Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive786

Hysterics aside, I'd agree that the apology was somewhat specifically not a retraction, and as such this is still NLT territory. But a far better approach would be for someone to politely request such a retraction, rather than to jump back in with a block on an editor still stinging from a sharp cluebat application. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I've done so. I don't really think it matters much, so won't likely be involved further whatever happens but respect not everyone agrees so thought it best to give Czbiker the opportunity to clear this up. Nil Einne (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I do think Raeky's comments were unnecessarily nasty. They reflect a problem I've seen elsewhere on Wikipedia: too many editors think they can say whatever they want about writers who promote unusual ideas - human dignity be damned. Shuker does deserve to be treated as a real person; there's no need to be so snarky and drown him in

I'm not saying that we should actively promote Fortean claims on Wikipedia; I'm just saying that, sometimes, we need to tone down the rhetoric. Especially with regards to living people. Zagalejo^^^ 05:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I really wish people could be more mindful of the need to treat article subjects with respect, and not just in this case. What went on at Talk:Karl Shuker (and the AfD) was over the top and uncalled for, but not unique. Editors with a COI are not always conversant with how Wikipedia works. Education rather than instant attack is always better. One of the most pernicious outcomes of the exponential increase of paid editing and using Wikipededia for corporate advertisement is that as editors, we become fed up and jaded. Our first reaction is to stamp on the head of anyone with a COI. I know I've been sorely tempted myself. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A recent RfC on

• Let me give some background to this dispute. After seeing a post alerting admins to edit warring on the 3RR Noticeboard, I protected the
  no consensus for including the term. Under policy, that disputed phrasing then should be removed unless and until a new consensus is reached on whether to include it. While the initial RfC question was focused on the lead, I found that the discussion went far broader; debating whether the term was, in and of itself, an attack or sign of implied corruption. In the RfC close, I said that uncertainty about whether the term was appropriate required that the term be removed. In no way was I "dictating content", as a look of my close reasoning is based entirely upon the arguments raised in the discussion. I think my close was reasonable and I feel I'm correct to insist that there be no edit warring over the disputed phrase until a new consensus emerges. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk
  ) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff that initiated the RfC: link. The role of a closing admin would be to determine consensus on that question. To go beyond that question and decree that the term should be removed from the entire article -- and to threaten blocks if it is included -- is to use one's admin status to dictate content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the admin went beyond what was asked of him, but I also feel he preemptively headed off another edit war that would be almost certain to erupt if he had not provided some guidance in the matter. His logic seems quite unassailable: If the MLM term is contentious and potentially harmful to the

talk

) 08:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I both !voted against LR's Rfa and !voted in favor of keeping the term MLM in the lede, not to mention the article. Now this action, which I feel crosses the line. Nomo's objections are both correct and proper, in my view, and I find this new admin's actions are troubling. Jusdafax 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say (but without having found to time to read through all of the lengthy discussion yet) that I find L.R.'s closure rather incomprehensible myself. So we're told a term can't be used, even though reliable sources agree that it is appropriate, merely because some editors don't like it and think it sounds pejorative? That is a misstatement both of policy and of the weight of editorial opinion in the talkpage. Where BLP says we must avoid contentious claims, the threshold of what counts as "contentious" is quite a different one: it's about factual contention in reliable sources. I'm open to more discussion, but at first sight I'd recommend to Lord Roem he should undo this closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an important point, and in fact there are no sources independent of VanderSloot himself that contest the term (apart from one article in a Malaysian newspaper -- surely an exception that proves the rule). There's also the matter that the RfC went only for 11 days; the point was to get new voices (not just the 10 editors with a longer history on the page). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to (essentially) wheel-war to restore "MLM", as any person who thinks logically about what should be in the article must conclude, but, I increased the promenance of the fact that the company was accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme; copying from the last paragraph of the appropriate subsection to the first paragraph. Perhaps further revision should be done, but removing that is an even more clear

WP:NPOV violation. In other words, I'm replacing MLM with "accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme"; there being absolutely no doubt that that is among the most notable things about the company, and it's sourced to at least 7 reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And I think the result of the closure is contrary to policy; there need not be a consensus for inclusion, only a consensus that the material is adquately sourced by BLP standards.

WP:UNDUE weight, if adequately sourced, unless there is a consensus for exclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

11:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad close per FPaS, AR NE Ent 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• (uninvolved) Agree along the lines of Future Perfect and Arthur Rubin, the administrative issue presented is was there a well-supported consensus that this is a violation of BLP, which turns on heightened sourcing; NPOV holds that any matter that is well sourced can be presented in a neutral fashion, which turns on presentation, which is an editorial function and not an administrative one, unless in enforcement of a well founded consensus that there is no possible NPOV presentation. So, the close overstepped its mandate in dictating content, without consensus to do so. Also, censoring arguable terms used by sources counsels administrative restraint when the decision is to censor sources. MLM is not an obvious pejorative, rather than a descriptive, as shown by the discussion. And in any case it is not shown to be presented as a pejorative description of a person. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Haven't looked at the discussion or the article, so this is purely a response to others' comments. Reliable sources aren't necessarily bound by requirements that we have; in particular, if we think that the sources have been biased, we need to implement WP:NPOV by treating the subject impartially instead of praising or attacking it. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

True, certainly as a matter of well founded consensus of editorial judgment, but not an administrative fiat. Part of doing so is recording and presenting sources that have biases. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The close was proper and fully-reasoned. The concept of forumshopping in the guise of reviewing the reasoned close is problematic. In the case at hand, the more restrictive use of consensus for an edit with specific

Hmm? The term dealt with was MLM. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The "term dealt with" was, I believe the words "illegal pyramid scheme" used by Arthur Rubin a few lines above.

talk

) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with FPaS. If I were to close that, I'd have said that using the term in the lead violated
  WP:BLP. BLP is not a shield against bad words in an article. It's a shield against real world damage to a person's reputation. What we're required to do is determine if we would be the cause of that damage or not. Putting this term in the lead would be damaging because it would give too much weight to this person's life. Putting it in an appropriate section in the article, however, would not if sourced to several reliable sources and balanced with neutral language and counter viewpoints (if available).--v/r - TP
  14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be an improvement over the present situation. But it can hardly be said that there was a consensus in the RfC that putting the term in the lead was "undue". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. No consensus on a

