advice. Should either party fail to do so, the required administrative action will be much clearer. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and would favor hatting this, but it is not resolved. See [28][29] (removing my AfD post subsequent to Chris' remarks above). He had previously done the same thing.[30], and was told to desist. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

See also further baiting here, and here. This user was given a final warning for NPA by The Bushranger,[31] but it doesn't seem to have deterred him from further baiting and harassment, and he won't let go.ScottyBerg (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I had opened a new case, but was told to go back here. Okay, so here I am. <start copy>

The removals of the PA were conform

_talk

19:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

To avoid confusion: I did notify mr. Berg, but he did not like that.

_talk

19:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

<end copy>

• This user is edit warring at the AfD I mentioned earlier, removing a comment by me and falsely claiming it is a personal attack. It was previously reverted by another editor. I think this is his third revert in 24 hrs. He is being clearly disruptive for reasons that are beyond me. [36]. He's already been given a final warning for personal attacks, and cautioned by Thumperward to refrain from false accusations and petty retribution, but he just won't let go. I honestly don't understand what is motivating this user. He's been blocked twice in the past, so he surely knows that such things do happen. ScottyBerg (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you are getting historical to keep your insults and defamation into the page. You keep going on, and on and on. Now even throwing in a 3RR. Don't you have something usefull to do then hounding and whining, like writing articles? If it makes you happy, stick that insult up your ... I am not spending any more time on you because it is a bloody waste of time. You make me sick.

_talk

13:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked
  User:Night of the Big Wind for 24 hours for his last note here and for this one. Sorry to see it come to that, but there are bounds of acceptable behavior, and he's moved beyond them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
  15:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)