Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758

User:In ictu oculi

In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Tenacious

For several months User talk:In ictu oculi ("Iio") has been on a crusade waging a campaign to have the wording of several naming conventions changed to suit his/her personal preference that Continental European names should have the "correct name" (by which s/he presumably means the native name rather than the name used in reliable English language sources -- but Iio can explain better than I what Iio means by the correct name). Until recently this has taken several forms:

1. Long debates with anyone who opposes him/her on the talk pages of articles.
2. Long debates on the talk pages of the relevant artile title policy page and its guidelines (known as naming conventions), to have them changed to wording that suits Iio's POV.
3. When Iio brings up a peripheral guidelines which inadvertently supports his/her POV, Iio defends tenaciously that wording and resists any attempt to harmonise the wording of that guideline with the wording on the main policy pages. For example see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Proper names
4. Moving dozens of pages which can carry accent marks to another title without the use of a WP:RM even though Iio well knows that the moving of article titles to or from a version of a title that may have accent marks is potentially controversial (See Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves). Iio justification for the moves (as given in the history of the article is frequently given as MOS based yet it has been explained to Iio many times that article titles are decided upon by using article title policy and its naming conventions. With names that can have accent marks this is usually decided using the guidance in the section WP:UE and the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English).

Disruptive

At 14:12 on 27 June 2012 Iio created a redirect called WP:Naming conventions (French). In doing this Iio has clearly breached the article title policy. (See the section called Proposed naming conventions and guidelines) S/he has also gone against the spirit of WP:PROPOSAL.

Once created Iio used this "naming convention" to explain the move of Pierre Brulart, marquis de Sillery to Pierre Brûlart, marquis de Sillery at 03:38, 28 June 2012.

Tenacious to disruptive

In the last month Iio has made somewhere in the region of about 100 page moves (excluding talk pages), most of them biography articles about non native speakers of English.

With the creation of this naming convention redirect (WP:Naming conventions (French)) Iio has gone beyond tenacious (as described in the bullet points above) and has become disruptive, because creation of naming conventions without a consensus to do so leads to anarchy and is also in direct contravention of the Arbcom Discretionary sanctions for the MOS and the AT policy (see relevant Arcom remedies).

Remedies

I propose that the redirect is either deleted, or redirected to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), until such time as the need for a WP:Naming conventions (French) is established using the proscribed prescribed process.

I further propose that User talk:In ictu oculi be banned from moving or proposing moves of pages which are covered by the WP:UE section of the WP:AT policy for a period of six months, and from editing or participating in debates on the talk pages of polices and guidelines that affect the guidance of article names for a similar length of time. Such a ban will hopefully give Iio time to consider his/her behaviour and come back the the issue in a less combative frame of mind. -- PBS (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Aggh, please use subjunctive on the first remedy! I'd have to support this proposal; you've made a solid case for the idea that Iio is being disruptive here, and your solution sounds like it will keep the peace (if followed or if enforced) and easily be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to comment on the move-ban, but I think a discussion-ban would be unhelpful as I think IIO's comments at RMs are generally above-average in terms of sticking to policy/guideline and sources (this is another way of saying "A bigger problem is with certain other editors whose responses to RMs are impossible to reconcile with available evidence), and we do need to work towards a civilised solution to the diacritic wars, hopefully not a truce where individual wikiprojects set their own spelling rules. If the community decides that sanctions are appropriate, I would prefer something a little more specific. bobrayner (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd also point out that where we have two different rules which can be interpreted in contradictory ways (let's say rules A and B), there are two different ways to "harmonise" the rules; A could be updated to look more like B, or vice versa. It's unhelpful to advocate making A look more like B for the sake of harmonisation, whilst also characterising efforts to make B look more like A as disruptive. The existence of rules which can be interpreted in different ways is the main ammunition in the diacritics wars. bobrayner (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • WP:AT is policy the guidelines should not be interpreted in such a way that they can be used to contradict policy. If they appear to do so then they should be harmonised with that policy. But let us stick to the creation of WP:Naming conventions (French) without any discussion (contrary to policy). The redirect could have been made to the page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related or it could have been made to the section General rules which starts "The most general rule of the Wikipedia is that editors should use the most common form of the name or expression used in English (WP:ENGLISH)." (bold emphasis as it is in the guideline). Instead Iio chose to redirect it to Accents & ligatures bypassing the section General rules. I put it to you that given his/her known preference for native spellings, that this was an act of bad faith. -- PBS (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Since both WP:FRENCHNAMES and WP:ENGLISH are both existing guidelines (not policy), and both are relevant to naming of French articles, I don't see why IIO's preferred target for the redirect is bad faith and disruptive whilst your preferred target is just fine. Having different guidelines which can be interpreted in contradictory ways is part of the problem, not part of the solution. The community should discuss how to improve the rules - and policy itself is a product of community discussion, it wasn't handed down on stone tablets. IIO may well have done other bad stuff, but seeking to sanction IIO for choosing one guideline over the other is not a good solution, I feel. Next week somebody else will prefer one rule which contradicts your preferred rule, and the week after that... bobrayner (talk) 12:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
        • WP:FRENCHNAMES was created by Iio on 14:11, 27 June 2012‎! I did not raise it here because it did not breach a policy to create it. But as you say "Having different guidelines which can be interpreted in contradictory ways is part of the problem, not part of the solution." and you now have two examples of redirects created by Iio in the last few days that help to expand this problem. BTW You write "whilst your preferred target is just fine" I did not suggest that it was fine, I said that I think the redirect should be deleted, or failing that redirected to "WP:Naming conventions (Use English)". I used the alternatives as an example of how Iio is trying to create guidance to support his/her POV. -- PBS (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• I see no problem with creating a redirect from the "WP:Naming conventions..." namespace to a pertinent page in the "WP:Manual of style" namespace, when it is clearly the case that the relevant problems pertaining to article naming questions in that domain are treated in that MOS page – including references to possible disputes and uncertainties. I also second Bobrayner's impression that In ictu's contributions to move debates, where I have come across him, have been generally reasonable and policy-aware. This thread strikes me as an attempt at winning a legitimate content dispute through admin-board complaints. I see little merit in PBS's complaint and would even tend to describe it as frivolous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Creating redirects in the name of "Naming Convention (xxx)" with no discussion is a breach of policy. AT and the MOS address different issues, and mixing them up is one of the problems that brings confusion to WP:RM debates. See my comment above about creating such a redirect being both a breach of policy and the Arbcom ruling. -- PBS (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*What I've seen of Iio's editing elsewhere has been good and as others have said, policy aware. Nyttend, I'm disappointed that you would support a ban without hearing Iio's side of the dispute. And ban someone from discussions because they are tenacious? No. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone.

1/ Yes I have made a shortcut to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related which already has two shortcuts WP:FRMOS and WP:MOS-FR called WP:Naming conventions (French). I created the shortcut as less cumbersome than Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related and more transparent than WP:FRMOS and WP:MOS-FR. But I have also used those in edit summaries. WP:FRENCHNAMES is simply a shortcut box within Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related, I don't think I've even used it. If anyone objects to the shortcut - as it seems PBS does - then delete it.

2/ I have concerns with PBS' removal of the status quo diacritics section of MOSPN, as I have said before, which is why I restored it. I also note PBS edits to MOSPN WP:AT and other policy pages reflecting the views expressed at the (failed) Lech Wałęsa RM and similar going back to 2006.

3/ I stand by edits I have made to bios as being based on sources. As PBS has himself recognised at Talk:Ondřej Látal. Anyone can check them. If they lack sourcing, then revert them.

4/ Even crossed out I object to the term on a crusade for simply editing in the way most Editors interpret existing guidelines. I did not put the 100,000s of en.wikipedia bio articles at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related etc., that is the built up consensus of 1000s of editors since 2006. I have invited PBS at least a dozen times to cite 1x an accented Latin-alphabet modern European bio (non-monarch non-stagename non-ß) which he agrees with and PBS has to date not cited 1x. If PBS is not satisfied with where French, German, Czech articles are on en.wikipedia.org that is not my problem - I did not put them there. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That logic would not apply to the Vietnamese titles that are being moved.[1][2] WP:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) certainly doesn't support what Iio is doing. Currently, Vietnamese titles are predominantly at ASCII forms. Here is the most recent RM on this issue. Kauffner (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Kauffner

Anyone who clicks through will see that the sources support the reverts on those 2 articles. Your 2 moves were also reverted as inconsistent with category:Vietnamese cuisine, which like category:Vietnamese music, category:Vietnamese culture, Category:Populated places in Bac Kan Province etc. etc. etc., are still at full Vietnamese names.

Note that I haven't reverted e.g. the moves you made contrary to the Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1 RM. I actually don't care if you continue to move all Vietnam towns and bios even immediately following a failed RM.

In ictu oculi (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

On Google Books, there are 298 (146 deghosted) post-1990 English-language hits for diacritics-free "Bun bo Hue", including the Lonely Planet guide, which is the top-selling Vietnam book. You found one for Bún bò Huế, and it's italicized. I noticed a couple of others, but they are for language books. This is a non-controversial page move? Vietnamese food -- another place to apply MOSPN. Kauffner (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

For the record.

• removal of entire content of diacritics section from MOSPN

If anyone thinks I was wrong to restore this removal then they should re-remove it.. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is this at Ani? - there has been no edits to the guideline since two weeks and there is plenty of talkpage discussion since then, but nothing for four days there either - there is nothing that needs admin action here, can you explain what you want an Administer to do? - if you just want additional opinions - open a WP:RFC. Youreallycan 15:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You also do not appear to have notified PBS about this report - this is mandatory - please either do that now or provide a diff to where you notified him - thanks - Youreallycan 15:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This is meant to be a section of the above. I notified PBS here In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah thanks for the diff and the explanation - Youreallycan 15:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments

• The initial post is ill-drafted and often ungrammatical. I advise PBS to amend it. Some specifics, to make things more navigable and less ambiguous: Just as "PBS" is all capitals in the standard way, so would "IIO" be a standard form of abbreviation and easier to comprehend at a glance. As pointed out already, the subjunctive would be far better in the first sentence under "Remedies". Most importantly, what does PBS intend when he writes "using the proscribed process"? That would mean "using the prohibited process". More care, please; such inattention wastes editors' time.
• I object to even the revised wording "waging a campaign" (under the heading "Tenacious"). It shows prejudice almost as much as "on a crusade" does. Better to stick with the meritorious connotations of "tenacious", which describes the work of this dedicated and knowledgeable editor more accurately and with the necessary assumption of good faith.
• Though I am deeply interested in titling policy and the associated procedures (at RMs, for example), I have not taken part in discussion at WT:TITLE at all this year. Despite action at ArbCom, dialogue there continues to be polemical, fruitless, and generally uncollegial, so that the page remains riddled with iron-clad absurdities of which most editors of articles are completely unaware. It would be a great injustice to single out IIO – who makes his contributions with conviction, energy, and eloquence – while a loose band of technically proficient but thoroughly out-of-touch editors opposes change to the present woefully non-consensual provisions, and is left to do its dismal work against the interests of readers without scrutiny or systematic objection. WT:TITLE is a forum desperately in need of reform and supervision, as the course and laughable outcomes of some recent RMs amply demonstrate. Removing a coherent and rational opposition voice like IIO's would have entirely the wrong effect, even if IIO's zeal ruffles some feathers. Some feathers need ruffling, as things stand.

☺

Noetica^Tea? 22:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• If the user name were "In Ictu Oculi" I would have capitalised it IIO, as it the user name is capitalised "In ictu oculi" I chose to copy that capitalisation. Thank you for pointing out "proscribed" I have replaced it with "prescribed" (I had not noticed the spelling mistake as spelling has never been my strong point). If you wish to understand what I have written without bothering to read all of it then I suggest that you read the section headed "Tenacious to disruptive". Do you consider such behaviour acceptable? If not what do you think should be done? -- PBS (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think that behaviour is questionable, if it is not in accord with consensus; but it is almost certainly provoked by the dismissive attitude that many of us have encountered at WT:TITLE, and related talkpages. That attitude has little to do with true consensus. Some of us are more heroic than others in working for rational reform. I did my bit: for example, in late December at WT:TITLE. But I got tired of the threats of referrals to WP:AN and WP:ANI that were made there and at my talkpage; and of actual referrals to WP:AN and WP:ANI, and then to ArbCom (the case PBS mentions). One of the main belligerents, User:Born2cycle, was warned in the final ArbCom ruling; and User:Pmanderson's year-long site ban was extended (and he was topic-banned indefinitely) for sockpuppetry that in fact was mainly directed against me personally – with extraordinary claims and motions against me at ArbCom itself. Make no mistake: there is a strong irrational adherence to questionable algorithms for settling titles of articles. Those precepts are not founded in evidence or wide consensus. The small group of enthusiasts active in the area is very stubborn, and hostile to new approaches motivated by what will serve the readers best. I have raised that primary question of readers' interests in various forums (including RMs), with elaborated argument and meticulously ordered evidence. Typically these initiatives have been met with stony silence, and blind adherence to the present demonstrably faulty provisions at WP:TITLE and WP:DAB.
• What should be done? IIO's actions should be understood and tolerated as well motivated, and as part of a long-overdue debate toward genuine reform. The hermetically sealed titling system needs to be broken open and examined in the fresh air of community consultation. I moved for that to happen under ArbCom supervision (in the case already referred to), since nothing else has worked. The difficulties that IIO honestly faces up to are difficulties that we all should recognise. I look forward to a time when we can indeed have a properly conducted review that will make actions like IIO's unnecessary. But as things stand, those actions should be welcomed as bold and ultimately beneficial.