WP:BLP defaults to the safer option. That would mean not to use it in the lead. BLP RFC's work a little different. No consensus doesn't necessarily default to 'status quo' like everywhere else.--v/r - TP

14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TParis. That was actually what I was aiming for with my close (as I mentioned undue weight at the top of the section) but then never delineated that issue. I didn't intend the close to bar the term, and gave the wrong answer when asked that. Looking back on what I wrote, I feel that I was trying to say that using the term in the lead would probably be undue weight. I apologize for not being clearer earlier in both the close itself and the comments here. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you -- but we might still contend with the view (e.g. FPaS) that the close was wrong in broader terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I also take issue with the RfC decision. I have outlined the reasons for my objections on the article talk page.[8] Either the RfC should be reopened or this should go to ArbCom. I also find it a bit odd that the admin asked if there were any objections, and when an objection was raised (based on the admins lack of experience), the objection was ignored.[9] Why ask the question if the answer doesn't matter? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology? Well, okay, but I'm not seeing the closure being either reverted or updated. NE Ent 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The initial closure of the RfC was correct as no consensus, if a little (lot) long-winded. But the RfC was about including the term MLM in the lead. Extending that discussion outside of the lead to try to ban the term from the entire article was over-reaching. -

Nathan Johnson (talk

) 16:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd to to try to justify the RfC decision post facto based on

WP:UNDUE when that issue was never raised during the RfC. If the weight issue is critical, it should have been discussed and a consensus reached on that point in particular, rather than being ramrodded by administrative decree after the fact. Rhode Island Red (talk

) 16:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP's gives administrators wide discretion when determining consensus to introduce elements that were not brought up in the RFC when they should have been because of the legal and real world damage that can be done to living people.--v/r - TP

16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within a certain scope, of course, yes. Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within reason, yes, exactly.--v/r - TP 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Several admins have passed through this BLP but refused to get further involved. I believe that Lord Roem should be given some latitude here, given that he's the only one willing to wade into this long-running edit war. For example, Barek, another admin, wrote this about the BLP: "the only reason the page is on my watchlist is due to prior edit warring complaints, and I try to monitor for those. Other than that, I simply have no interest in the person or the company, and would rather invest my limited time on other subject areas." Plenty of others have expressed similar sentiments. Andrew³²⁷ 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Other admins did get involved; they've responded numerous times to issues of edit warring, noticeboard requests, etc. They didn't get more deeply involved because an RFC hadn't been filed until this one. For context, Andrewman327 is an involved party and one of those who had been campaigning hard for removing the term MLM, so it's not surprising to see that he advises giving unlimited authority to the admin who supported his POV. However, willingness to become involved in an RFC would not be an excuse for prematurely closing an RFC, reaching erroneous conclusions, or overstepping boundaries. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Nothing in

WP:BLP says that; certainly nothing says they can supervote RFCs. NE Ent

19:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with NE Ent. Andrew, I'd say that fact argues that LR moved in on an 11 day old, active Rfc and made what appears to many here to be a hasty call that is well beyond the scope of the dispute, which combined with a threat to block, comes off as a highly top-down, authoritarian decision... instead of the consensus-based process the encyclopedia is founded upon. I am disturbed by the precedent this sets, made by an admin given the tools only weeks ago. Seems to me we are beyond "Within reason." Jusdafax 19:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent:

WP:BLP, so yes it does give administrators wide discretion.--v/r - TP

19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TPs statement was wide discretion when determining consensus (emphasis mine). LR didn't delete the article and given the sourcing by reliable sources, referencing VanderSloot's pyramid / MLM business is not a "clear violation." Can and should an admin act decisively and quickly to correct egregious BLP violations? Of course. Does that mean supervoting RfC discussing gray areas? Absolutely not. NE Ent 02:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what it means and it has been upheld and discussed on RFAs countless times. It's a standard consideration for any admin closing an AFD and any admin working a BLP RFC. Local consensus on a topic does not supersede WMF policy on BLPs and admins are responsible for ensuring that policy is enforced. As I bolded above, admins are required to enforce BLP policy and that takes precedence over procedural concerns such as closing an RFC by only summarizing the discussion or "sticking to the question".--v/r - TP 03:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just making stuff up. Show me a case when an editor was desysoped because they didn't enforce BLP policy; the AC case was about a deletion, not an Rfc close. Obviously we don't make policy at Rfa. NE Ent 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We discuss and scrutinize candidates understanding of policy at RFAs. In fact, I think there was a question in my first RFA about BLPs. Anyway, only 1 of 3 AC cases quoted was about the technical deletion of an article. But deletion of content and deletion of an article serve the same purpose. One just involved more content. I should ask you the same. Show me a case where an admin was desysoped for cautious interpretation of BLP.--v/r - TP 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Where is this headed, folks? Lord Roem has repudiated his interpretation of his own close as it applies to the body of the article, but he has conspicuously failed to revert or revise his close. Other uninvolved admins have advised that the close was indeed inappropriate in that (and perhaps other) respect(s). The lack of clarity is now facilitating further edit-warring on the article (with editors who want MLM removed exploiting the confusion, imo). An RfC is supposed to settle the dispute -- but Lord Roem's close has definitively failed to achieve that outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say give Lord Roem a little more time to revise it. In the meantime, I've protect it until he does; if that's helpful. If he doesn't by tomorrow, I'll step in and change it myself with my own timestamp.--v/r - TP 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Nomoskedasticity's question is apt. The Rfc close itself is at issue here. LR's actions should be reversed across-the-board, period, as I see this matter. The Rfc was closed early, and an incorrect decision was made at LR's own partial admission, and now LR leaves a mess for others to wade through. (Striking, issue clarified by LR.) Not a promising beginning for a new admin. We need a broader canvass here, so let's open this for discussion. Therefore the section below. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Per TParis' note on my page, and after reflecting on the comments raised in this thread, I have revised the RfC closure rationale. The new rationale is limited to the way the lead is phrased. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  Reverted. You either get to close the discussion or have an opinion in the discussion. Not both. -

