Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Catherine Zeta-Jones/archive1

I believe the delegates are very aware of Light show/Wikiwatcher and his vendetta so I wouldn't worry much about this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, now the spoiled adult child has spread his venom at FAC-and all because in his mind, only HIS opinion matters. This editor has bullied and harasssed other editors for a number of years in a similar fashion, when he can't get his own way. And before "ABF" gets written here, rest assured there are diffs which can prove this. This went on and on at one FAC article for at least two years.  Long after the FAC, the editor continued to bother the main editors of the article and attempted to pick holes in what they had done--and had passed--as an FA.  I don't know how many of you are tired of this, but I know I certainly am; a permanent solution to the issues raised by this editor needs to be forthcoming. We hope (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Just one of the many incidents with the editor: Peter Sellers ban. We hope (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And another-Stanley Kubrick ban We hope (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * But also note that the gratuitous links go to the midsection of those threads. --Light show (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It must be difficult being the only one who thinks you're right. I see a lot of support and indef votes here. We hope (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering the comments and uncalled for changes displayed on the talk page, I think Light show might be heading for a third topic ban. JAG  UAR   17:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Jaguar, just how many more topic bans are needed? Banned at Peter Sellers, banned at Kubrick (see above), banned from uploading images.  He makes the claim that he has a "self-imposed" Iban on those people he simply refers to as the "tag team".  Yet he shows up where people lumped into that category are working. We hope (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise that! This is out of the jurisdiction of FAC - but it's best for the coordinators to decide if Light show's comments here are valid. It is a cause for concern though, I don't think topic bans are working. JAG  UAR   17:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't going to comment as I unwatched the article a while ago after being called a homophobe, so I've had no idea what's been going on., I see you've met .  Aren't they nice?  Can you see now why most of the community hate them and why they've been sanctioned and blocked numerous times?   I really want my advice to be to carry on regardless with the FAC and ask either    to not count Light show's comments. A featured article does not need an IB, that is not part of the criteria.  I think it was Ian who encountered this very thing on Ian Fleming when a group of, shall we say, "troublemakers", turned up there with placards and a loud-hailer, declaring the article to be trash because it had no infobox.  it's tru though, ever since Peter Sellers, Light show has had an axe to grind with , . All because we made it into an award-winning article.  Part of me thinks, however, you should just walk away from CZJ; you are the only one in the future who can bring her back to FAC, anybody else would have to ask you're permission. The behaviour displayed by most of the IB police has been utterly disgusting. And to now derail the FAC after all the hard work and time you've put into it is deplorable.    Cassianto Talk   07:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did come very close to withdrawing the nomination in the last 24 hours because of Light show and his friends. If they keep resorting to such cheap trips, then I have no inclination to contribute here. Who wants to spend months trying to bring something up only to be met with such a huge wall of hostility from people whose sole purpose is to push their personal agenda? It's awful that you, SchroCat and Blofeld have had to deal with these horrible people for so long! It's one thing if they raise an opposition to the promotion if it fails some existing FA-criteria, however nastily they do it, but raising an objection only because they aren't getting their way is despicable. This is one of the worst experiences I have had in Wikipedia thus far and am utterly disillusioned by the FAC process. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 10:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I do hope I'm not the editor being lumped in as "friends". I'd happily support the FA as soon as the discussion on the talk page is closed, whatever that closure might be. I'm only motivated by the fact that a significant stylistic change (if it is to be made) should occur before the FA credit as per the criteria which calls for stability. I can't comment on the motives of others, of course. This page is turning into a battleground, which does take two sides. If certain editors are acting in bad faith (and I don't have the background info to know if they are), then denying recognition is the best strategy. ~ RobTalk 10:30, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Even though you did initially oppose the nomination, Rob, you were kind enough to hat off your comments soon after. I appreciate that, and I thank you for your message here as well. Trust me, even though I disagree with you on the infobox issue and I believe that your oppose was uncalled for, you haven't been nasty like the users Light show and Littleoliveoil. You and Moxy were clear on your stylistic stand, but did not try to sabotage other aspects of the nomination. I appreciate that. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 10:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @Cassianto, I likewise had no intention of wasting any more time trying to improve or comment on the article. But since you couldn't resist coming back on stage and tipping over one of your favorite cardboard pillars, welcome back. I appreciate that in your bad faith accusations and personal attacks, you at least this time resisted using foul language. Although you again inverted your role on the stage by stating falsehoods, such as why I came and what I did.