♥

Noetica^Tea? 10:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• The language on diacritics in MOSPN was slipped in by User:Kotniski back in 2009.[3] It doesn't look like anyone else noticed it for years. When we had the diacritics RfC in August 2011, everyone involved assumed that WP:DIACRITICS was the guideline that covered diacritics. Nobody mentioned anything about MOSPN. Yet in recent months IIO has been leveraging this previously obscure guideline. I note that IIO has been browbeating editors here and here concerning Talk:Dan_Tinh#Requested_move, his current Vietnamese diacritic RM. Kauffner (talk) 09:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• The real problem is that a large number of editors are following the sensible RMs by IIO due to his very good arguments. Changing gudelines to stop him has not worked so bringing the matter here was thought the only way to preserve the wishes of a minority. Maybe it is a good thing - more people should go to those guidelines and see the refusal of some to accept current usage. Agathoclea (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • IIO adds diacritics to titles all the time without RMs. Look at Special:Contributions/In_ictu_oculi. Kauffner (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't you also move articles boldly according to your own cherry-picked Wikipedian principles, Kauffner? As allowed by present guidelines for moves? When you stop delivering plainly faulty evidence in RM discussions, and when closing admins regularly take note when such evidence is regularly refuted, there might be less of a problem to be countered by the even bolder actions of others.
      Noetica^Tea? 10:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kauffner

I welcome anyone to review my edits and compare them with sources in the articles. To be even handed you should also invite "Kauffner removes diacritics to titles all the time without RMs and then adds edits to redirects. Look at Special:Contributions/Kauffner."

5/

Re RMs, I would point out that:

(5.i) As you know, I do follow WP:MOVE advice and initiate RMs in areas which are controversial - such as tennis names Talk:André Miele.

(5.ii) I do also do them frequently in areas that response shows are not controversial, e.g. French ballet composer Talk:Edouard Deldevez 04:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC) (six hours before this ANI section 11:25, 30 June 2012) e.g. Talk:François Lotte + the other French archetiers (in that case because auction catalogues for violin bows sometimes do not carry the French ç). The lack of controversy of these RMs demonstrates that French ballet composers, French violin bow makers, French organists like Talk:Édouard Nanny, Talk:Hégésippe Légitimus + the other early black French MPs etc. are simply not controversial. It would be clogging up WP:RM with moves that are wasting everyones' time, better leaving WP:RM for tennis and hockey names which do have a group against.

(5.iii) I try to be careful (I would even hope to say scrupulously careful) to source edits, and if I move an article it comes after having improved the bio by adding verifiable sources. When I arrive most of these stubs are sourceless copies from websites or Britannia 1911, or similar. I am not just trolling through randomly moving articles en masse - you will see on my contribs they are spaced out and accompanied with sourcing, reflist, adding biodata, creating spur articles, disambiguation pages where necessary. (Please anyone feel free to survey my contributions and pick/revert any you feel problematic).

(5.iv) I have never moved or asked an admin to move anything counter to a RM, as in the towns in Talk:Cần Thơ/Archive 1.

(5.v) I do not edit redirects after a move

(5.vi) Most importantly, I did not write Wikipedia:Manual of Style/France & French-related (WP:FRMOS/WP:MOS-FR) which I noted as "sources and WP:FRMOS". The title says in bold "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style." Regarding diacritics it says:

Common French usage is to omit accents in capitals, however this is not the proper usage and accents should be included in capitals (as required by the Imprimerie nationale and usual in Canada). When used in article names, all common non-accented/non-ligatured forms should redirect to the article. There will often be many redirects, but this is intentional and does not represent a problem.

(5.vii) I have made proposals on WP:UE and WP:EN for improvements, but primarily I am only attempting to restore status quo content others have been removing without, in my view, project-wide consensus.

(5.viii) these bios were described as "biography articles about non native speakers of English." - that makes it sound like I've been adding sources to bios about non native speakers of English. In fact I've been adding sources to bios of French, German, Czech people who may not even speak a word of English. For example the RM that is in now, Talk:Edouard Deldevez, how do we know he spoke any English, and what difference would it make if he did?

Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC).,

• There is at least one admin partial to primary topic who has been known to move articles from titles with parenthetical disambiguation to titles without parentheses, unilaterally and without discussion. Neotarf (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I to understand that there is something improper about my guideline writing? I drafted WP:Naming conventions (Vietnamese) to conform with such guidelines as WP:DIACRITICS and WP:MOSPN#Diacritics, not to create policy. As far as WP:MOS-FR goes, it says only, "When [diacritics are] used in article names,....." I do not see any guidance as to whether French diacritics should be used or not. I do not have any objection to the use of French or other Latin-1 diacritics in non-sports titles. Kauffner (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• "French proper names and expressions should respect the use of accents and ligatures in French." Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Avengers Academy

Avengers Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TriiipleThreat (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

This is regarding the Wikipedia page Avengers_Academy. The user "TriiipleThreat" is continually erasing valid information and replacing it with inaccurate information. He has attempted to bully me into not editing the page by accusing me of "edit warring" because I repeatedly entered my accurate, sourced information in place of his misinformation. I have now been banned from editing that page, preventing me from correcting recent errors he has insisted on including, even after I told him he was wrong. I believe he is abusing his authority and want to make a formal complaint against him as well as ask that I be allowed to resume editing the page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.252.136 (talk • contribs)

Several things. This is mainly a content dispute and does not belong at ANI. The Avengers article was semi-protected because of your protracted insistence on changing the article without justification. You have made some contributions at the Talk page, and you should continue doing so. Unless you have a consensus for your changes, which appears dubious, you will not be permitted to make them, whether because of semi-protection, or for other reasons. Last, when you post here, you should follow the instructions and inform any editor who is the subject of your complaint that this discussion exists (I have done so for you). A threat on the Talk page is insufficient. On a less harsh note, you are a new editor, and it's hard sometimes to be thwarted in changes you reasonably believe are accurate by more experienced editors. But don't think of it as a battle. Just try to present your case as clearly as possible. It's also helpful if you can cite to reliable sources supporting your changes or challenge sources that are being used as unreliable, rather than just rely on what you think (even if it's true). Wikipedia is all about verifiabilility.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

As already noted to you on your talk page, please inform TriiipleThreat on their talk page, not in the discussion thread at Talk:Avengers Academy about your posting this.

Beyond that, there is little for this noticeboard to deal with in this case since it is primarily a content dispute at this point. However...

Please actually read the following: WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDIT WAR, WP:3RR, WP:EDIT SUMMARY, WP:BRD, and WP:CIVILITY.

Normal procedure is for editors to communicate why they are making edits. This involves using edit summaries. And when a bold edit is undone it involves actually using the article talk page to has out what changes should be made before restoring the bold edit. Not doing that leads to edit warring.

The article was locked to foster and actual discussion on the talk page. Please try to do that keeping in mind WP:CIVILITY

- J Greb (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The page was not protected because of the content but because of your conduct. I stayed with within the three revert limit in 24-hours;

1. Revision as of 06:24, June 25, 2012
2. Revision as of 14:30, June 27, 2012
3. Revision as of 14:36, June 27, 2012
4. Revision as of 15:02, June 27, 2012

You went well beyond 3RR by not just reverting me but with other editors;

1. Revision as of 14:29, June 27, 2012
2. Revision as of 14:34, June 27, 2012
3. Revision as of 14:37, June 27, 2012
4. Revision as of 14:48, June 27, 2012
5. Revision as of 15:06, June 27, 2012
6. Revision as of 15:07, June 27, 2012
7. Revision as of 10:08, June 28, 2012

I tried to communicate with you at 14:45, June 27, 2012 and warned you about your behavior at 15:01, June 27, 2012, explaining how the WP:BRD process is supposed to work. You did not attempt discussion until 10:23, June 28, 2012, after your seventh revert in which you stated "i will keep replacing it if you keep deleting it".

I gave specific reasoning for my edits on the article's talk page and suggested trying to work to consensus or compromise. I even restored a part of your edits after getting a second opinion. I have shown willingness to work with you, which was not reciprocated. Thank you for finally giving a source to verify your edits, but this could all have been avoided if you had responded to my first call for discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You should have given specific reasons in your edit summary for your first revert. Instead you used the rollback tool which is only for vandalism. No wonder he's pissed. The concept of WP:BRD is hard enough for newbies to understand. Having one's first good faith edits to improve an article painted over without reason makes it worse. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

One-track mind

Stranded Pirate (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

For a few days now I've been considering and waffling on whether to report this user here. He created an account on June 15 and since that time has 136 edits, pretty much all on the same "topic". For me, it started because he added this material to the Kunis article. I wanted to revert it completely, but I pared it back to two sentences and removed the separate subsection header. He reverted and I reverted one more time, pointing him to the Talk page where I had opened a topic. He stopped reverting but his contributiions to the Talk page were remarkably untutored, e.g., claiming, among other things, that WP:BRD did not apply. The consensus on the Talk page was that the material didn't belong, even the two sentences (although I've still left them in for the moment).

Meanwhile, I checked SP's history and found that he had been adding similar material to the Scarlet Johansson, Christina Aguilera, and Renee Olstead articles. On the Olstead article, he'd also posted an inappropriate warning on User talk:Millernicole's page that their removal of the material was unconstructive.

SP has also been criticized by User:Kww for edit-warring on the Kim Kardashian article and inappropriately called editors vandals when it suits his agenda. He was criticized yet again for edit-warring.

He's also accused Kww and me of tag teaming ("Seems like u an Kww spend a lot of time together tag teaming other editors."). I barely know Kww.

The final straw, though, is his restoration of material that I removed from a user's Talk page. He seems to take every opportunity not only to add the same material but to discuss it in lurid detail. This is what he wrote (excuse the language):

Offensive text to illustrate problem

I find the case extremely interesting on account of the boldness of the hacker and the fact that he hacked so many people's email accounts and got away with it for so long. Plus, something like this has never happened before. Remember when the first nudes came out of Vanessa Hudgens? She said her stuff was hacked, yet everybody called BS. Same with Mily and Johansson. But it turns out they weren't lying after all. i also find it very interesting to see how the US Attny has apportioned the restitution. $76K for Olstad and all her dildo shots. $66K for Johansson and, what, one boob and an ass pic? And $2.5K for Christina and about 5 or 6 vag shots. Why is one Johansson boob worth $66K and all of Christina's vag shots only worth $2.5K? I can see why Olsteads pics are worth so much. She is smoking hot. But one boob is hardly worth $66K. Anyways, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. This kind of shit happens everyday to regular people, ex-boyfriends / girlfriends, but you don't see a year long FBI investigation out of it.

I removed all but the first couple of sentences. He has since restored it whining that I don't get to tell him what he can and can't say.

I don't see any constructive editing from this user and request a block of unspecified duration.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm finding it difficult to not block the user 72 hours via WP:DE, plain and simple. I don't think he "gets it" and he seems hell bent on adding tabloid material to the 'pedia, even after being told time after time. He doesn't hear, but I'm more likely to think he just can't work very were in a collaborative collegiate environment. This is very disruptive and likely violates WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, or at least WP:DUE and perhaps WP:CIR. Going to look at more diffs. If anyone else blocks in the mean time, that is fine, too. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• I ended up blocking 48 hours, but I don't see good things happening here. His deleted contribs were just as bad, and everything he touches screams BLP violation. I really just think he doesn't understand what an encyclopedia is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I fully support your block Dennis. Hopefully Stranded Pirate performs a neck-breaking 180 degree turn with regard to his understanding of BLP policy during the next 48 hours lest their Wikipedia editing stint reach a dramatic end. I suggest this section be hatted to save anyone else from having to read the garbage above. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

Already hatted whilst I wrote...Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It may be foolish and naive of me, but it should have been apparent from his talk page that I was well aware of the situation and was attempting to manage it without resorting to a block. As I said on his talk page, he is able to research, cite, and write, and all he needed was to shift his interests away from the tawdry and juvenile towards something worthwhile. I personally think the block is more likely to aggravate the situation than to help it, but only time would tell.—Kww(talk) 01:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't notice the time stamp on your post, or I would waited. I didn't mean to step on your toes, and understand your position here, so I would apologize for not noticing the timing of that. I did check to make sure you were notified of the ANI. I'm not a quick blocker, but this seemed so problematic, the deleted contribs, the overall edits, the potential CIR issues and singular focus. The totality here doesn't fill me with faith in his future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• I would also add, that since you were involved prior, feel free to modify the block in whatever way you see fit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I think having me come to his rescue would make things even worse. We'll see what 48 hours brings.—Kww(talk) 01:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems futile. Next time block indef until he agrees to behave. Jehochman ^Talk 11:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Responding to both Kww and to Jehochman, I don't agree with Kww, although I always respect an admin's desire to rehabilitate an editor rather than block them. I think SP is a troublemaker and will never contribute constructively at Wikipedia. That doesn't mean he doesn't have the brains to research, etc., but one can be far more gifted than SP and still be a net liability to the project for other reasons. Even before I brought this report here, SP was accusing Kww and me of collusion. Post-block, he called us meat puppets. I actually believe SP relishes being a troublemaker, which is evidenced more by his Talk page comments than by his contentious editing. I agree with Jehochman.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin action regarding violation of three-revert-rule

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.

---

The incident: actions by an administrator (User:Toddst1) in regard to a user's violation of the three-revert-rule (User:Sethjohnson95). Here is the discussion about the 3RR violation [4] and my complaint to the admin about his actions [5]

Earlier today I reverted User:Sethjohnson95's edits to the Heidi Montag article, as they violated the WP:BLP and WP:WWIN policies. Sethjohnson95 then reverted these without giving any reasons, and this was reverted by User:Status. Again, Sethjohnson95 reverted, marking the 2nd time he did so. I restored the revision which was last edited by me, telling him to discuss the issue on the talk page so that we can come to a resolution. He reverted this, breaking the 3 revert rule (third time he reverted in one day), leaving an edit summary saying "There is nothing wrong with the page. It doesn't need reverted!"

Anyways, I emailed User:Toddst1 of the WP:3RR violation and later took the incident to the edit warring noticeboard. Toddst protected the page, then unprotected it, and then issued Status and I warnings about edit warring, and Sethjohnson95 didn't even receive a warning from him! Our actions got condoned for trying to maintain the article. WP:3RRNO states that the "removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)" is an exemption from the three revert rule. Reverting to the revision that didn't have the poor sources is exactly what I did, and I was still issued a warning. We were also accused of "tag-team" edit warring, which I find completely nonsense.