  Nathan Johnson (talk

  ) 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  As I explained to NE Ent above,

  WP:Arbcom give admins great leeway in determining consensus on BLP RFCs. Reverting an admin's BLP close isn't going to do you any favors if this matter gets to Arbcom and that idea has already been thrown around several times. Specifically, you need to be aware that "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns."--v/r - TP

  15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. This sort of close is contrary to the consensus-based core mission of Wikipedia itelf. I also support a "trouting" for rookie administrator Lord Roem. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's been sufficient trouting; LR has responded to the community feedback in reevaluating his closing statement. NE Ent 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - No one is trying to take advantage of this confusion, as has been implied above. People simply feel as if the situation was resolved, but have different impressions as to how, so have been acting accordingly. The page is now locked again to ensure this stops, which was a good step. Many editors weighed in, with a large amount of good thought. Let's try and be collaborative rather than combative on this Wikipedia project, and move forward from the revised RFC close no matter the result. Additional RFCs or a move to arbcom may occur, but let us decide this after our immediate concern has been addressed. No one argued about Lord Roem being involved until he started saying things that certain parties disagreed with and things started leaning away from them in terms of the weight of arguments. It is natural for a few of the stauncher supporters of having MLM in the lead will be unhappy with the decision, but that in and of itself is not grounds to throw the RFC result out in its entirety. I'm not fighting for either side, I would just like to see this official action brought to its eventual conclusion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "imply" it, I stated it explicitly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• No one is talking about having LR "removed," at Arbcom, like a community ban. This is a proposal for the mere reversal of a bad call, the too-early close of an Rfc. Why not let the community decide on that issue? Jusdafax 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The RfC decision was flawed on multiple levels and closed prematurely. The core claim of the admin's closure summary was the belief that the term multi-level marketing carries inherently negative connotations and therefore should not be used in an article for that reason, despite the fact that the MLM detail is widely and reliably sourced. It was an arbitrary and puzzling decision without basis in fact and which conflicted with the consensus view of the outside editors who commented on the issue -- the very people who the RfC was intended to solicit and whose opinion should have carried the most weight (instead they were essentially ignored). This decision (a bureaucratic fiat) also sets a precedent that has far reaching implications for virtually every article in which MLM is mentioned in WP (and there are dozens if not hundreds that do so). The admin has now backslid on their conclusions several times so that now even the rationale for the decision is unclear. Either the RfC should reopened or this needs to go to ArbCom. The former would seem to be most appropriate at this stage. For full disclosure, I was one of the previously involved parties participating in the RfC (as were Andrew and Collect, who argued for removal of MLM). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The summary for Lord Roem's closure, despite being amended, is still based on a fundamentally flawed argument; i.e., Lord Roem said "there is no consensus as to whether this term (MLM) is, in and of itself, a term that implies corruption or illegality". This is a gobsmacking conclusion -- it is simply wrong at its core. There is no way that this conclusion can withstand scrutiny. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on a reading of that discussion, I don't agree. I've read through most of the comments there, and only a handful of people commented on whether MLM was a negative term. You indicated it wasn't, and Jeremy112233 indicated it was, amidst all of it, and a few other people made much more vague allusions. Considering how few of all the participants in the discussion commented on that particular thing, I think LR's assessment that there was no consensus on that answer is fair. If you believe that conclusion is 'wrong at its core', can you point to where consensus on the negative nature of the term has been clearly established? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My argument was that there was a consensus viewpoint that the term is not intrinsically negative; not the opposite as you stated above. I base that assessment on the the nearly unanimous comments (4 out of 5) from outside editors who commented (I ignored the fifth because it came from a newbie and didn't make much sense). The comments were as follows:[10]

1. Prhartcom: "The term is simply a label describing a business practice or strategy. In this light, it emanates neither negative nor positive connotations."
2. Capitalismojo: "MLM is a long established marketing approach. I see nothing to concern BLP issues and it is clearly the foundation of the subject's wealth and hence notability."
3. Jusdafax: "I support the inclusion of the term 'MLM' as a descriptor of his company's business activity, which seems simple enough … Those pushing with vehemence against it strain my observance of WP:AGF, and invite speculation as to their motives."
4. FurrySings: "VanderSloot is primarily a businessman – what his business is, and what it does should be in the lead. MLM is just a business strategy, I see no BLP concern. The term should be used since it accurately describes his business. Also, I agree with what Prhartcom said".

The RfC was intended to solicit views from outside editors, yet these views were ignored. Why? The FTC acknowledges that MLM is a legal and recognized business model. The assertion that the term MLM is intrinsically negative is opinion-based, not fact based, and it is a red herring. No one presented any evidence whatsoever to adequately support such a conclusion. The negative connotations angle was not a central point at the outset of the RfC; if it was, more people surely would have commented on that detail specifically. If we were to go back to RfC and focus on this point specifically, it would wither on the vine. The admin's summary of the RfC indicated that a consensus supports using "MLM" in the body text of the article but that the term shouldn't be in the lead because it might have negative connotations. How can the term have negative connotations if it's in the lead but not when it's in the body text. The conclusion makes no sense at all -- flawed at its core IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This BLP needs to move forward, and Lord Roem's amended RFC closure enables it to do just that. It is within policy and there isn't exactly a long line of admins chomping at the bit to get involved in this fight. Let the RFC stand and allow editors to try to collaborate on remaining issues. Andrew³²⁷ 13:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The aim here should be to achieve long-term stability and resolve the conflict conclusively. Those aims have not been accomplished, as the admin's decision appears to have created more problems than it has solved. Reopening the hastily closed RfC would allow the matter to be resolved properly. Surely that would be a good thing. As for the number of admins who might be "chomping (sic) at the bit" to get involved, I am not aware of any list that provides this information, but regardless, I don't see how admin availability would be a hindrance. Seems like a very odd assertion to make as the basis for not re-opening the RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing has continued at various articles after

Also, I recommend re-protecting

Tales of Moonlight and Rain and its talk page per this threat to resume their behavior there "sooner or later".--Cúchullain ^t/c

04:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I found another one,

talk

) 02:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And another one:

talk

) 06:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

These IPs aren't exactly dynamic as there's a clear range he's operating within. A couple of well constructed range blocks might eliminate the problem for some time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The sock has now reverted my removal of inaccurate fringe material from

talk

) 10:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Semi-protect that article as well. I've gone back and undone that edit, apologies if anything decent in there got nuked as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think Mysterious Island is JoshuSasori. The edit summaries follow a different style.--v/r - TP 16:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been accused of

• My 2 cents - first and foremost, thank you for self reporting this here. My initial comments are that
  WP:VICTIM discussion out and put it at a higher level {{comment}}, perhaps above the !votes to explain your view on how/if that policy applies, rather than replying to each !voter who uses that link in their argument.  7 
  05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think there's an extent to which participants at AFD are more sensitive to
  WP:BLUDGEON? Sure, maybe. Is it a hanging offence? No, not really (at least I hope not; I'm sure I've been guilty of it a few times!). It's just seen as generally not collegial. I see you've not been tempted to respond to the last few comments - probably best. And  7 's advice above is good. As you noted there, the essay says "it is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy, or asking a question". No need to respond to every one. Stalwart111
  08:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Questioning every vote that is contrary to yours is also considered to be badgering. Make your policy -based point the first time, and AGF that all goes nicely --(
  BWilkins←✎
  ) 11:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

On a totally and utterly unrelated note, could somebody trout

WP:SIG#Images Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't trout him, but I approached him as any editor could/should have (

BWilkins←✎

) 13:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's him again. For context see this SPI. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There was an indef block in place for a few minutes. I have no idea where it went. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A recent RfC on

• Let me give some background to this dispute. After seeing a post alerting admins to edit warring on the 3RR Noticeboard, I protected the
  no consensus for including the term. Under policy, that disputed phrasing then should be removed unless and until a new consensus is reached on whether to include it. While the initial RfC question was focused on the lead, I found that the discussion went far broader; debating whether the term was, in and of itself, an attack or sign of implied corruption. In the RfC close, I said that uncertainty about whether the term was appropriate required that the term be removed. In no way was I "dictating content", as a look of my close reasoning is based entirely upon the arguments raised in the discussion. I think my close was reasonable and I feel I'm correct to insist that there be no edit warring over the disputed phrase until a new consensus emerges. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk
  ) 07:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff that initiated the RfC: link. The role of a closing admin would be to determine consensus on that question. To go beyond that question and decree that the term should be removed from the entire article -- and to threaten blocks if it is included -- is to use one's admin status to dictate content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the admin went beyond what was asked of him, but I also feel he preemptively headed off another edit war that would be almost certain to erupt if he had not provided some guidance in the matter. His logic seems quite unassailable: If the MLM term is contentious and potentially harmful to the

talk

) 08:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I both !voted against LR's Rfa and !voted in favor of keeping the term MLM in the lede, not to mention the article. Now this action, which I feel crosses the line. Nomo's objections are both correct and proper, in my view, and I find this new admin's actions are troubling. Jusdafax 08:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to say (but without having found to time to read through all of the lengthy discussion yet) that I find L.R.'s closure rather incomprehensible myself. So we're told a term can't be used, even though reliable sources agree that it is appropriate, merely because some editors don't like it and think it sounds pejorative? That is a misstatement both of policy and of the weight of editorial opinion in the talkpage. Where BLP says we must avoid contentious claims, the threshold of what counts as "contentious" is quite a different one: it's about factual contention in reliable sources. I'm open to more discussion, but at first sight I'd recommend to Lord Roem he should undo this closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an important point, and in fact there are no sources independent of VanderSloot himself that contest the term (apart from one article in a Malaysian newspaper -- surely an exception that proves the rule). There's also the matter that the RfC went only for 11 days; the point was to get new voices (not just the 10 editors with a longer history on the page). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to (essentially) wheel-war to restore "MLM", as any person who thinks logically about what should be in the article must conclude, but, I increased the promenance of the fact that the company was accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme; copying from the last paragraph of the appropriate subsection to the first paragraph. Perhaps further revision should be done, but removing that is an even more clear

WP:NPOV violation. In other words, I'm replacing MLM with "accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme"; there being absolutely no doubt that that is among the most notable things about the company, and it's sourced to at least 7 reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

11:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And I think the result of the closure is contrary to policy; there need not be a consensus for inclusion, only a consensus that the material is adquately sourced by BLP standards.

WP:UNDUE weight, if adequately sourced, unless there is a consensus for exclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

11:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad close per FPaS, AR NE Ent 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• (uninvolved) Agree along the lines of Future Perfect and Arthur Rubin, the administrative issue presented is was there a well-supported consensus that this is a violation of BLP, which turns on heightened sourcing; NPOV holds that any matter that is well sourced can be presented in a neutral fashion, which turns on presentation, which is an editorial function and not an administrative one, unless in enforcement of a well founded consensus that there is no possible NPOV presentation. So, the close overstepped its mandate in dictating content, without consensus to do so. Also, censoring arguable terms used by sources counsels administrative restraint when the decision is to censor sources. MLM is not an obvious pejorative, rather than a descriptive, as shown by the discussion. And in any case it is not shown to be presented as a pejorative description of a person. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Haven't looked at the discussion or the article, so this is purely a response to others' comments. Reliable sources aren't necessarily bound by requirements that we have; in particular, if we think that the sources have been biased, we need to implement WP:NPOV by treating the subject impartially instead of praising or attacking it. Nyttend (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

True, certainly as a matter of well founded consensus of editorial judgment, but not an administrative fiat. Part of doing so is recording and presenting sources that have biases. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The close was proper and fully-reasoned. The concept of forumshopping in the guise of reviewing the reasoned close is problematic. In the case at hand, the more restrictive use of consensus for an edit with specific

Hmm? The term dealt with was MLM. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The "term dealt with" was, I believe the words "illegal pyramid scheme" used by Arthur Rubin a few lines above.