 * I typically delete tabloid trivia, which is not a reliable source, especially for BLPs. My very first edit on the Z-J article was just that. A dozen or so minor other edits followed, amounting to just 400 bytes of minor rewording and a few quotes, such as this one, which came from a source already used 7 times in the article. Note that the article has almost 74,000 bytes. Editor Krimuk90 immediately deleted all the edits with one click with a meaningless rationale. He then engaged in an edit war, violating 3RR, and wrote on the talk page that the edits removed were just "fluff" and demeaning to him personally.


 * But since Cassianto decided to bring up Peter Sellers and his team's success in getting me banned from it, after I helped write it with another editor, who said I greatly improved it, I'll let others read and see for themselves why I refer to that pillar as a staged cardboard prop. Note that after repeated PAs, with none by me, my ANI complaint about their uncivil behavior led to me, as the only whistleblower, to get banned from the article, and with absolutely no censure against the uncivil editors. And yes, they're back on stage, repeating the same plot. --Light show (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you continue to link to civility guidelines ; surely you must know by now that I don't give a shiny shit about civility when it comes to people like you.  Cassianto Talk   22:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The claims made here are amazing because they are quite far from what actually happened when the thread is viewed and read. The editor states that "the team" got him banned from the Peter Sellers article. This includes at least 5 admins, counting the one who closed the discussion: Crisco1492, Chillum, Masem, John and JMabel (closed discussion). along with a lot of editors with good reputations. All of these people have supposedly conspired against this editor for the ban.

statement here "Note that after repeated PAs, with none by me," What makes you think you've behaved in a civil manner? Some gems of civility from the editor crying wolf are:


 * at Kubrick talk "BTW, your math is about 3,000% off, since it's closer to 5K at most. Guess math wasn't your favrit subject either, huh doc?" --User:Light show|Light show User talk:Light show|talk 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * to another editor at Joan Rivers "I'm glad you found a buddy to cover for you, but this will go to ANI if you can't get over your erroneous edits." --User:Light show|Light show User talk:Light show|talk 19:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * again at Joan Rivers "Before posting there, let me know if you've used or are using different usernames, since socks are an exemption to 3RR, and your arrogant style of discourse and warring methods are too similar to previous events." --User:Light show|Light show User talk:Light show|talk 19:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * {ANI discussion} "I have never accused you and the others of BF. And like your other ABFs, they usually have almost nothing to do with the context of the discussion, but are made simply to PA a GF editor. I can find dozens of times you and the others, who edit and comment exactly alike, have started your responses, to me and others, with the BF label. I've come to ignore them long ago. Sadly, as this ANI implies, so have your 16 supporters." --Light show (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Mike Todd page editor makes BF statement.
 * "Lighten up" was not in BF, but free medical advice. --Light show (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And it's worth absolutely nothing, just as the giver. We hope (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Couldn't resist another PA, huh? --Light show (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC){

Take it to WP:ANI with the understanding that your past and present actions will be part of the discussion. We hope (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt you have a valid license to practice medicine in any state. We hope (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "valid"? --Light show (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

So your claim is that at least 5 administrators and many other editors with good reputations have "tag teamed" you into being banned from various topics. Let's look at the stats on Peter Sellers:


 * editor's edits to article
 * editor's edits to talk page
 * article 21 April 2011-prior to active editing by Dr. Blofeld, Cassianto, SchroCat, etc.
 * article rating at talk 10 April 2011
 * Peter Sellers FA-article at present

Instead of blaming others, look at your own behavior. You believe you're always right and everything has to be your way 100% of the time. We hope (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Give your hounding a rest. I said last week that you should just stop following me around and adding your BF commentary and link farm. It was clear by the Sellers ANI and the later ANI re: Stanley Kubrick, "Tag team uncivility by User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Cassianto and User:SchroCat", that only the same three editors were acting as a team. In fact, neither they nor any of the editors or admins commenting denied the three were a team. Another stage prop about civility was trumpled.--Light show (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's simply no way three people could get you banned unless they conspired with the others who were part of that discussion. We hope (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You and your friends have won, Light show. I've withdrawn the nomination. Hope you're happy now. Krimuk | 90  ( talk ) 01:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)