I notified the admin of this with no response. So the final result: Status and I got into shit for trying to maintain the article, Sethjohnson95 gets off the hook from being blocked for violating WP:3RR and got no warning from Toddst1, and the Heidi Montag article still contains the information that violates WP:BLP because it was poorly sourced with blogs and stuff. (Which I can't revert because I'll get blocked). I find this completely ridiculous considering the fact that nothing addressed the issue that they broke the WP:3RR with no consequence, and the material they added to the article is still there. Till I Go Home ^talk 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Where's the diff of his fourth revert in a 24-hour period? I don't see where he broke the bright line of 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to Heidi Montag, it's very difficult to find a page that doesn't have a biased opinion, so if posting a source with a biased opinion means it can't be on Wikipedia, then the entire Montag page should be deleted. The info on the page, however, is completely unbiased and although I did add information, most of the sources and paragraphs were actually just re-arranged from the article before I made the edits. Sethjohnson95 ^Talk 12:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about biased. It's about the poorly sourced information and the fact that Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. Please explain to me how "Despite a negative reception to her procedures, Montag has gained support from various celebrities including Wendy Williams and Joan Rivers, whom stated that Montag looked "fabulous" after the procedures" is relevant to the article. Till I Go Home ^talk 04:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia, obviously, I presented both sides of the story by stating that there was a negative reception, and also supporters. If I was a simple reader who was not aware of the surgery, I would want to know how people felt about it. If you feel the need to remove that from the page, is it really necessary to revert it back to the poorly written version of the article you keep attempting to revert it to? No. Is it not possible to come to a medium and find the parts of the article you would like to remove, and we can fix it going off of that. In my opinion, it's not necessary to have the page looking awful because of a few "irrelevant" parts of the page. Sethjohnson95 ^Talk 1:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the double post, but I would also like to mention that there were similar statements in the article before I made my edits, such as the comment stating "Her appearance was criticized after claims of torture" in reference to her appearance on the I'm A Celebrity...

Forum shopping, anyone?

WP:ANEW/User:Sethjohnson95 reported by User:Till I Go Home (Result: no vio). Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

At this point I'm not interested if the user's blocked. But I have an issue with the fact that the content is still there after all that's happened. Till I Go Home ^talk 06:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My goodness. Revert the page then! It's a Wikipedia article, I'm not that concerned about it. If you want the page to look silly and unorganized because of a few sourcing errors, then go ahead. I honestly could care less. I didn't make the page, I'm not worried about the page, so do what you like. Sethjohnson95 ^Talk 2:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

LOLOL. I'm not reverting the page so I don't get blocked. Why don't we post on the Heidi Montag talk page as to what should and shouldn't be included in the article. That way both of us can be happy. Yer? Till I Go Home ^talk 07:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a remarkably silly topic. OP complains about a breach of 3RR. There appears to be no breach of 3RR. C. Fred points that out, and no one responds. Todd notes that ANI is not the only forum for this lovely topic. The two warriors ignore everyone but themselves and have a tete-a-tete that no one really wants to read. I'm closing and let them take it back to the article Talk page or their Talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2012 (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.

Block of Itsmejudith

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've asked both Itsmejudith and Dougweller whether they are happy that this is now being reviewed by the Arbitration committee. If they are, I shall be closing this incident in order to forestall the otherwise inevitable. Uncle G (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if people would review the one week block of User:Itsmejudith, apparently over this edit. Thanks. I'll notify the blocking Admin. Dougweller (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Difficult situation - The circumstances are a bit weird. I think Itsmejudith's intentions are good. We should explain that we want to keep certain stuff offwiki, even if it is true. If Itsmejudith agrees to not repeat the same behaviour that lead to the block it should be lifted imho. Arcandam (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Carnildo's administrator actions are being reviewed by the Arbitration Committee. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• The Arbitration Committee has reviewed the block of Itsmejudith and has unblocked. Risker (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• That was quick. I'll use the archive template to close this because there is no admin action necessary. Arcandam (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2012 (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.

House of City

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 came across this while stub-sorting. There are two odd things about it (quite apart from the fact that it has no reliable sources and seems totally unencyclopedic):

• It was created by User:MarXidad, edited 13 times by an IP, and edited by User:Marxidad, in the space of 22 minutes this morning.
• It was created with maintenance tags dated April 2011 and Sept 2010.

I wonder if it might be the re-creation of a deleted article? PamD 21:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Possible socking? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Accounts were created on different wikis (there is no global account for the MarXidad username), and there is no attempt to create the impression of being different people or circumvent policy. Peter E. James (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

...aaaaand it's gone, per WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The snowball clause doesn't apply. More of a case of WP:TOOSOON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marxidad (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 July 2012 (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.

Problems with AfD page

Hello. I have been having problems getting this newly formed Article for Deletion nomination [6] listed on the AfD log for 1 July. Twinkle malfunctioned in putting it on the list, and my attempts to manually list it are not being successful. Can someone please help get this on the list? Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't done. I had to revert what you did because you interrupted me while I was fixing. It wasn't just that one that was missing, it was several. Hopefully, it now includes the Freak Out one as well as the others that got screwed up.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, C. Fred and Bbb23! And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Mo ainm and Daniel Day-Lewis

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.

---

Hello, never done this before so not sure if this is the right place to post this, so forgive me if not. Having a spot of bother over at Daniel Day-Lewis, where there's an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page about how best to describe his nationality, which has for over a year (and possibly longer – I haven't delved that far back into the archives) described him as "English"; something now in dispute.

Discussion is still ongoing, and I'm struggling to keep the stable version of the article, agreed under consensus previously, against constant reversions to a new wording devised by User:Drmargi. The most recent editor to push for this new, non-agreed-on wording is User:Mo ainm, who is reverting my edits yet refusing flat-out to enter into dialogue with me. I know that any editor is free to keep their talk page as they see fit, but edits like these [7] [8] aren't helpful and leave me in a difficult position – either I give up on any attempt at building a new consensus (and keeping the stable version of the page whilst we do) and simply accept this new wording because Mo ainm will revert to it if I don't, or bring it to admin attention (something I don't like doing, hence my "teacher" comment on Mo ainm's talk).

Am I not right in thinking that the stable version of an article is the one that should be kept while new changes are discussed? This seems to me like an attempt by Mo ainm to eliminate a wording he just doesn't like, while avoiding any of the responsibility – i.e. justifying those changes and working to build consensus – that comes with it. Hope we can work something out. — JonC^ॐ 12:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Those difflinks are here and here. Arcandam (talk) 12:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Arcandam. New to all this. — JonC^ॐ 12:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Mo ainm wrote "MOSBIO" in an editsummary. I think he means Wikipedia:MOSBIO#Opening_paragraph. Arcandam (talk) 13:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It sure does Arcandam. And I have posted twice on the article talk page Mo ainm~Talk 13:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not an administrator but I would like to ask you both to discuss this on the talkpage of the article, I hope you can find a solution without anyone being blocked. Arcandam (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I knew what he meant, but I'm still in the dark about what he is trying to point to by linking to it. I'm assuming it's the "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized..." part, which doesn't hold water when thousands of articles – including the few I linked to at Talk:Daniel Day-Lewis#HE IS Irish Too – use "English", like "Scottish", "Irish", etc., as a nationality. Is David Bowie in violation of WP:MOSBIO? Describing someone's nationality as English is perfectly accurate. Mo ainm also still hasn't self-reverted or explained why he keeps reverting to a non-consensus version of the article. — JonC^ॐ 13:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "I'm struggling to keep the stable version of the article…" In fairness, Jon, this would suggest there is no longer a sable or "consensus" version of the article. You're not just reverting Mo ainm but also Drmargi, Qwyrxian and 122.163.212.76. That doesn't justify warring. on their part either; but I am making it as an observation.

I'm not going to claim to be uninvolved here. Everyone from these islands has feelings about identity and ethnicity. As in most cases, my 2¢ on this is that it is better to leave firm statements of ethnicity/identity out of the article, and the lead in particular, and instead state the facts (born in England, lives in Ireland, Irish father, English mother, both British and Irish citizenship, etc.) and restrain from pushing a POV either way.

I don't see a case for admin involvement here. However, I would point out that the dispute here is part of a wider difficulties (in which I have been involved) about how to describe the ethnicity of British and Irish people. Often this is not a simple thing, depends on POV, and can arouse passion from all sides. In that light I too would point to WP:MOSBIO (esp. "[Mention] the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident ... Ethnicity [...] or the country of birth should not be mentioned.") However, I recognise that this is not always satisfactory for people from Britain and Ireland. --RA (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the word now a typo? Should that be not? Arcandam (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes :-) Fixed now (along with other typos). Thanks, --RA (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I wandered into this controversy in a rather odd way. I received a message from an anon IP requesting I change Lewis' nationality to Irish-British. Ordinarily, my impulse would be to simply delete the request from my talk page and be done with it, having not a clue who the IP is. But I rather like Daniel Day-Lewis and my curiosity was piqued. I also knew his father was born in Ireland, and that he has a strong Irish identity, so I thought there might be some merit to the request. I also thought that, as an American I might have a more neutral perspective on the issue. I reviewed the article and found a long history of edit warring, page protection on the basis of what (I felt) unfairly characterized the IP's actions as vandalism, and a talk page full of abortive attempts at consensus over more than a year, but no stable version of the article. When I read the article, Qwyrxian had just stepped in and changed his identity new wording I felt didn't work, so I simply removed the wording altogether. It struck me as adding little in the context, particularly given Qwyrxian's policy concerns and its status as a lightening-rod for edit warring.

As discussion began, I found JonC's characterizing a version referring to Day-Lewis as English as the "stable" version questionable, given the lack of consensus on the talk page and his active participation in the ongoing edit war. I requested he give me time to do some reading, and that he refrain from reverting the article (yet again) given the lack of consensus, and that he give me time to establish just how Irish Day-Lewis actually is. I also detected a whiff of nationalism that lead me to consult an admin regarding the article's coverage by the Troubles ArbComm case, having no wish to wander in to that particular minefield. At the moment, I am (well, was) taking advantage of a calm moment on the article to do a bit more reading in an attempt to satisfy myself whether the inclusion of the description English was a) appropriate and b) necessary given what's transpired. Not real sure, with two edits, how my contribution could be described as warring; I made my initial edit, and one revert. --Drmargi (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I'm in the wrong here, then. I have always been under the impression that an article should stay the way it is – in DD-L's case for over a year – until a new consensus is reached on talk, evidently not the case after all (although WP:BURDEN says otherwise, it's clearly not enforced). Sorry for the inconvenience. This can be closed. — JonC^ॐ 11:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Although having said that, I don't really appreciate the "whiff of nationalism" comment, Drmargi. Why have you assumed I'm English? I would also like to point out that, as yet, I am the only party in the ongoing discussion that's dug out a quote from the man himself identifying as a certain nationality. — JonC^ॐ 11:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure with permission from both Mo ainm and Jonchapple. Arcandam (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2012 (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.

Cannot clean irrelevant citations

Hi,

I face an issue with a new contributor on article Apprendre2.0. While trying to clean irrelevant citations that are not about the sentences they are added to, I’m systematically reverted and attacked (see my comment Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apprendre2.0).

Can you please explain to this user the basics of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research ?

Thanks.

Schlum (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I might add that the same user has engaged in personal attacks on the above user and myself at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apprendre2.0. User also self-applied an edit protection template to the article in question. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is about Sbody.swhere00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Why can't one of you two "explain to this user the basics of Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research"? You don't need to be an admin to do that. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I see in the top of this page "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.". We have here a user who don’t want to understand the mere principles of WP, and don’t want to discuss, he only reverts and insults others, so I guessed I needed some help here. Unless you think it’s not bothering to have a sentence about something created in 2007, sourced with a citation dating 1995. Schlum (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

The reality of the facts is readable here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apprendre2.0#Apprendre2.0--Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes please do read that. Maybe you will understand what Schlum is trying to say. Others have explained ad nauseum to him WP:V and WP:OR. I have explained ownership and civility to him. He responds to every discussion as if it were a personal attack. There is plenty of consensus now at the AfD page to close the discussion with a delete. I am guessing that will resolve the problem. Thank you for anything you can do to help. Gtwfan52 (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

AfD closed with a delete, problem solved, I think. It seemed apparent that a large part of the problem referenced here stemmed from language difficulty on the part of User:Sbody.swhere00. Is there a specific place to go when I encounter such language based problems in the future? If the dude would have had a translator to help him understand the problems, this would not have escalated into a name calling event, IMHO. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that there's a list of editors who translate X language somewhere...ah, here it is. You can try to find a relevant language person who's active. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not really a language issue… We have exactly the same issues with him in fr Wiki. Schlum (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• For starters, User:Sbody.swhere00 should read WP:BLUDGEON. His behavior is exactly the reason the essay exists, and it might help him understand a few things. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation from editor

Resolved

 – Without further information provided, there's nothing else to do. We need to know which articles are involved if we are to take any action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish to register a complaint against ksanthosh89. He copies writings from others websites into your website without permission. Your editors removed writings from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellanahalli copied from my website. All his other articles are copyright violation. I dont have much time to list copied writings in all article pages. Please remove all copyright violation. Thanks. 223.236.142.51 (talk) 11:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Cross reference IP's concerns at the help desk. You need to help us identify the copyvios.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ksanthosh89 (talk · contribs) notified. Agathoclea (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't have time. There are to much websites and I read in the links you posted in his page that you take seriously copyright violation. That's why I am informing here. thanks.223.190.164.196 (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• If you don't have time to bother assisting us to investigate your complaint, why do you figure others do? Ravenswing 15:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• The IP appears to be be more helpful at the Help Desk and is identifying the user and at least one of the articles. Based on the identity of the copying user, User:Athleek123 has been able to fix other WP articles. I'm not sure that it's helpful to have this topic going on in two different forums other than the fact that copyright violations are, of course, a matter of serious concern.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not regular here to spend much time to get all the website he copied. I am thinking to help you find copyright violation because you are editors here. I checked his copying once and I don't note down all the copied writings. I don't have time now to check all the websites now again. I saw many copyright violation in his articles. As u take copyright violation seriously, I am telling you.110.225.152.152 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC) And editors in help desk don't take seriously copyright violation. So I am informing here. Please take action. Thanks.110.225.152.152 (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction 110.225.152.152: Two editors at the Help desk took copyright seriously and made significant changes. This a volunteer and collaborative project. No one here is a paid editor, and if you would help us out by identifying specific articles to which you refer, we could fix these problems more quickly and efficiently. Cresix (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for talking about help desk editors. The editors there deleted 3 copyright articles. But there are other articles with copyright also. So I came here. Is this not the right place to ask? Which is the right place to ask?110.225.152.152 (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Either there or here, but not both; please don't forum shop. But it would go much more smoothly if you would help. We're not mind readers. Cresix (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And you editors only told me that you take copyright violations seriously. I am telling you again and again I don't have time to check again all the websites. I already checked once when I had the time but don't note down the copied writings. But I don't have time now. I saw copyright violation in all his articles. Telling you here takes only 1minute. But checking all that again and noting down the websites will take much time. I understand you are not paid editors. But you are regular here and I am new. So I am asking you. I will have checked if I had time.110.225.152.152 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) OK. I will not contact help desk for this hereafter.110.225.152.152 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who removed several instances of copyvio, as seen on his talk page. I used this to find out what pages Ksanthosh89 created. Regarding the claim by the IP that it would take too much time to list which articles have copyvio in them, I can only help but notice that Ksanthosh89 created less than 25 articles (excluding redirects). Just take 5 minutes to give us a list of articles and then we will do the hard work. It's a pretty sweet deal for you. Athleek123 19:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this an issue more appropriate for WP:CCI? --202.28.181.200 (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be, but if anon 110.225.152.152 is unable or unwilling to spend about five minutes to provide names of articles and the copyrighted sources, there may be no further action. Cresix (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems like there may be a serious problem here. I'm checking into it, but it looks like it will have to be raised at WP:CCI as possibly requiring a full investigation. To the IP - thanks for raising this, it seems that it may be as extensive a problem as you suspected. - Bilby (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal threat by IP editor

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.