talk

) 00:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree with FPaS. If I were to close that, I'd have said that using the term in the lead violated
  WP:BLP. BLP is not a shield against bad words in an article. It's a shield against real world damage to a person's reputation. What we're required to do is determine if we would be the cause of that damage or not. Putting this term in the lead would be damaging because it would give too much weight to this person's life. Putting it in an appropriate section in the article, however, would not if sourced to several reliable sources and balanced with neutral language and counter viewpoints (if available).--v/r - TP
  14:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be an improvement over the present situation. But it can hardly be said that there was a consensus in the RfC that putting the term in the lead was "undue". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. No consensus on a

WP:BLP defaults to the safer option. That would mean not to use it in the lead. BLP RFC's work a little different. No consensus doesn't necessarily default to 'status quo' like everywhere else.--v/r - TP

14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TParis. That was actually what I was aiming for with my close (as I mentioned undue weight at the top of the section) but then never delineated that issue. I didn't intend the close to bar the term, and gave the wrong answer when asked that. Looking back on what I wrote, I feel that I was trying to say that using the term in the lead would probably be undue weight. I apologize for not being clearer earlier in both the close itself and the comments here. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you -- but we might still contend with the view (e.g. FPaS) that the close was wrong in broader terms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I also take issue with the RfC decision. I have outlined the reasons for my objections on the article talk page.[15] Either the RfC should be reopened or this should go to ArbCom. I also find it a bit odd that the admin asked if there were any objections, and when an objection was raised (based on the admins lack of experience), the objection was ignored.[16] Why ask the question if the answer doesn't matter? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Apology? Well, okay, but I'm not seeing the closure being either reverted or updated. NE Ent 19:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The initial closure of the RfC was correct as no consensus, if a little (lot) long-winded. But the RfC was about including the term MLM in the lead. Extending that discussion outside of the lead to try to ban the term from the entire article was over-reaching. -

Nathan Johnson (talk

) 16:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems odd to to try to justify the RfC decision post facto based on

WP:UNDUE when that issue was never raised during the RfC. If the weight issue is critical, it should have been discussed and a consensus reached on that point in particular, rather than being ramrodded by administrative decree after the fact. Rhode Island Red (talk

) 16:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP's gives administrators wide discretion when determining consensus to introduce elements that were not brought up in the RFC when they should have been because of the legal and real world damage that can be done to living people.--v/r - TP

16:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within a certain scope, of course, yes. Basket _Feudalist 16:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Within reason, yes, exactly.--v/r - TP 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Several admins have passed through this BLP but refused to get further involved. I believe that Lord Roem should be given some latitude here, given that he's the only one willing to wade into this long-running edit war. For example, Barek, another admin, wrote this about the BLP: "the only reason the page is on my watchlist is due to prior edit warring complaints, and I try to monitor for those. Other than that, I simply have no interest in the person or the company, and would rather invest my limited time on other subject areas." Plenty of others have expressed similar sentiments. Andrew³²⁷ 18:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Other admins did get involved; they've responded numerous times to issues of edit warring, noticeboard requests, etc. They didn't get more deeply involved because an RFC hadn't been filed until this one. For context, Andrewman327 is an involved party and one of those who had been campaigning hard for removing the term MLM, so it's not surprising to see that he advises giving unlimited authority to the admin who supported his POV. However, willingness to become involved in an RFC would not be an excuse for prematurely closing an RFC, reaching erroneous conclusions, or overstepping boundaries. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Nothing in

WP:BLP says that; certainly nothing says they can supervote RFCs. NE Ent

19:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree with NE Ent. Andrew, I'd say that fact argues that LR moved in on an 11 day old, active Rfc and made what appears to many here to be a hasty call that is well beyond the scope of the dispute, which combined with a threat to block, comes off as a highly top-down, authoritarian decision... instead of the consensus-based process the encyclopedia is founded upon. I am disturbed by the precedent this sets, made by an admin given the tools only weeks ago. Seems to me we are beyond "Within reason." Jusdafax 19:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent:

WP:BLP, so yes it does give administrators wide discretion.--v/r - TP

19:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

TPs statement was wide discretion when determining consensus (emphasis mine). LR didn't delete the article and given the sourcing by reliable sources, referencing VanderSloot's pyramid / MLM business is not a "clear violation." Can and should an admin act decisively and quickly to correct egregious BLP violations? Of course. Does that mean supervoting RfC discussing gray areas? Absolutely not. NE Ent 02:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what it means and it has been upheld and discussed on RFAs countless times. It's a standard consideration for any admin closing an AFD and any admin working a BLP RFC. Local consensus on a topic does not supersede WMF policy on BLPs and admins are responsible for ensuring that policy is enforced. As I bolded above, admins are required to enforce BLP policy and that takes precedence over procedural concerns such as closing an RFC by only summarizing the discussion or "sticking to the question".--v/r - TP 03:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

That's just making stuff up. Show me a case when an editor was desysoped because they didn't enforce BLP policy; the AC case was about a deletion, not an Rfc close. Obviously we don't make policy at Rfa. NE Ent 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

We discuss and scrutinize candidates understanding of policy at RFAs. In fact, I think there was a question in my first RFA about BLPs. Anyway, only 1 of 3 AC cases quoted was about the technical deletion of an article. But deletion of content and deletion of an article serve the same purpose. One just involved more content. I should ask you the same. Show me a case where an admin was desysoped for cautious interpretation of BLP.--v/r - TP 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• Where is this headed, folks? Lord Roem has repudiated his interpretation of his own close as it applies to the body of the article, but he has conspicuously failed to revert or revise his close. Other uninvolved admins have advised that the close was indeed inappropriate in that (and perhaps other) respect(s). The lack of clarity is now facilitating further edit-warring on the article (with editors who want MLM removed exploiting the confusion, imo). An RfC is supposed to settle the dispute -- but Lord Roem's close has definitively failed to achieve that outcome. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd say give Lord Roem a little more time to revise it. In the meantime, I've protect it until he does; if that's helpful. If he doesn't by tomorrow, I'll step in and change it myself with my own timestamp.--v/r - TP 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Nomoskedasticity's question is apt. The Rfc close itself is at issue here. LR's actions should be reversed across-the-board, period, as I see this matter. The Rfc was closed early, and an incorrect decision was made at LR's own partial admission, and now LR leaves a mess for others to wade through. (Striking, issue clarified by LR.) Not a promising beginning for a new admin. We need a broader canvass here, so let's open this for discussion. Therefore the section below. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
• Per TParis' note on my page, and after reflecting on the comments raised in this thread, I have revised the RfC closure rationale. The new rationale is limited to the way the lead is phrased. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  Reverted. You either get to close the discussion or have an opinion in the discussion. Not both. -