---

Please see here — IP editor "fixing" correct spelling in multiple articles, in ignorance or violation of WP:ENGVAR, evidently does not like this error being pointed out to him or her; reacts by issuing threats of physical violence in article text. 16:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scheinwerfermann (talk • contribs)

It has been revdelled, the IP is blocked, unfortunately the IP is dynamic. Arcandam (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Threats of physical violence? It's only an IPv4 /17. If it happens again, I suggest blocking the entire 98.240.0.0/17 NASHVILLE-26 range, giving clear reasons for the block, and let Comcast's other Nashville customers complain to Comcast customer service, who can then consider whether they want to enforce their AUP. -- The Anome (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

On review: examination of Special:Contributions/98.240.72.57 suggests that they are either staggeringly prolific, or their IP address is perhaps not as dynamic as it might be. -- The Anome (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I support indef. Arcandam (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely from one of Comcast's dynamic address pools: see [9] for the full list. Whois gives the /17 block above. I've upped the block of the specific IP to 7 days, to match Comcast's DHCP lease time. If more of the same comes from the same IP after the block expires, I agree, we should block it for an extended period -- say 2 years.

Then if that fails, it's rangeblock time.

I've also warned the IP that they may not be as anonymous as they think -- ISPs store address assignment data for a long time nowadays. -- The Anome (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I should've been more precise: I support an indef block for the person behind the IP. Arcandam (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely -- no question about that, a community ban is appropriate here. Scheinwerfermann does not currently appear to have any personally identifying information here, but any future credible threats of violence should be reported to law enforcement. -- The Anome (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for the quick action on this. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:12, 1 July 2012 (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.

Oh...

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.

---

Is anyone else seeing what I see here? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's the word "anus" floating at the top of the page, it's on the Entertainment reference desk too... --Canley (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I see it's been fixed now. Back to work. :-) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm still seeing this on the Misc ref desk. I don't see it on the Entertainment desk. RudolfRed (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Was that meant as a reply to the suggestion on the talk page to have a Ref Desk policy on jokes? :) . 01:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Iblis (talk • contribs)

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.

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Resolved

Can someone take a look at the page history here? I'm on my way out, but it looks a bit odd. I've notified the one editor I'm concerned about, SCWA Ladies Champion (talk · contribs), who I can't tell if they are struggling or what. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing at AfD by an established user

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 recently nominated Idol Gives Back for deletion and User:Aspects notified me about informing established editors about the nomination([10]). I didn't feel this was necessary as the article was extremely inactive; it had been edited just 12 times in the preceding year, sometimes by bots, with no editor making more than two edits([11]). However, I thought that this was a fairly reasonable request. Instead of waiting for me to return online, Aspects posted generic AfD invitations to the walls of previous contributors himself. Again, I assumed good faith and though it was kind of him to do the job for me. Aspects then voted to keep the AfD([12]) - still fairly run-of-the-mill. However, on closer inspection I noted that of the four editors he notified about the discussion, User:Therealdavo2 last edited the page over two years ago ([13]), User:Mcoop06 more than five years ago ([14]), User:MissMJ over four years ago ([15]) and User:Woohookitty one year ago([16]). I note that the latter two users are members of WP:IDOL who claim to have a particular interest in editing American Idol articles and both voted "keep" at the previous AfD. Why weren't editors with existing concerns about the notability of the article notified? To me, this seems a case of a user gathering people who he thinks will agree with him rather than informing relevant editors to the discussion. Alongside Aspect's expression of interest in American Idol on his user page, I suspect WP:ILIKEIT is being applied to selectively WP:CANVASS editors. SplashScreen (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Scoop started the article; just as well Aspects informed him; SplashScreen, as the nominator, was supposed to, but did not. Aspects contacted a rabid opponent of the article; MissJ put a PROD tag on it back in the day, and edit warred [17] [18] [19] to Redirect it without open discussion. Aspects also chose two people who were, if anything, bad to contact because their edits did not reflect the substantial content of the page; they had little more interest in the AfD than random Wikipedians. Why bother contacting them? Therealdavo2 makes minor edits to the page [20] [21]. Woohookitty is, other than the AfD vote, an utterly neutral choice, with afaic be bothered to look back, exclusively link repair edits to it. Only one of the 13 people contributing to the first AfD voted Delete, so contacting two Keep voters is in this case indistinguishable from contacting voters at random. Anarchangel (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The real question is "why contact anyone at all?" I rarely find that it is anything but an effort to canvass: an AFD should be able to operate without requiring any specific people.—Kww(talk) 13:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:AFD, a nominator - or anyone else - may notify "informed editors" of the AfD as long as they comply with WP:CANVASSING. It is not required to notify the article creator, but "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." I don't know what the usual practice is, so I only speak for myself. Generally, when I nominate an article for deletion, I contact only the creator (and I always do that). There are some limited exceptions I can think of where I contact others. For example, at WP:BLPN, it is fairly standard that when an article comes to the noticeboard and is then nominated for deletion, a template is put in the thread notifying anyone interested of the AfD. As for the AfD that generated this topic, I'm not going to look at all of the history to see who contacted whom and whether it constituted canvassing. It strikes me that in an AfD that is arguably this contentious, the better practice would be to contact no one except perhaps the creator.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I tend to try (I sometimes forget, and facepalm) to contact the creator and anyone who has done extensive editing to the article. If there have been previous AfD/PROD nominations, I try to contact more people on all sides, but always include the previous nominator(s). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me - I may consider doing more next time I nominate an article. On the other hand, usually extensive editors, previous nominators, etc., have the page on their watchlists, so contact is largely unnecessary.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I voted Strong Keep, I found the nomination silly and think it's extremely unlikely to be deleted, but with that said I do consider this type of canvassing to be inappropriate. We could debate for ages about who should be contacted, how many should be contacted, language to use and not use, etc... but it seems nearly impossible to canvas without giving the impression of illicitly trying to sway the vote in your preferred direction. Can't we just let people vote if they care to and not try to massage the vote either way? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't this process be automated? A bot could inform the article creator, search the edit history and contact either the top say 4 or 5 editors (by number of edits) and/or all editors with more than say 3 edits. (For an AFD to be successful there are unlikely to be vast numbers of editors). Automating the process would have 3 advantages:-

1. The notifications would definately be made
2. The notifications would be neutral in tone
3. The notified editors could not be "cherry picked" by the nominee

Just an idea, but I'm sure there will be "a problem for every solution" - Arjayay (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

When articles are nominated for deltion using Twinkle, the article creator is automatically notified. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is all completely unnecessary. There are often over 100 AfD's per day. If we're notifying the top 5 editors of each AfD, that will be loads of notifications per day. Besides, nothing is broken, the process works just fine the way it is. If you are the creator of an article or a major contributor to it, then it should be on your watchlist so you can see things like this without having to be notified. If it's not on your watchlist, then you're out of luck. Simple as that. I do support notifying the creator of the article in every case, but anything beyond that is unnecessary and almost always constitutes canvassing on some level. -Scottywong| speak _ 18:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The outstanding problem with inviting creators or frequent contributors to an AfD debate is that it'd invariably lead to non-notable articles being kept. Yes, AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, but the people who have created and spent hours editing these articles are hardly going to concede defeat and suggest that the articles be deleted. It could skew consensus and fill Wikipedia with even more unnecessary fluff. SplashScreen (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fall into the "all or nothing" within a reasonable time table. You should notify the creator, then if you choose notify ALL editors in the last $x months, then it is acceptable. Often times, that puts eyes on it who could actually save the article, after all. To me, canvassing would be cherry picking the list, or notifying people who have never been part of the article or a project around that article. The other day, I was notified of an article I hadn't edited since 2007 (and no much of anyone else had, either), in a neutral way, and I considered it a courtesy. I didn't take a stand on it and just made an comment. [22] So we shouldn't assume that that a notification always results in a keep vote. As long as it is neutral in tone, and isn't cherry picking, it is fine in my eyes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

we could do something like this, but we'd have to discuss the conditions: I suppose , first, that "all" means minor all non-minor and non-bot edits. Second, it depends really on the intensity of article editing: for neglected articles one would want to go back much further than 6 months--for ones very frequently editing, 6 months might be too many. I support going go by counts of characters added or remove, but sometimes the key editors are the ones who change a few articles. Human judgment or a very good algorithm seems needed to do it right: it requires avoiding wikignomes doing copyediting, but including whoever are responsible primarily for the content , plus experienced editors who have done substantial work. In the past, some who are mainly interested in deleting articles have opposed notifying on the basis that anyone who would have worked on the article is a supporter. From my own experience that isn't true--I have worked on many an article that I David rather we didn't have, on the basis that if we on have it it ought to at least be better. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I think something went haywire with your last sentence. I'm with Scotty on this one, but that's just because I prefer simplicity. If a nominator chooses to notify someone other than the creator, then he'd better be able to justify what his criteria were for doing so, and that would, as it has here, open up a can of worms.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You say you are with Scotty, but you just stated a system that is consistent with both DGG and I, that whoever is notifying should be using a simple and fair criteria. He is saying that notifying anyone other than the creator is de facto a form of canvassing, a viewpoint I strongly disagree with. After all, AFD isn't solely to delete articles, that is only the worst case outcome. 1/3 of the articles that go to AFD get kept, so if you fairly pick all the editors in the last 3 or 6 months, and they can fix it, then you have done a better service than if you let it get deleted. Anyone can delete an article, but the idea of AFD is to put more eyes on it, but to do it fairly. Canvassing isn't just a function of WHO you notify, it is HOW you notify. I would happily defend anyone who was accused of canvassing when they notified using a neutral and objective criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My last comment because I agree with TFD that this extended discussion doesn't belong here. I think my description is closer to Scotty's than your interpretation of Scotty's comments. He didn't say notifying other editors was canvassing, he said it was "almost always" canvassing. I understand the who and the how, which makes it even more complicated to notify other editors because to avoid the canvassing label, you have to justify your selection criteria and your manner of notification, and the problem in doing that is there will often be post-notice disagreements about it. As I've said on many topics and in many contexts, simple is better unless there's a compelling justification for complexity. Wikipedia leans heavily toward the complex.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Since AfD allows notification of editors of the article, there is no reason to bring this matter to ANI and I suggest it be closed. Whether or not it should be allowed or be made mandatory is something to discuss elsewhere. TFD (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)I apologize for my tardiness but I noticed this thread this morning when there was severe server lag and I could not get to it until after work. Background: Yesterday User:SplashScreen created seven AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idol Gives Back (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bennifer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feelin' So Good (video), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lopez: Let's Get Loud, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversy of the Born This Way Ball, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Starlight (DJ) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady Gaga and the Starlight Revue, and one MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hahc21/Deseo, without leaving a single talk page notification for any article creators or significant contributors. I then left a message, [23], on their talk page explaining that it is good practice to notify other users about the AfD pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: notifying interested projects and editors. Since I had time I went through and notified the creator in six of the articles and notified a secondary significant editor in five of the articles. These were relatively new articles with few edits. I avoided adding my opinion as to whether the articles should be kept to avoid looking like I had some sort of vendetta against SplashScreen if I had happened to think that some of the articles should be kept.

For this ANI section, in the Idol Gives Back, I had to search through a five plus year history. I notified the creator, User:Mcoop06, even though I just noticed they user requested that their page be deleted, so I doubt we will here from them. I then looked through the history for editors who contributed more than five edits across a period of time. User:MissMJ suggested a merger and then later merged the article in April 2007, edited later in May 2007, July 2007 and April 2008. User:Woohookitty un-merged the article in May 2007 and edited later in April 2008. User:Therealdavo2 added substantial information in December 2009, February 2010, April 2010 and June 2010. I felt these were the main contributors of the article that AfD says it is "courteous" to notify. I do not think that just because someone has not contributed to the article recently that they should not be notified of the AfD if they have significantly contributed to the article, it just means they are less likely to be editing in general and might not join the discussion. I also realized last night while laying in bed that I should have notified the participants of the previous AfD and I had planned to this morning. If anyone agrees with me, then they should notify the editors because at this point I am not going to notify them as it could be seen by some as further canvassing.

Three random points, if SplashScreen felt there were editors with "existing concerns about the notability of the article" that I failed to notify, why did they not notify anyone else about the AfD? The "Not a Vote" template is not needed because none of the four editors I notified have joined the discussion. This ANI section was not needed because the AfD was not and still has not been affected by my notifications and did not need to be dealt with is such a swiftly manner that I should have been able to justify my edits prior to the section being made.

All of these problems could have been avoided if SplashScreen would have simply communicated with other editors. If they had done the bare minimum of what everyone is saying in this thread and notified the article creator, I would have discussed the Idol Gives Back AfD and added the delsort. If SplashScreen would have communicated with me, either in response to the talk page message I left them or if they had left me a message on my talk page to respond to, I could have explained why I contacted certain editors and it would have avoided this entire ANI section. It seems to me that my simple request for them to communicate is falling on deaf ears beacuse they started another AfD today, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Summer Tour (Rihanna), without notifying the creator. Sorry for the length of my response, Aspects (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not the bare minimum of what everyone is saying. I never notify the article creator, and don't believe anyone should. I think notification of any kind goes against the concept of attracting a random cross-section of editors to gain an objective consensus about an article.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, yet another view, and, honestly, one I'd never thought of (partly because Twinkle makes notification the default); yet now that I think about it quite defensible.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If AFD was a vote, then I would agree, but since it isn't I always tell the creator, who might can fix the issue since he might know the topic better than I do. I always notify the creator as a courtesy, but it isn't required, only encouraged. The only time I notify others is when I think it is a borderline case that can't stand as it is, I can't fix it, but it might could get fixed at AFD by people who know the subject matter. To me, the best outcome of an AFD is when the article gets fixed and kept. My experience has been that people who have edited the article a few times tend to be as objective as someone who never has. I guess it depends on the type of article. I probably would be less inclined to invite a host of previous editors on a Rihanna related article, or other articles that attract more fans than editors, but I don't usually work in pop culture areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah right, Dennis, you like more artful, underground music--but thanks for letting me borrow your Whitney Houston CDs. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Whitney rocks!!!1 Don't be dissing good music. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The AfD is now closed and the article has been Snowball Kept ... I'm not sure we need to continue this discussion. My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that it is often worthwhile to notify people with a known interest in an article about a nomination to delete the article; after all, they are the people who are likely to be most aware of evidence of notability. Not everyone can check AfD every day.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Not everyone can check AfD every day" - nor should they. But, with all said and done, what difference does it make whether "notable contributors" have a say or not? If an article is of questionable notability or violates WP:BLP, Wikipedia is not going to fall apart at the seams just because someone who's edited it a handful of times doesn't their say in the AfD. Consensus is collective with no special exceptions. SplashScreen (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@SplashScreen, you brought this to ANI without a specific request for administrative action. Now, after a long discussion about AfD notifications, much of which was more generalized than specific to the case you brought, what action, if any, are you asking for, or are you willing to allow the topic to be closed?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2012 (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.

Attacks by other editors on me

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 would like to report two editors who have taken to attack me for my spelling and grammar, even though my user page clearly states i am dyslexic, and that spell checkers are not any use to me since i can not spell the word in the first place so the spellchecker can not correct what it does not understand

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Rangers_FC_club_dead_or_not it is in the section

Try to get consensus one way or another user leaky cauldron

""Cones us", "serpentine"....? What are you talking about? Have you not heard of Show preview so that you can proof read your content. This is verging on semi-literate,WP:Patent nonsense Word salad. Leaky Caldron 13:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)" user hilo48 "Rubbish. Dyslexia IS a literacy problem. LC is correct. Rather than just explaining bad spelling, we should correct it to make it legible to the rest of the world, which is what I have now done. This doesn't have to be seen as criticism of Andrewcrawford, just assistance. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)"

leaky cauldron is like a lot of people who think English is so important

hilo48 has no conceptive of dyslexic he acknowledged it is literary problem but literacy is not just reading it is writing as well

i am not sure what to do with this because it is not as sort a personal attack as such but they are attacking me for having a disability which i do not think is right please point me in the right direction, and i did spell check both post before the spell checker they where a lot worseAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 15:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see that this is something for ANI--at the most, it's for Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree i dnt think it is appiorate for here but i aint sure whe eit is, but the place you said is for being uncivil leaky cauldron is being discrimation and lesser extent so is hilo48 because they think dyslexic is something else although i say it more they dnt know anything about the subject and see it as how american do dsylexica is reading problems but in the uk it is defined as reading and writing problems i have been official diagnosed with it and told it affect my ability to write as wellAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I know this may be controversial, but I don't see how whether you're dyslexic or not has any impact on this dispute. Either your contributions are good or they're bad, it doesn't matter what the reason behind it is. It isn't everyone else's job to try and decipher what it is you're trying to say. You may have trouble articulating yourself properly in writing, and I do feel sorry for you in that, but you can't just accuse everyone else of "discrimination" just because they can't understand what you're saying. We don't allow people with anger management issues to make personal attacks on the grounds that not doing so would be discrimination. It's the same principle here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Concur completely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, competence is required. It's irrelevant what the source of the incompetence is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is a conversation I've had with Andrew as well, and something with which I have extensive professional experience. While I'm strongly supportive of his participation here regardless of his disability, dyslexia/dysgraphic presents some significant challenges in this context. Moreover, a disability is not a free pass, and Andrew does have a responsibility to make sure he is communicating effectively with the community. I've suggested he pre-write his edits and talk page posts in a word processor, then use the spell checker (which I do not agree that don't work, if you learn to use them properly) in the past, which he's unwilling to do. It's not the responsibility of the community to clean up what Andrew writes, but at the same time, he is due the same civility as any other member of the community, no matter how frustrated individual editors may be. I think HiLo48 was genuinely trying to be helpful, but Leaky Cauldron might have chosen his words better. --Drmargi (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nota bene: Leaky Cauldron = JarlaxleArtemis. I think Drmargi means Leaky caldron. Arcandam (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

thank you drmargi that is what i am saying i am only looking for civility and not be to be attacked for my spelling i do try i admit sometime i do not but i do nto force anyone to read my posts, but what i annoys me more is that post i spell cheeked and the two words getting criticise is what the spell checker putAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

i should have said i am not looking for a free pass just to be treated the same as someone who doesnt have my problemsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, especially on an encyclopedia entirely and completely dependent on written communication, it is not remotely a personal attack for someone to say "I have no idea what you've just written and it makes no sense to me." There are certainly kinder words extant to put across Leaky Cauldron's sentiment, but when all is said and done, we ALL think that English is important, and anyone who doesn't think that a good command of the English language is a necessary prerequisite for editing and improving Wikipedia is a liability who doesn't belong here. Indeed, Andrew, you were treated exactly as someone might who does not have your problems; as someone expected, as we all are, to write in lucid, clear English. Ravenswing 19:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)if that was the case then why do people go and fix other people errors, i have no problem with people fixing my errors i never have because i know what i write is beyond poor but my what i write should be no less valid than what someone else writes yeah it might be harder to read but turn it the other way i can not really read full stop well understand things i can read now just dnt get context Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I know it's tough, Andrew. If we're honest, Wikipedia's policies and practices do little to accommodate disabilities, yet Wikipedia is based in San Francisco, where both California and federal law require reasonable accommodations be made. Perhaps one strategy would be to find a "buddy" editor who can copy-edit for you. It wouldn't necessarily help with talk page posts unless they have standing permission to edit what you write (I could clean up your posts here a good bit with ease, for example), but might help in some contexts.

(edit conflict)certainly would help in a lot of cases although it would be testing over time to see if you understood what i meant at times as i seriously mean the spell checker has no clue neither does my wife until i speak the word, but not sure how i would make talk page editing legalAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I don't agree that this is a simple competence issue; it's far more complex than that. Arcandam, I meant Leaky Cauldron because it says Leaky Cauldron above, but refer to whichever editor is involved with Andrew. Rather than presuming to tell others what I mean, why not ask me? --Drmargi (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it is pretty obvious you were not referring to JarlaxleArtemis. Arcandam (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

But do try to recognize that other editors may not know that the difference exists (I didn't) and particularly in this context, may not notice so small a spelling difference and/or assume such a difference is an error. Moreover, I find it offensive to have someone speak for me. --Drmargi (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The spelling difference is very hard to notice, that why I tried to be helpful by pointing it out. The difference between these two editors is like night and day. Please reread my comment: I did not speak for you, I spoke for myself. But this is not very important and kinda weird considering the fact that spelling is the topic of this section. Arcandam (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Just come across this. The complainant did not notify me on my talk page. I have edited the Dispute Resolution section only 4 times, the last being the occasion where the comments complained about were left. It is on my watch list, but I monitor changes through history diffs and, to be blunt, seeing only Andrew and Superbouy participating I have not bothered to read all the subsequent updates. Andrew complains about my remarks and accuses me of discrimination presumably on the basis that I was aware of his disability and therefore targeted the remarks in an attempt to embarrass, humiliate, provoke or otherwise upset him. If I had checked out his User Page and then posted he would have a case. In fact, before that post I simply checked out WP:PN and considered that, while apparently intended to mean something, it was so confused that no reasonable person could be expected to make any sense of it, hence the reference to word salad.I hope Andrew can appreciate that bringing issues to ANI without warning and making intemperate accusations is, in itself, not acing in a good faith manner. We can all learn something and maybe next time I see patent nonsense I’ll check the User Page first to see if they have self-identified a communication problem.

@ Arcandam. Please check out your facts and make your apology as public as your accusation . Leaky Caldron 19:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you think I made a typo? I did not. You are Leaky caldron. Leaky Cauldron = JarlaxleArtemis (emphasis mine). JarlaxleArtemis is well known for trolling and trying to impersonate other users. Arcandam (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I apologise, I thought you were implying that I was a former blocked editor and I apologise openly and unreservedly to you. Leaky Caldron 19:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to apologize mate, you know I love you. Arcandam (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Guys, please do not fall out with each other because Andy spelt my name incorrectly. That would be too ironic. Leaky Caldron 19:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Arcandam (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

sorry about that i didnt mean to get people confused with another user just shows how crap i am because it doesn't even show up as a error with cauldron which shows how bad my ability to read are never mind writeAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) i apologise leaky cauldron i should have one that so i have broken the rules now :(, the only reason i brought it here was because another user told you to strike it out and that was few days ago and since you hadn't i am taking it as attack onAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see it, buried in too many diffs. I would have come to your talk page. Leaky Caldron 19:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

i apologise for making a wrong assumption i am happy to make this resolved closedAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:43, 2 July 2012 (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.

Legal threat

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.

---

Aparrently a new user who does not understand what Wikipedia is for, but as this contains a legal threat I'm reporting it here: [24]. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• note : Page has been deleted since under A3 and G3. Can you post the details on here (if appropriate!). Mdann52 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Done Indef blocked via WP:DOLT. Good find. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:22, 2 July 2012 (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.

Batman the dark knight rises my theory`s

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.

---

Something odd is going on here. Aparrently new User:Mjn1997 created Batman the dark knight rises new therorys (which contained a legal threat) which I nominated for deletion, and then Batman the dark knight rises my theory`s, which User:NPrice nominated for deletion.

Batman the dark knight rises my theory`s is now an article about the previous article and its deletion, which incorrectly states that User:NPrice created it. This new article was created by User:Bart simpson rules, who was aparrently previously nothing to do with this, but has a copy of the deleted text. Is there cause to suspect a connection between User:Mjn1997 and User:Bart simpson rules? RichardOSmith (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Both blocked - Bart simpson rules had a prior L4 warning. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Easy enough :) yes hello, nprice (was) here. (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2012 (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.

Reporting threat

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.

---

70.232.160.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made threats [25] and [26]. IP is currently blocked for 31 hours, reporting here per Wikipedia:Threats of violence. I did NOT take these as serious concerns and did NOT report via email. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I would agree. I did revdel them, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I saw that. I figured asking for revdel here would only have 200 ppl quickly go look. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2012 (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.

Admin Vandalism of My User Page

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.

---

Admin Arthur Rubin has recently vandalized my User page, in violation of WP:NOBAN. Diffs at [27] Changed "This user is a physicist" to "This user is not a physicist". SimpsonDG (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Arthur Rubin should have respected your decision to call yourself a physicist in the context of you userpage, but it doesn't really look like it rises to the level of vandalism to me. I notice you opened this AN/I discussion less then an hour after posting to Arthur's talk page, have you considered trying to resolve the issue with him first? Monty₈₄₅ 04:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This has been a pattern of behavior with him, and he's already been blocked multiple times, as his talk page shows. If this were a casual user I might have let this pass, but I expect better behavior from an Admin. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I beg to differ; it is behavior that would draw at the least a stiff warning - if not a block - to an anon IP. Such petty vandalism is quite intolerable in someone trusted to be a Wikipedia admin, and I am eager to both hear Arthur's explanation for his behavior and his groveling apology for it. Ravenswing 04:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly not draw an anon IP a block unless there was a connection to sock puppetry. It would probably generate a level 1 warning, maybe a level 2. Its just a fact of life that we are willing to assume more good faith with an editor who has a track record of productive editing than we are with an IP whose first edit is suspicious. I'm not willing to assume bad faith from that one edit, which is a condition of the edit truly being vandalism. Monty₈₄₅ 04:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree completely if this were a casual editor, but Wikipedia admins should be held to a higher standard. Petty vandalism of User pages by admins is a type of bullying, and should not be tolerated. And this isn't exactly his first infraction -- his record shows many instances of this kind of unprofessional behavior. It reflects poorly on the whole Wikimedia Foundation. SimpsonDG (talk) 05:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I was surprised to see the edit. Arthur Rubin has been prodigious in his contributions, but that particular edit has no justification. In response I hope he will apologize, and then all concerned can and should let this matter rest.--S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@SimpsonDG: You posted your complaint on Arthur Rubin's talk page at 23:35, but he last edited at 21:06, several hours before. Instead of waiting for him to return to editing and discuss the situation with him, you came here with your complaint - that doesn't speak well for you.

BTW, are you a physicist? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well he did say "This has been a pattern of behavior with him". So it doesn't seem unreasonable to come here. I'm sure we'll all see the explanation soon. Do we care if he is a physicist? -- Avanu (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course we do. We always care if someone is holding themselves out as being an expert untruthfully. And whether it's a "pattern of editing" or not, AN/I requires direct discussion with the editor in question before coming here\, and you can't have a discussion with someone who is not online. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a particular process for verifying claims of expertise? And, no, AN/I doesn't require direct discussion, it is a preference. Nothing is set in stone at Wikipedia, for sake of process alone, we shouldn't avoid a request. I do agree that direct discussion is best, but as the editor said "this has been a pattern", so rather than a recrimination at this time, save it for the end -- if it still matters. -- Avanu (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It was wrong and childish for me to edit his user page, or to assert that he's not a physicist. His claim to be an expert mathematician to the extent that his personal web page should be considered a WP:RS disturbed me, though. (Technically, it's not he-as-editor, but he-as-web-page author, whose expertise is questioned.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The loci of this dispute are this series of edits and this series of edits. See also this edit, this edit, and this edit for more background. Uncle G (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good grief. Yes, I am a physicist. I have a Ph.D. in applied physics from the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, I work as a research physicist at NASA, and I teach physics as an adjunct professor at a local college. I also have a master's degree in applied physics, a master's degree in applied mathematics, and a bachelor's degree in physics. But Arthur Rubin is not being truthful when he states that I claimed to be an "expert mathematician". I made no such claim, as the above edits from Uncle G prove. Of course I'm not an "expert mathematician". I only claimed that my background gives me sufficient expertise to write a simple article on trigonometry. I'm not sure what to make of this "apology" immediately followed by a lie, but it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia to see this sort of behavior from an admin. I guess this admission of misbehavior is about the best we can expect from Arthur Rubin, though. I don't need an apology, and I doubt an official warning would do much good anyway. Let's just close this discussion and end the matter here. SimpsonDG (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2012 (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.