  Nathan Johnson (talk

  ) 13:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  As I explained to NE Ent above,

  WP:Arbcom give admins great leeway in determining consensus on BLP RFCs. Reverting an admin's BLP close isn't going to do you any favors if this matter gets to Arbcom and that idea has already been thrown around several times. Specifically, you need to be aware that "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns."--v/r - TP

  15:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer. This sort of close is contrary to the consensus-based core mission of Wikipedia itelf. I also support a "trouting" for rookie administrator Lord Roem. Jusdafax 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• There's been sufficient trouting; LR has responded to the community feedback in reevaluating his closing statement. NE Ent 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - No one is trying to take advantage of this confusion, as has been implied above. People simply feel as if the situation was resolved, but have different impressions as to how, so have been acting accordingly. The page is now locked again to ensure this stops, which was a good step. Many editors weighed in, with a large amount of good thought. Let's try and be collaborative rather than combative on this Wikipedia project, and move forward from the revised RFC close no matter the result. Additional RFCs or a move to arbcom may occur, but let us decide this after our immediate concern has been addressed. No one argued about Lord Roem being involved until he started saying things that certain parties disagreed with and things started leaning away from them in terms of the weight of arguments. It is natural for a few of the stauncher supporters of having MLM in the lead will be unhappy with the decision, but that in and of itself is not grounds to throw the RFC result out in its entirety. I'm not fighting for either side, I would just like to see this official action brought to its eventual conclusion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't "imply" it, I stated it explicitly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• No one is talking about having LR "removed," at Arbcom, like a community ban. This is a proposal for the mere reversal of a bad call, the too-early close of an Rfc. Why not let the community decide on that issue? Jusdafax 01:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The RfC decision was flawed on multiple levels and closed prematurely. The core claim of the admin's closure summary was the belief that the term multi-level marketing carries inherently negative connotations and therefore should not be used in an article for that reason, despite the fact that the MLM detail is widely and reliably sourced. It was an arbitrary and puzzling decision without basis in fact and which conflicted with the consensus view of the outside editors who commented on the issue -- the very people who the RfC was intended to solicit and whose opinion should have carried the most weight (instead they were essentially ignored). This decision (a bureaucratic fiat) also sets a precedent that has far reaching implications for virtually every article in which MLM is mentioned in WP (and there are dozens if not hundreds that do so). The admin has now backslid on their conclusions several times so that now even the rationale for the decision is unclear. Either the RfC should reopened or this needs to go to ArbCom. The former would seem to be most appropriate at this stage. For full disclosure, I was one of the previously involved parties participating in the RfC (as were Andrew and Collect, who argued for removal of MLM). Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The summary for Lord Roem's closure, despite being amended, is still based on a fundamentally flawed argument; i.e., Lord Roem said "there is no consensus as to whether this term (MLM) is, in and of itself, a term that implies corruption or illegality". This is a gobsmacking conclusion -- it is simply wrong at its core. There is no way that this conclusion can withstand scrutiny. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on a reading of that discussion, I don't agree. I've read through most of the comments there, and only a handful of people commented on whether MLM was a negative term. You indicated it wasn't, and Jeremy112233 indicated it was, amidst all of it, and a few other people made much more vague allusions. Considering how few of all the participants in the discussion commented on that particular thing, I think LR's assessment that there was no consensus on that answer is fair. If you believe that conclusion is 'wrong at its core', can you point to where consensus on the negative nature of the term has been clearly established? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 03:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My argument was that there was a consensus viewpoint that the term is not intrinsically negative; not the opposite as you stated above. I base that assessment on the the nearly unanimous comments (4 out of 5) from outside editors who commented (I ignored the fifth because it came from a newbie and didn't make much sense). The comments were as follows:[17]

1. Prhartcom: "The term is simply a label describing a business practice or strategy. In this light, it emanates neither negative nor positive connotations."
2. Capitalismojo: "MLM is a long established marketing approach. I see nothing to concern BLP issues and it is clearly the foundation of the subject's wealth and hence notability."
3. Jusdafax: "I support the inclusion of the term 'MLM' as a descriptor of his company's business activity, which seems simple enough … Those pushing with vehemence against it strain my observance of WP:AGF, and invite speculation as to their motives."
4. FurrySings: "VanderSloot is primarily a businessman – what his business is, and what it does should be in the lead. MLM is just a business strategy, I see no BLP concern. The term should be used since it accurately describes his business. Also, I agree with what Prhartcom said".

The RfC was intended to solicit views from outside editors, yet these views were ignored. Why? The FTC acknowledges that MLM is a legal and recognized business model. The assertion that the term MLM is intrinsically negative is opinion-based, not fact based, and it is a red herring. No one presented any evidence whatsoever to adequately support such a conclusion. The negative connotations angle was not a central point at the outset of the RfC; if it was, more people surely would have commented on that detail specifically. If we were to go back to RfC and focus on this point specifically, it would wither on the vine. The admin's summary of the RfC indicated that a consensus supports using "MLM" in the body text of the article but that the term shouldn't be in the lead because it might have negative connotations. How can the term have negative connotations if it's in the lead but not when it's in the body text. The conclusion makes no sense at all -- flawed at its core IMO. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This BLP needs to move forward, and Lord Roem's amended RFC closure enables it to do just that. It is within policy and there isn't exactly a long line of admins chomping at the bit to get involved in this fight. Let the RFC stand and allow editors to try to collaborate on remaining issues. Andrew³²⁷ 13:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The aim here should be to achieve long-term stability and resolve the conflict conclusively. Those aims have not been accomplished, as the admin's decision appears to have created more problems than it has solved. Reopening the hastily closed RfC would allow the matter to be resolved properly. Surely that would be a good thing. As for the number of admins who might be "chomping (sic) at the bit" to get involved, I am not aware of any list that provides this information, but regardless, I don't see how admin availability would be a hindrance. Seems like a very odd assertion to make as the basis for not re-opening the RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing has continued at various articles after