Help!

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.

---

user:Hamish Ross is attacking wikipedia and noones here to block them! 2.124.45.50 (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That user was blocked long ago and the block is still in effect. I see no problem here. DMacks (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Since the IP is in a range that has previously been rangeblocked to prevent said user socking, I suspect the obvious. Closing this. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (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.

Anna Frodesiak

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.

---

Since speaking with a Wiki helper in IRC, Anna Frodesiak she appears to have made it her ambition to devote her time to pick holes and attack this article and the other article I have tried writting Cheongye Kwan. I blocked her from following me on IRC, so her only methods now seem to be adding tags and comments for conflicts that do not exist or have been previously removed such as the COI above which was removed by mareklug. No article writer should have to deal with people such as this, and so I request both of my articles be removed and deleted, as they are far more respected than they are being given credit for here.Hjc2012 (talk)hjc2012 07:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not surprised she put an AfD tag on it. It went through AfD last year and was about to be deleted when the author userfied it, so the AfD was halted. That's unfortunate, because if the AfD had completed this new version could simply be speedy deleted through WP:CSD#G4, because it's effectively the same article with a few extra references; which are blogs, self-published or primary sources. This is just an end-run around a previous deletion process. As for the other article, personally I think it just about achieves notability, and if that's the case it won't be deleted - since there are a number of contributors to it, WP:CSD#G7 doesn't apply. Black Kite (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Response from Anna Frodesiak

I encountered Hjc2012 only twice at IRC. At #wikipedia-en-help she asked me to look at Cheongye Kwan. I checked the refs and said it likely didn't pass GNG. Yesterday she PMed me. I always ask to move PM discussions to #wikipedia-en-help, but after I clicked the link to Barry Cook, I thought it must be the same editor. I asked. She said no. I told her it was quite a coincidence. I said that I think it's probably you. She said never mind. She left. Those two discussions were it. I never tried to contact her.

That second discussion I preferred private because it was immediately apparent that it was her, and to ask to move it to #wikipedia-en-help would have seemed like I wanted to embarrass her by saying so publicly.

As for the articles, I still think they are promotional and have very weak references. My actions were as follows:

• I responded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheongye Kwan (3rd nomination) to the suggestion that Cheongye Kwan be redirected to Barry Cook by saying that I'm considering AfDing Barry Cook, and why.
• I posted at Talk:Barry Cook saying that references are badly needed.
• I tagged Barry Cook with a the same COI template that exists at Cheongye Kwan.

I think my conduct was appropriate. The defense rests. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Psst! Black Kite! Anna Frodesiak was not the nominator in any of the three times that Cheongye Kwan has been nominated at AFD. Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Whoops! I saw her comment on Barry Cook and along with the OP talking about Anna and tags, I did a 2+2=5. Still, I won't tell anyone if you don't, eh? Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2012 (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.

IP (probable sock) at Race (classification of humans) graduating to legal threats

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.

---

Resolved

 – Matter is handled. Drmies (talk)

• [29]. Could we have the Ip blocked and the page protected perchance?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Palimpsest: blocked by Black Kite. Drmies (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • It was Mikemikev again. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter

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.

---

Would an admin assess the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter? Initiated 10 June 2012, the discussion was relisted twice, the most recently on 24 June 2012. The article is listed at Template:Did you know nominations/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter and a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashton Kutcher on Twitter‎ by the creator and DYK nominator has not been acted upon.

Relevant reading:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#"… on Twitter" (permanent link)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Appropriateness of "X on Twitter" (or similar) articles (permanent link)

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking a look at it. -Scottywong| communicate _ 18:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for closing the discussion and providing a detailed rationale. Cunard (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2012 (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.

Move request at Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)

Could an admin or experienced editor take a look at this and do whatever they feel is appropriate. I have a few concerns but am involved, as I closed the last move request, so won't list what they are so as not to bias anyone else. Obviously happy to accept whatever action someone feels is appropriate (including nothing). Dpmuk (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• To me that is a tough one. I get the feeling it will end up being called a civil war here eventually and not that far in the future, so we are just stuck between names. It is rather quick, but there are no hard and fast rules on time between discussions. 30 days would have been nice, 8 or 9 is a bit fast. I can't think of any words that will change the minds of those that want to reopen the issue to a vote or I would use them, and the discussion is heated but on topic. I tend to say wait a bit and see what happens only because there is no other alternative that I can think of that would be less disruptive than what they are going to do anyway. It is a bit of a no-win scenario, and hopefully people won't get need to get blocked along the way. If anyone else has a better idea than "nothing", I would love to hear it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I also think that a renaming might be warranted soon, but I've move-protected (following a request at RFPP) until there is a clear consensus after a clear discussion (honestly, the latest wall of request wasn't all that clear or concise). Drmies (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, the previous requested move was closed around a week ago. -- Luke (Talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

When I first saw another move request I thought I'd be posting that I didn't object to another move request as, in my opinion, the situation has changed enough since the last request that a new request could be warranted. It is the request itself rather than it being another request that I have concerns about. I don't think it's useful to have comments about the "biased" close of the previous request in the new request. This isn't because of the attack on me (although I feel it does fall under WP:NPA I think admins have to accept they're get a certain amount of this) but rather that it isn't helpful to the new request. Likewise again comparing the situation to some definition of civil war is unhelpful as this should never influence a move discussion as it is original research (a view I think was supported by the review of my close here). Finally I think that this request concentrates too much on the same reasons as the last one. While, as I say above, a new request that considers the new material may be worthwhile I don't think this request is likely to help that happen and is instead likely to lead to the same arguments as before. In short while I would support a new, well-argued request this is so far from that that I think it is disruptive. However if people here think it's best to let it run it's course then that's also fine. Dpmuk (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a personal message on his talk page. His comments were uncalled for and I've asked him to strike them. We will see if he does the right thing or not. I guess I've grown used to people attacking the actions of admins, sadly, and in this case it is easy to see that you acted in good faith in closing and it was completely out of line. As I told him, I agree with his position about the name, but I also agree with your close as well. This isn't about one or two opinions, it is about consensus, or lack thereof. As for the discussion, I still think we have to let them continue only because shutting down will cause a firestorm and more disruption, or someone could restart the discussion on a more neutral note and hat the old one. Unsurprisingly, these types of articles bring out the worst in people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit wars

Hello, there is a person that opens alot of users to vanadlize wikipedia. This person started to do this in last August. His first user called Karparthos and it blocked in September or October 2011. From his first blocking, he started to open alot of users (i think he have 15-25 users unitll now) and he's writing wrong information. For example, He decided that Qantas Airways will operate flights between Istanbul snd Sydney. This information was wrong and his proof was flight safety page and it's not related to his claim and "our" fight. His users were blocked for a week or month but that's it. He continues to vandalize pages in Wikipedia. He's from Turkey. I'm trying to talk with him but he does not return me an answer. Know he's vandalize the article of Ankara Airport, Rome-Fiumicino Airport, Milan Malpensa Airport and more. I know for sure that he is the same person and I'm not the only one that thinks that. His users: 88.247.101.165
46.196.46.3
178.240.95.21
178.240.11.236
31.142.170.156
178.240.119.214
172.218.89.36
46.116.176.233
88.244.151.102
46.196.144.66
88.250.125.163The message "vandalize" was from me i forgot to log in...
88.247.100.162
46.196.147.187
88.247.101.165
Karparthos
--Friends147 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Simulation12 socks to block

Simulation12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to edit Boomerang (TV channel) and related articles in violation of his community ban. Please block his most recent obvious socks:

• Boomerang222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.217.47.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These accounts share the same editing pattern, have (in the first case) almost the same username as previous socks, and have posted the exact same information as the previous socks. (For further details see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive755#Boomerang2 (returning sock of BoomerangWiki) and User talk:MuZemike#Boomerang225.) I've requested semi-protection for the article as the majority of edits to it in the past few months have been from socks, or are reversions of sock edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tiptoety already nailed the Boomerang222 account, which I had actually been watching, so it looks like a lot of eyes were on him. The IP is a cell phone, so has likely already changed long a go, so no need to block. In the future, you need to file this at WP:SPI rather than here, so we can log it with the other socks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • MuZemike, who had previously been dealing with this problem, said SPI wasn't necessary since the socks were obvious. So who is right? The editor is likely to continue creating socks (usually quite obviously—most of the names match the pattern Boomerang[0-9]+ and simply repost the same text as the previously blocked ones) so I'd like to know where to report them in the future. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike is speaking of this particular instance of socking as being obvious and since it is already here for admin review there is no need for an SPI this time. He chose not to block because he is giving the tools a temporary rest. Generally speaking, you should file future cases at SPI.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you've got it backwards: it's not the case that MuZemike said SPI wasn't necessary since it's already posted here; rather, I posted it here because (and after) MuZemike said SPI wasn't necessary (and also because, as you pointed out, he's not currently issuing blocks himself). I can post further reports to WP:SPI if that's more convenient for everyone. In my experience, however, obvious LTA accounts (which is probably what these qualify as) are usually blocked without a formal SPI investigation. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That is odd. As an SPI clerk, I always want the case at SPI just to put in the archives, even if they have already been blocked, in case we need to do a checkuser later. But MuZemike outranks me as CU. You might have to ask for clarification from him. Sorry. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Long-term disruptive editing by User:Rkononenko

User:Rkononenko has engaged in a long-term habit of removing alternate Russian-language names for Ukrainian cities, despite a clear consensus among editors in that area to leave them intact. He/she is not a consistent editor, but whenever he/she shows up the first order of business is to always remove the Russian alternate name for Kharkiv. Is there anything that can be done to "disrupt" this disruption? Here are links showing what this user has done since March: [30] [31] [32] [33] User has had warning templates placed on his/her Talk page on several occasions which are ignored. --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would like to propose either a 1RR restriction on all related articles that the account has removed the name, or a topic ban on these articles. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban on editing articles related to Ukraine would be best.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The previous ANI topic relater to this user was sent to archive without any consequences, and it would be good if this time some decision were made.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Rkononenko has again performed his/her special vandalism today. --Taivo (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Any reaction from administrators?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams article is being attacked again by user fasttimes68

He is also removing her name off of pages that mention it and are relevant facts. 98.14.172.174 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I should note that one of the edits in question includes the edit summary "revert blocked sock". I've not dug any further, but on the surface, fasttimes68 (talk · contribs) may be editing in good faith. —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

On the Stephanie Adams article, IP appears to be the one at fault. Athleek123 22:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no justification for adding Adams to the July 24 births, although it seems to be true. As an alumni of Fairleigh Dickinson University she is being added unreferenced. The reversion of a sourced sentence in her article, when the source is already present/left upon reversion as a reference seems...unnecessary. YMMV. Dru of Id (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There is quite significant history here; fasttimes68 really shouldn't be touching the article [due to a COI, and previous behaviour], as I warned him in detail before, as it only causes the matter to erupt again. I came close to blocking him this time to drive the point home; but it is a little while since it all happened so will leave it. No comment on the July 24 edit, I don't know how those articles work, but the info being removed from the article should stay, and is one facet of the ages-old dispute. It just shouldn't be him keeping it in. The IP is probably a sock or meat puppet based on behaviour and knowledge of the dispute. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

if someone other than the socks wants to restore the edits, feel free too. Ive not a problem with the edits per se, but rather this consistent sock editing. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• I removed her from the university page and removed the claim from her bio. True or not, it's not verified in a reliable source in her article that I could see. But that's beside the point of this thread, I guess. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban User:fasttimes68 from Stephanie Adams

• Support - Topic ban User:fasttimes68 from any edit in regards to this living subject - He is a clear conflicted contributor in regards to Stephanie Adams - we should have done this last time. Notified the user - diff Youreallycan 22:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I categorically deny any COI with the subject. Never met her, plan too, care too. AFAIK I've never met or communicated anyone associated with her (outside of the article space). Please provide evidence of any COI you think that may exist. Additionally, I'm having some connectivity issues so please allow me up to 24 hours to respond to further posts. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a squirm if ever I saw one. Your COI certainly doesn't stem from knowing her; it stems from the off-site attack pages you wrote about her. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What attack site? Storing URLs from third party sites hardly constitutes an attack site. That entire "site" was a one page blog which was a cut and paste of URLs some of which weren't considered RS of which I wanted to save for later to see if an RS would collaborate. This "attack site" bullshit has beend bandied about before. Produce some evidence or kindly desist with this particular accusation. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You wrote a blog post impugning her (the title of which was discussed here). So quit with the nonsense. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That entire blog was cut and paste from several third party sites. Not one word was mine. Even the god dammed title was from another site. The whole puprose was to save some informatioso for later. So what contributions of mine HERE do you have issue with, and of which you have threatened to block me? Fasttimes68 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're "saving it for later," you have a hard drive. By publishing them, you've staked a claim in the debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. I don't see enough diffs or evidence to support the topic ban, and I'm also wondering whether there's an indefinite block that also needs to be opposed on the other side of the coin. If this were a meeting under Robert's Rules of Order, I'd rather see the motion tabled (but not tabled indefinitely). —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/An-Apple-A-NY-Day Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That page was created--and almost solely edited--by User:Fasttimes68 in April. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support; although likely I will block him anyway if his fascination with the article does not abate. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, because I see no sound reason for a ban. But he needs to show he's aware that merely suspecting that an IP or username is a sock is not the same as having clear evidence that the IP or username is a sock. Until this evidence is presented and acknowledged, you cannot revert changes on grounds of socking. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - User denies COI. We need more evidence of a real COI and further evidence that the user is whitewashing or astroturfing before we topic ban. Reverting edits of a suspected abusive sock is certainly not bannable. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