Also, I recommend re-protecting

Tales of Moonlight and Rain and its talk page per this threat to resume their behavior there "sooner or later".--Cúchullain ^t/c

04:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I found another one,

talk

) 02:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And another one:

talk

) 06:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

These IPs aren't exactly dynamic as there's a clear range he's operating within. A couple of well constructed range blocks might eliminate the problem for some time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The sock has now reverted my removal of inaccurate fringe material from

talk

) 10:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Semi-protect that article as well. I've gone back and undone that edit, apologies if anything decent in there got nuked as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think Mysterious Island is JoshuSasori. The edit summaries follow a different style.--v/r - TP 16:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have been accused of

• My 2 cents - first and foremost, thank you for self reporting this here. My initial comments are that
  WP:VICTIM discussion out and put it at a higher level {{comment}}, perhaps above the !votes to explain your view on how/if that policy applies, rather than replying to each !voter who uses that link in their argument.  7 
  05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think there's an extent to which participants at AFD are more sensitive to
  WP:BLUDGEON? Sure, maybe. Is it a hanging offence? No, not really (at least I hope not; I'm sure I've been guilty of it a few times!). It's just seen as generally not collegial. I see you've not been tempted to respond to the last few comments - probably best. And  7 's advice above is good. As you noted there, the essay says "it is okay to answer one or two comments that are either quoting the wrong policy, or asking a question". No need to respond to every one. Stalwart111
  08:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
• Questioning every vote that is contrary to yours is also considered to be badgering. Make your policy -based point the first time, and AGF that all goes nicely --(
  BWilkins←✎
  ) 11:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

On a totally and utterly unrelated note, could somebody trout

WP:SIG#Images Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

12:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't trout him, but I approached him as any editor could/should have (

BWilkins←✎

) 13:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's him again. For context see this SPI. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There was an indef block in place for a few minutes. I have no idea where it went. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Now blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding User:Aoclery, there is a long list of incidents:

• Personal attacks:

diff diff diff warning diff diff diff diff diff

• WP:OWN
  :

diff diff diff diff warning diff

• Avoiding reaching concensus:

diff diff

• Not providing reliable sources c.q. removal of maintenance-templates:

diff warning diff diff diff warning #2 diff

• Original research:

diff

• Vandalism:

warning diff warning #2

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathon was harrassing me by continually editing the ajativada page he was put up to this by his fellow non djualist john le kay...and he doesn't understand the concept either .How can you edit something you cannot grasp...that is why i exposed it on my facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aoclery (talk • contribs) 20:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed this editor but with a message, as you will see from the diff, that this can be immediately lifted if he is willing to desist from personal attacks and from claiming ownership of pages. I didn't feel inclined to go for escalating blocks as this kind of attitude either needs to change (in which case the block can be lifted instantly) or if this doesn't happen, be permanently prevented. I'll be happy for another admin to review this block and make it time-limited if they feel this is better, and/or to lift it if an effective appeal is made. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• This guy's made too many attacks, and been too unconstructive to be worth unbanning any time soon. Good call on the indef. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Leave it indef definately: [22] & [23]. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I have a strong concern with the account User:Katiefisher because she is part of Public Relations for the subject of Bill Browder. I had my suspicions that she was editing as the IP in what appears to be a whitewash attempt at this page so I did a simple google search and found [[24]]. Not sure this raises to the level of a blocking concern so I'm bringing it here for advice and opinions.

• [[25]] is a good example of the POV pushing.
• I reverted the change that was put on the page (original and neutral title was Criminal Charges of Tax Evasion (simply a fact not leading arguments one way or another), the change was made to "Persecution by the Russian legal system" (purely a non nuetral heading)[[26]]
• I did this to make it a more neutral tone as well [[27]]
• Youtube is not a [[ reliable source and when it's a statement by the person invovled can not be used [[28]]
• And this was a purely grammatical edit [[29]] while also removing what appears to be a
  WP:SYNTHESIS
  .

The claim has been made is that these are defamatory and libelous changes[[30]]. These are serious claims that should be examined by the community at large to determine the course forward to the benefit of everyone involved. Thank you, unless specifically asked I do not have anything further to say here regarding this issue as I would prefer a consensus be reached and my opinions in this matter are sufficiently stated.

I see where this is going, but perhaps if someone explained to her NLT then this might be a non issue? Of course a block for NLT would prevent the NPOV violations, but the end doesn't justify the means.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One thing to state here, a block may not be the answer I think that the main concern here is that we indeed have a neutral article and some eyes more experienced then mine would sure help.

talk

) 13:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You failed to notify the editor of this ANI. I took the liberty of doing so myself.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• [[31]] Lol I informed it just got screwed up...
  talk
  ) 13:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to notify yourself on a regular basis (

BWilkins←✎

) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Arg. I can never see your name and not think "Bilbo" now....  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why I was supposed to consider being called "Bilbo" an insult. But hey, the road goes ever on and on... (

BWilkins←✎

) 13:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My cat is called Bilbo... so I don't see how that's supposed to be an insult either... Lukeno94 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because it sounds like dildo?--v/r - TP 16:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the purpose of that instrument, why again would that be an insult? (

BWilkins←✎

) 21:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for this maybe "strange" report but looking for Brunodam's puppet I can assure there's a sufficient background. Here you can find a potential edit-war and before starting a revert-war I'd ask a mediation from some keen sysop. From my experience I know (per above) that the other position (the use of *only* modern names instead of historical ones or the mix of both which is my favourite solution) seems to be irreducible, that's why I'm skipping talkpage asking for administrative intervention directly. Though I think it's time for a TB for DIREKTOR, please take a look at what is happening to the page. Please note even the name of Fiume's historical State has been turned into an anachronistic free State of Rijeka before my intervention: honestly I have not enough time to find how many vandalisms such as this are in our pages, but I'm scared of the high potential number of them --Vituzzu (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Using my Sherlock Holmes-esque deductive skills to piece together the completely omitted context here:

1. "Brunodam's puppet" refers to
   talk · contribs
   ), who apparently still socks here (although it's not immediately obvious what similarity is being made to Brunodam's edits here).
2. "Fiume" and "Rijeka" are the Italian and Croatian names respectively for a town which has belonged to both, and the diff shows
   talk · contribs
   ) changing the former to the latter under the rationale that "Rijeka" is the English name for the settlement (presumably regardless of historical period).
3. Vituzzu considers this "vandalisms" and is requesting an unspecified topic ban on DIREKTOR, along with other unspecified administrative action.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Dozens of en.wiki's sysops have a deep knowledge of this kind of "affair" and they are the main target of my request which doesn't contain any specific request for administrative actions in order to avoid any kind of influence

I bet your Sherlock Holmes-eqsue got lazy while investigating ;p

--Vituzzu (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. An ANI thread. Doesn't this belong on the talkpage? Mind you, I've not been properly informed of the report, as

WP:AN

(where I have been directed) is empty of any threads on this. Up 'til now I assumed Vituzzu's thread was simply scrapped, being aware AN is not the appropriate venue.

• If you direct your attention to the "
  WP:NCGN
  ). Its just that some Italian users hanging around such articles find it, shall we say, "distasteful" not to use Italian-language terms there for foreign lands claimed by Italy.
• As I explain in my edit summary, the user is correct in reverting the "Free State of Rijeka". "Free State of Fiume" is the English-language name, and I did not restore the mistake. Either Vituzzu did not read my edit summary, or its a deliberate straw man.
• I have no idea why Brunodam was mentioned.. If the user is actually suggesting I am his sock, I'd like to point out I was among the folks who originally reported him for socking all those years back; and he's hardly the one to be removing Italian-language terms (quite the opposite). One explanation might be that Vituzzu is, in fact, Brunodam's sock...? I don't know.

There you have it. --

talk

) 16:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Direktor, Vituzzu is a WMF Steward. While not impossible, it makes him an unlikely sock candidate. Vituzzu, I think you've fallen prey to a difference in IT vs EN policies. I just don't see a single revert as ANI worthy. Did I miss something?--v/r - TP 17:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I assure you, accusing me of being Brunodam's sock is even more ridiculous. Like I said, I have no idea why he's mentioned. --

talk

) 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

An intercessory poem

"My friend, you would not say with such high zest
to children who'd write history so tricky,
the New Lie: Dulce et Decorum est
Pro Patria Wiki."

"It is good and proper to edit-war for one's country." DS (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

AKA quis custodiet custodes?... Who will edit-war the edit-warriors?! Basket _Feudalist 16:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Other edit-warriors? :) --

talk

) 21:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For several days, anon

Sounds like they've probably violated

WP:3RR. Might be best to take it to the appropriate noticeboard after giving them the standard warning. Doniago (talk

) 01:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No, no technical 3RR violation, and my experience generally is that slow-motion edit warring by an anon does not result in action at the 3RR notice board. I'm more concerned with his unwillingness to discuss. Cresix (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This anon appears to be the same editor as 69.231.39.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both have made similar disruptive edits. 64.183.48.206 recently came off a one week block for IP hopping to make disruptive edits. Cresix (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP is still edit warring even though they didn't violate the 3RR, which is blockable. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, for future reference you might want to take things like this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are some films where the plot is complex enough that a little excess verbiage is required to give a good accounting of it, but Lolita is not one of the them, the story is fairly straight-forward. IP should be blocked for edit-warring. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I left a pretty clear waring on the users talk page. If there is anymore edit warring the user should be blocked immediately. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 03:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Even I've reverted a no. of edits by this IP. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC).

The IP did respond at its talk page, at 00:53, 15 February 2013: "It's very important that the Ping Pong game that is played in the film, be mentioned before the piano playing. Also the word "Let" really should be the word "Rent" TO "Let" is the wrong form of word that is used." 69.95.203.11 (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Both IPs look like potential Bambifan socks to me. There are a couple common targets that pop up in both of their contribs (not naming them here) that are tells. Are there any admins/editors who have more experience with Bambifan who could take a look? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Reverted 69.231.45.122 and blocked 64.183.48.206. I don't want to assume just yet that those are the same though I suppose there is no basis for my assumption besides ridiculous good faith and the clock, which tells me I need to be doing other things. I encourage further digging. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

IP has now hopped to 69.231.45.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Cresix (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Drmies blocked the 69...122 IP. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at 109.48.79.85's contributions? He is removing interwiki links for what seems to be a dubious reason, but I cannot be certain of that. Someone with more knowledge of such things should take a look. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Without looking too deep, with the release of Wikipedia:Wikidata, interlanguage links on en.wikipedia are redundant, unless they aren't already on Wikidata. Not sure if that's the issue here, but just wanted to make sure that was spoken :) gwickwire^talk_edits 21:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the editor's improving the project here. The only concern would be if he's removing them from pages that don't contain a link to edit the links in the side bar. Handy Mandy in Oz is an example of one where the links shouldn't be removed. Ryan Vesey 21:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

See, this is exactly why I am glad I came here, because none of what you guys are saying is at all familiar to me. My question now is whether I should revert my reversions of his edits. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't change much on the page, but if I were you I'd self revert. Just in case the IP didn't make sure, check to see that the interlanguage links aren't removed from the sidebar afterwards (or check beforehand by seeing if the edit link exists under the interlanguage links). More information on the interlanguage links can be seen at

WP:VPP#Are interlanguage links unnecessary now?, that page also says that it's best not to remove the links all at once, but rather to remove them from an article when you are editing it anyways. Ryan Vesey

22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The key thing to check is that all interwiki links are now on Wikidata. To check this, enter the title of the article in question into the search box at http://www.wikidata.org and go to the article's Wikidata page. There you see all interwiki links known to Wikidata. In simple cases (all articles are precisely equivalent), you can simply add any missing interwiki links. (Typically these are interwiki links added since December.) I don't know what to do in more complicated cases. Hans Adler 22:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)