  As ErrantX noted above, the user wrote at least one off site attack article about the subject of the article - Youreallycan 17:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence? Yeah, right.Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on. Your blog entry attacking Stephanie Adams was already discussed here. I'm the one who found it. AniMate 21:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support, topic ban as an alternative to indefinite block. You don't need evidence for COI, just look at his contributions related to Stephanie Adams (article, talk page, related noticeboard discussions).--В и к и T 20:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So show us the diffs in question which supports your position. You are the one who brought up contributions. Find some that are worthy of banning. Fasttimes68 (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, oh Heavens no. If everyone will slow down here and look at the history of this article, it looks like FT68 is one of only a few editors who is actively trying to uphold policy on this page and keep a slew of blocked editors and IPs (who may very well be the same person) from turning it into a promotional fluff piece. This entire section was started by what appears to be an IP of the returning troublemaker, so to reward him by removing the only editor who cares enough about the article to keep his promotional efforts away would be ridiculous. If you want to make this situation better, then watchlist the page yourself and assist in keeping the page up to policy. FT68 appars to have a pretty clean block log (1 block in 2009, nothing recent) and allegations of his COI need to be shown and proven with diffs of bad edits. Saying he hates the subject because of something he's allegedly written offline isn't sufficient without evidence it's carrying over to Wikipedia. So far, I don't see any links to those. FT68 could use some help with his editing at times, sure, but blocking him because no one else shows up to protect a BLP page is very short-sighted. NobleDarkling (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • New editor, first edit here, second edit above. Now, I'm all for WP:AGF, but really, is this the same editor as FT68 etc etc? Not suggesting a check user should be run but then again.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

While you're busy running that checkuser, why don't you also discuss what I said and actually look into this matter? Or better yet, while you're on your way to file, drop by the Adams page and watchlist it, and give a BLP some help? Then you can return with you regularly scheduled shooting of the messenger. Or if you don't want to hear it from me, read Ravenswing below. NobleDarkling (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure we will continue on the discussion, with or without your input or regardless of your status. --MuZemike 21:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Let me get this straight ... this must be a COI because, among other specious grounds, the editor has a "fascination" with the article? For Chrissake, I have over 300 edits in on the Boston Bruins article ... do I have a "fascination" with that, and ought I be barred from editing the article in consequence? Why, I too have created articles, and in some cases have the overwhelming share of edits on those articles ... should I be barred from touching those again? Truth be told, I don't give a goddamn whether FT68 wrote an attack page or not - although like others, I await some proof that he actually did so - as long as his edits on Wikipedia are neutral and pass policy muster. (I can think of articles I edited where I didn't care for the subject, come to that.) This is not only nonsense, I would seriously question any block or other action ErrantX might unilaterally take against FT68 in the future. Ravenswing 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There is around 6 years of history here. Fasttimes68 has some ridiculous fascination with the article, and the subject (or at least someone representing her) has been clashing with him for some time. As an example of the sort of attitude he has; he wrote a blog post attacking Adams, which was then deleted when last discussed to try and avoid scrutiny of his position. There was vague agreement he should stay away from the article last time (see link above). A couple of us have been dealing with this "nonsense" for some time now. To be clear; his actions on that article almost always, even if they are within the bounds of policy, create hours of administrative work behind the scenes. Polite requests to let others deal with the matter are met with inexplicable obstinance. I understand the holier-than-thou attiude, but get involved and it will wear you down also. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support Fasttimes68 has been fixated on Stephanie Adams for years. He's made a point to link to off-site blogs attacking her, and went so far as to write one himself. When someone has had such a strong, negative opinion about someone, it seems like common sense to remove them from the article. AniMate 21:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Partly based on FT's history and partly based on his attitude here, which is pugnacious and disingenuous. Frankly, why should he care so much about being prevented from editing one article? The supreme injustice of it all? Surely, he can find something else to do here that would be more constructive and hopefully cause fewer (none?) administrative headaches.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this article in your watchlist? Add it and promise me you will keep it clean of the bullshit fluff Adams keeps adding and ill be more than happy to leave this article alone. Though others have assured me that "we've got this" and failed to back up their words with action.Fasttimes68 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh, your comment strengthens my support for a topic ban. Why do so many editors shoot themselves in the foot like this at ANI? Is it part of the instructions at the top of the page and I missed it ("Thou shalt self-destruct")?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Admins, please remember that WP:BLPBAN exists for a reason. JN466 01:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Insufficient evidence that it is needed at this time - FT68's behavior on this article is mildly troubling, but I don't think it rises to the level of needing a topic ban. Yet. I think a warning is sufficient for now; if this behavior continues with no signs of improvement, then the topic ban may be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgath (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If Fasttimes68 has actually made particular disruptive edits, those should be identified and appropriate sanctions discussed. What shows up here, however, is a familiar pattern of resistance to routine BLP enforcement, harassment/haranguing of the editor involved by fans of a subject (sometimes even by or on behalf of the subject) until the frustrated target of such abuses loses their temper and makes intemperate comments (or worse), followed by suggestions of COI. Fasttimes68 may well have made inappropriate and nasty comments about the subject offsite, but unless they're trying to add such material or remove legitimate relevant sourced material, their opinion of the subject isn't really relevant. It's entirely consistent with Wikipedia principles, for example, to believe someone is an unimportant self-promoting charlatan and to edit their article to keep it in compliance with BLP.
  

Most of the content involved in the current editing disputes fails BLP requirements. Too many sel-published sources, press releases, and plain misrepresentations of reliable sources. It was a bad idea to restore this deleted article without a DRV. The AFD issues weren't satisfactorily addressed, despite good faith efforts; the conflicts that disrupted the prior version have been renewed, and the fundamental problems remain. This is a BLP of a marginally notable person which has repeatedly become an BLP-noncompliant battlefield. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hullaballoo is completely correct on the situation here, which is why banning one side of this argument is rewarding the side that refuses to follow Wikipedia's policies. NobleDarkling (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I guess I'm going to try my first jump into a debate here....In viewing edits, undos, and contributions by fastimes, I see he blanked Adams out of several categories, particularly on March 30, 2012, blanking edits that are related to her, such as "Wilhelmina models", "July 24" "Fairleigh Dickinson University", "List of women writers", "Stephanie", "Playboy playmate", etc. etc. I also see his commentary, accusing Adams herself of editing the article about her as well as other models. And where did "noble darkling" (ahem, aka fasttimes) come from? Tis an odd obsession, not a neutral party editing. Fiiinally (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the perfect example, Fiiinally. Fiinally is a new editor who lay dormant for a while, then began adding information about Adams with his first mainspace edit [34]. When FT68 began to revert IPs adding the usual promotional stuff to the Adams article, Fiiinally popped back up to begin edit warring promotional material back into the Adams article, trying to take advantage of a distracted FT68 to get thier way on the Adams article. This isn't a new strategy. If you'll check the history, this seems to happen a lot. Very good job by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to help edit the article, and for Sarek to protect the page until this is all settled. We're dealing with a battle on both sides on that page, which is why blocking one side (without ever producing any diffs of actual non-policy edits to the article) is very short-sighted, and will only produce more BLP problems down the line. NobleDarkling (talk) 19:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I too find NobleDarkling's entry into this unusual, being a new user. Someone who might be inclined to believe in conspiracies might think that someone might be trying to create the appereance of me socking. Is it possible to create a SPI on yourself? Or if somoene could do it for me, that would be appreciated. Fasttimes68 (talk) 23:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support Fasttimes68 is STILL commenting on the Stephanie Adams article in the Talk page, even though the article has been fully protected, and shows no signs of staying away politely. DAMVan01 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Birth date and alumni

A primary source works for both of these basic sorts of information and such a source with both is here. Silverseren^C 02:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For various reasons, secondary sources [especially ones not based on the self-written biography] for this detail would be preferable. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

For alumni, I suppose I can understand, but birth date? We often use primary sources for birth date. Unless she's one of those people that's fabricating her birth date to seem younger. Is she? Silverseren^C 22:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a primary source. That's a self-published source. A birth certificate would be a primary source for the birthdate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd assume that the person in question would always be a primary source for their own birthday. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Her birthday and college info was created here originally (http://web.archive.org/web/20080529113926/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Adams) and most recently here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephanie_Adams&oldid=488544559) so why is it such a heated topic? It's referenced in her actual centerfold magazine issue, in other magazines that have written about her, as well as online. Do they all have to be added or is it ok to have just one? Fiiinally (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ban proposal for User:An-Apple-A-NY-Day

An-Apple-A-NY-Day, which according to Delicious carbuncle is Ms. Adams [35] has been socking since at least since 2007. Most often the edits were to glamourize the Stephanie Adams article with "facts" from unreliable sources or her own press releases. Since the SA article was deleted last year this editor has taken it upon herself to remove RS information (or insert blatant BLP violations) in other articles, most of which are related to fashion models, eg. Kara Young & Victoria Silvstedt. This editor has flooded OTRS, forum shopped, made repeated legal threats and even (allegedly) called Jimbo's cell phone to complain about "her" article.

One would think that after 6 years of editing she would have at least learned the basics on using reliable sources, and the difference between truth and verifiability. This editor has shown that she clearly doesn't have the WP:COMPETENCE to contribute. For all of these reasons, its time to formally show this editor the door.

• Support as nominator. While this user has already been defacto banned, it is beyond time for the community to put their stamp on this. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: I did not identify An-Apple-A-Day as Adams. I have never interacted with that user. The diff that Fasttimes68 provided refers to my attempt to get in contact with Adams herself. I do not know the identity of the person behind the account that was involved in that discussion or the person behind the account An-Apple-A-Day, although sockpuppetry has been and continues to be a problem on both sides of this dispute. I have taken the liberty of striking Fasttimes68's remarks and ask that they not be restored. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, the user in question on your talk page was User:Hershebar whose SPI has been merged to AAAND. I never intended to imply that you knew that the Hershebar was a puppet of AAAND. Please accept my apologies. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Although it seems obvious that the person or persons behind these accounts are in some sense connected to Adams, you identified Adams herself as the sockmaster, which is not a statement that you should be making unless you can back it up. That is a clear violation of WP:BLP and I am sure you have been warned about this in the past. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Block pattern and rationales made by User:Toddst1

Further information: [[:../Edit warring#User:Sethjohnson95 reported by User:Till I Go Home (Result: no vio)|../Edit warring § User:Sethjohnson95 reported by User:Till I Go Home (Result: no vio)]], § Admin action regarding violation of three-revert-rule, User talk:Status § Yet more edit warring?, and User talk:Status § Ain't it funny...

Users involved: Toddst1 (talk · contribs), Status (talk · contribs), Calvin999 (talk · contribs), Kww (talk · contribs), Till I Go Home (talk · contribs) and myself, Hahc21 (talk · contribs).

Blocks

Well, how do I explain this. First: All this 1 July 2012, Toddst1 (talk · contribs) and Status (talk · contribs) have been involved in a harsh situation. The latter has never been blocked as of that day, when the former applied a block on his account, which was later removed by Kww (talk · contribs) with the following restriction: "I will always provide a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time." on Status.[36] What happened?, Status started working on If You Had My Love and reverted some unsourced content that was against WP:BLP and was considered under WP:EW and an exception of edit warring.

After watching this, Toddst1 suddently blocked Status without warning and with the following rationale: "Edit warring: Continuing EW on If You Had My Love immediately after release of block for similar reversions," [37] which directly violates the previus unblocking rationale by Kww and Status. Toddst1 provided these diffs: [38] [39] as examples of the edit warring. Finally, after a discussion arose on Status' talk page, Toddst1 finally commented that:

"You and Status were both baffled when Calvin999 got blocked for edit warring, you were baffled when you got warned about participating in a 2-on-one edit war on Heidi Montag, you were baffled when your report on WP:ANEW got shut down and you were baffled when your complaint on ANI not only got shut down, but mocked by the closing administrator. What's baffling is that after all this disruption, you (and apparently both Hahc21 and Status) haven't bothered to figure out what an edit war is."

Which i personally believe as to be a personal attack to Status, Calvin999, Till I Go Home and (perhaps myself) under "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views."

Also, this same day, I mistakenly edited from my IP, without noticing i was offline, on this MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hahc21/Deseo. My IP was immediately blocked by Toddst1 with the following rationale: "either a sock, block evasion or both" [40], thus rendering impossible for me to edit on Wikipedia. I excused myself for the misunderstanding and got unbloked (IP-unblocked) some 3 hours later, by Toddst1 himself. When watching my unblock request (without unblocking me), he commented "When I blocked this IP, I deliberately specified "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address." I figured it would catch somebody, but was not expecting it to be you." [41]. Status replied his comment and then, Toddst1 replied with this: You really don't get it do you?.

So, reaching a conclusion, as many users had stated and I believe per policy, Status' second block is unsupportable based on guidelines and perhaps made in both bad faith and as a punishment instead of a prevent measure. Toddst1 has shown an intense stalking sign over both Calvin999, Status and recently myself, leading to some questionable actions, which finally led to the creation of this report. As of this date, Status remains blocked pero his actions at If You Had My Love, with no signs of future unblocking. Also, the main goals is not the unblocking of the user but to find a solution of the dispute between such users and write a warning for Toddst1 actions, whom I consider an good editor aside from this tricky situation. Regards. —Hahc21 06:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted not to dignify this with a response, but I'm going to state that there is a group of users enumerated above (excepting KWW) that tend to edit the same articles, usually in alignment with each-other and apparently do not understand what edit warring is. Two of them have been blocked for edit warring in the past few days with their buddies indignantly taking up for each other (without understanding the relevant policies) when one has been blocked or warned.

There is a related closed discussion above Wikipedia:Ani#Admin_action_regarding_violation_of_three-revert-rule related to this cabal. Toddst1 (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that user was edit warring in which you took no action, but Status did not edit war at all on If You Had My Love yet you blocked him. Strange, right? Till I Go Home ^talk 06:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a common problem on pop music articles, where a small camp of editors takes control of a group of articles. I'm generally supportive of what Toddst1 is trying to do. I'm not quite as supportive of the last block, but it's not something I'm just going to walk in and undo either.

To the editors that are involved here: you are all aware of me, and I think we generally all get along. Many of the blocks that Toddst1 is issuing are blocks that I probably should have. I've kind of given up on trying to deal with the entrenched camp around Rihanna, or the entrenched camp around Lady Gaga, or Beyonce, and I shouldn't have done that. I'll keep an eye on the situation to make sure that it doesn't get out of hand, but so far, it hasn't.—Kww(talk) 11:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A few of the comments made by Hahc puzzle me. First, if I understand properly, the reverts made by Status were related to a music genre ([42] and [43]). How is that possibly exempt as a "BLP" violation (I don't see any BLP exemption claim in the edit summaries, either)? Second, Hahc says that he didn't realize he was editing without being logged in. When one edits as an IP, there is a warning about it. Even if he forgot to log in, how could he not have seen the warning? As for the Todd's actions, I don't see anything clearly wrong with them. Status was blocked for edit-warring. He came back and immediately did a revert in another article that was not clearly within his voluntary editing restriction. I dunno, I think I would have been just a little quieter than Status after this kind of history. Even if one believes that Todd's block wasn't perfect (see Kww's comment), that doesn't make it wrong. Some blocks are clearly right, some are clearly wrong, and some are in between. Even assuming this one is in the gray area, I wouldn't challenge it, and I wouldn't expect Todd to unblock (it's only a 24-hour block) at this point. Status can always appeal to an uninvolved admin if he wishes to. To ascribe retaliatory motives to Todd for the block doesn't appear justifiable. I also don't see any personal attack by Todd, only forceful statements. I think you all ought to chill.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree on the chill comment. I think there are times when the nuances of edit-warring are not obvious to editors, especially when they first bump into the 3RR rule, because "my edits are RIGHT!" Its hard to sit back and see the 'wrong version' stay in an article and be forced to take the slow road and wait for admin intervention. But that is how Wikipedia works. @Hahc21, I think your intentions are admirable, but honestly, it may be better to just let the 24-hour block expire. One possibility that both of you might consider is trying to keep your record clean for a bit and have Toddst1 come back periodically and see how you're doing and maybe get a review of your actions. This might help in future if you end up making an inadvertent mistake, because it will demonstrate a willingness on your parts to play by the rules even if you bump into them by accident. Really that's the whole goal here. There isn't a lot of nuance to the whole block system, you're either blocked or you're not. It might feel very personal, and in a way it is, but I think Toddst1 is just doing what he feels is right and I think if you keep trying to do your best, you guys can work this out in the long run. Best of luck. -- Avanu (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a good example of the problem of inconsistent standards and punishment. Not everyone agrees there was even edit warring. In practice, unsourced content routinely gets removed, and editors are not usually blocked for it. To rephrase bbb23: Even if one believes that Status's action wasn't perfect... that doesn't make it wrong. User:Toddst1 apparently has a particular view of edit warring. Now, people are welcome to have a range of views, but Toddst1 administrated those views by blocks and removal of user rights. I wonder, how would Toddst1 react to someone blocking him over a difference of view of appropriate administration? An admin needs to look at the overall situation, including the likely effect on the editors involved, before using tools. So Status is considering leaving - is that really a good outcome? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a better example of commenting on ANI without understanding the context.

Of course discretion is applied and application is inconsistent. Had you read my "Note to reviewing admin(s)", you would see where that was explained. When someone is blocked for violations of WP:NPA and their behavior immediately upon release of block includes borderline public attacks, there's a great chance they'll be re-blocked. Similarly, if an editor (as in this case) is released from an edit-war block, continues repeated reversions, there's a good chance they'll be re-blocked. Administrative action requires discretion and understanding of the context. In this case, the context included an editor fresh off an early release of an edit-warring block (with voluntary restrictions), working with a cadre of collaborative editors with ownership and edit-warring patterns.

If you really wonder how I would feel if someone were to block me over a difference of view of appropriate administration, please do it and you'll find out. However if those are just inflammatory remarks and you haven't invested yourself in understanding the context and the details as it appears, please move on. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So you defend yourself with "discretion"? So, do you have any objection to an admin using administrative discretion to block or ban you until you demonstrate sufficient understanding of admin policy. Do you understand the problem now? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No. I'm not defending myself at all. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Only to reply Bbb23, my intentions are not to get Status unblocked. I acutally see that Toddst1 block is within policy. That's not the issue. Maybe i see things from a deeper perspective (wich I explained on my talk page), but the issue relies on three things. One of them os the first unblock rationale, which was extremely poor and thus led Status very vulnerable to being blocked. The second and third things I'm not ready to write them here, since i'm exploring the correct policies to back them up. I (in most casesm without some exceptions) do not write anything without some serious policies behind them. Also, Toddst1, why do you removed rollback rights from Status by yourself instead of asking another uninvolved admin to do so? Do you understand that such actions can be considered as to have some sort of COI? —Hahc21 01:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no COI - I did the blocks which were the rationale for the removal. I would have done it at the time I made the blocks (especially the second one) if had I realized he was a rollbacker at the time. WP:INVOLVED would imply that I was edit warring with Status. Just because I blocked him doesn't mean I can't take further action. Toddst1 (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

About "uninvolved", i have to disagree. What i meant is that, since you've been actively involved on this discussion (you performed the blocks, you've been actively speaking with us, and you ar considered as involved by this report), I just thought i would have been better to ask another admin to do so. Why? Well, to keep peace on the wiki, since i'm aware a pile of users will point that as bad faith. I'm not saying it's bad faith nor it's COI. I just said it "could be considered" as COI. Anyway, thanks for the answer. Cheers! —Hahc21 02:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1 is not WP:INVOLVED; involved is when editor mixes the editing and admin functions. Repeated application of admin tools in regards to a single case or individual is fairly common. Nobody Ent 09:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate block. Removing unsourced information is policy. Both removals including edit summaries which clearly explained the reason for the removal, thereby satisfying the terms of Kww unblock condition; reversions were of different editors, so it's a stretch to cite EW as a reason for the block. Nobody Ent 02:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide me with a link to the policy that says it's ok to edit war over removing un-sourced non-BLP content? No prose, just a link. Toddst1 (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, so much ink spilled over whether Jennifer Lopez' If You Had My Love is R&B or not. Seriously, this whole debate is plain ridiculous and only Wikipedia could give it these kind of legs. Look Todd, right or wrong, you made a call. Stand by your call and let it be, but make absolutely sure that every time you pick up the tools, you *know* that is the only option. Everyone else, what exactly will make you happy at this point? Let's hear a solid proposal so we can move to a consensus rather than a forensic analysis of this mess. Sound ok? -- Avanu (talk) 05:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia dispute resolution is best served when editors in general and admins in specific speak in direct plain language. Asking for a link that does not exist is not helpful. You have a responsibility to to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed; comments like "You really don't get it, do you" fail the standard (I don't know why the IP Hahc used is still blocked). The applicable link is prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. If you felt Status's actions constituted edit warring a talk page would have been preferred; as previously noted, I don't see the edits as edit warring. Some editors are given addition technical tools to allow editors to continue to edit with a minimum of disruption; prudence dictates they be executed in a manner that itself minimizes disruption. Gray area blocks coupled with overly aggressive language do not do this. Nobody Ent 09:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that during Todd's request for adminship, when asked "When would a block be appropriate? When would it not?" he replied: "A block is appropriate to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia or people or things outside of Wikipedia through Wikipedia edits. It is not appropriate as punishment or in a simple content dispute." Is an addition of a genre (unsourced) not a "simple content dispute"?

Additionally, I'm surprised his reason for blocking was not brought up here either. he stated that: "Edit warring: Continuing EW on If You Had My Love immediately after release of block for similar reversions", which implies that I was previously edit warring on "If You Had My Love" and immediately after my block, I did the same thing I was blocked for in the first place. Kww mentioned on my talk that my edit restriction that got me unblocked was the reason the block is justified, which Todd did not make mention of at all. Kww was actually the user who suggested what to do for the restriction, in which I trusted that it sounded good and would not cause any more issues. As Hahc21 explained on his talk page, in response to Todd: "The rationale provided by Kww when unblocking Status is the third valid ground to block Status. Why? Such unblock rationale was extremely poor and provided you and Kww with an open game to block Status at the first revert he made, even if it was against vandalism (just to expand on the scope). Taking "I will always provide a source or relevant policy when reverting a second or greater time." was a double-edged sword that finally cut Status himself, and then led you to block him."

He also removed my rollback rights, which he is allowed to do (but isn't a requirement, if I was indeed edit warring, which is being disputed here). Don't you think that if he really believed that my rights should be removed, he should ask an uninvolved admin to do so? He didn't even remove them as soon as I was blocked, it was several hours later. That sounds like a personal vendetta to me.

Statυs (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I know Status better then anyone and he is not the type to go off an edit-war and he if he has a reason to revert an edit he does it with good faith and good reason. I have disputed with him before but I respect him as an editor and know that he knows better then I do about this and I look up to him. It is bull that he is being drug into this and that he being accused of such a thing. I do not support this at all and think all angles should be looked at and the guidelines remembered. Swifty*^talk 06:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback rights

Earlier today, my rollback rights got removed by User:Toddst1. According to him, "my repeated statements have made it clear that I doesn't understand what an EW is and isn't", while on my talk page, he said "Rollback requires a thorough understanding of WP:EW, WP:3RR and to some extent WP:BLP all of which you are clearly having problems with". These are not sound reasons to remove someone's rollback rights. I have thoroughly read through WP:Rollback multiple times, and nowhere did I see these that these reaons to remove rollback rights. The only reasons the guideline states are:

• "A persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used", and
• "Editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war".

Never have I used rollback aside from reverting blatant vandalism, otherwise I just use the WP:Twinkle version and explain my reverts, and Todd even acknowledged that I "have not directly engaged in protracted edit wars". There was thus no reason to remove my rights for it. I spoke with him about this matter on his talk page with no response. Can I just say, I've been on Wikipedia for over 3 years, all my edits are good-faith and constructive, I have full understanding of what is and isn't vandalism. There was no reason for Toddst to remove my rollback rights for this. Till I Go Home ^talk 06:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please see this for additional information. Best, Statυs (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am distinctly reminded of past ANI discussions regarding Toddst, as this isn't the first time he's done something like this. I think at this point we should seriously considering starting some sort of recall process. Toddst has clearly shown in this and in past actions that he is unfit to wield the mop. Silverseren^C 10:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Desysop would be excessive and remove an active admin from the already too thin ranks. Nobody Ent 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can you please further explain what you mean by this? Statυs (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has a shortage of active admins. While I may disagree with Toddst1's action he's perfection is not required Nobody Ent 11:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• It is actually these sorts of actions by admins that makes users not want to become them. Though I suppose it is a good example of how admins are harbored against the disruptive things they do until they do something egregious enough to actually lose the bit (usually involving Arbcom and an actual block). Silverseren^C 11:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, what makes users not want to become admins is what you have to go through to become one, and to be one. First you have to win a popularity contest against future indef'd users, and then you have to put up with all manner of vile complaints when you try to do this strictly unpaid, voluntary job. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Precisely - the only time I've ever lost my cool on Wikipedia was during my RFA. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Silverseren's comment makes no sense. Why would bad actions by admins make a user not want to become an admin? If anything, it would increase any motivation because the user would want to do a "better" job once promoted. Baseball has it exactly right, and Bushranger's comment confirms the first of Baseball's points from the perspective of someone who's been there.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That would seem premature as it's not very convincing that anything majorly wrong or inappropriate has been done. Also, the only obvious thing I see from the link above is several personal attacks against Toddst1 which the editors appear to have chosen not to strike out. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing obvious personal attacks. Nobody Ent 10:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

This looks like one: "Unfortunately a disgrace like Toddst1 is far more concerned with his ego than actually doing anything helpful here". IRWolfie- (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst is currently in hot water for his recent administrative actions such as (perceived) poor blocks, and unncessarily removing my rollback rights just crossed the line. Till I Go Home ^talk 10:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Removed that one -- any others? Nobody Ent 10:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie, removing rollback rights from a user without no valid reason to do is not alarming to you? Statυs (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly not alarming to me. Rollback is not required to edit Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's required or not. The point is that he removed the rights from me without sound reason. Nobody should be allowed to go around and strip someone of their rights if they haven't broken the rules as stated on the respective guideline. Till I Go Home ^talk 11:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback is a user right. He removed the user right (which is a tool admins have to use) without any reason to. His claims that an editor must be familiar with WP:EW and the like are not supported my WP:ROLLBACK. That is a misuse of an admin tool. Statυs (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback is NOT a "user right", it is a user privilege which can be revoked at any time. If you misuse rollback, you lose it. And you can still use the "undo", which can be only one extra keystroke. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

THAT'S the point though. I didn't misuse it at all. It was removed without sound reason. Till I Go Home ^talk 13:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Then you should ask for it to be restored. But first you should change your every comment from "right" to "privilege", because it ain't a "right" - which you should know already if you've read the rules several times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You wear your ignorant prejudices like a badge of honour. Have you ever read WP:ROLLBACK? I quote: "There are currently 1,471 administrators and 4,579 other users (6,050 total) who have rollback rights." Doesn't seem to say "rollback privileges" to me. Malleus Fatuorum 13:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it, which is why I've managed to retain the privilege. I very seldom have to use it, and I don't remember the last time I got into an edit war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And speaking of ignorant prejudice, maybe you missed the statement, "editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is rollbacker not a user right? No one is saying people have a right to be a rollbacker. Statυs (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that I am trying to be nitpicking here, Baseball Bugs - but the 'privilege' as you call it is shown in Special:UserGroupRights and is granted and revoked using Special:UserRights - so your request that they should change every comment from "right" to "privilege", because it ain't a "right" is just utterly bureaucratic and besides the point. The question is, whether Toddst1 was doing a right thing, not whether it is right or privilege. And Till I Go Home should not need to ask it back if it was taken wrongly, it should be handed back without question. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Then go for it. Hand it back without question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's premature to open an ANI mere hours after posting a notice on Toddst1's talk page. Nobody Ent 10:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's all under one thread anyway. And I agree with the user above who suggested a recall process for the admin. His actions are alarming and many other users have noted this. Till I Go Home ^talk 11:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can someone please address this issue of Toddst1 unnecessarily and unfairly removing my rollback rights. Till I Go Home ^talk 11:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Did Toddst1 give you any warning that he would remove your rollback? If you never used rollback to edit war and your usage of the tool has been perfect, then I think revoking the tool (especially without warning) is excessive. In fact, it's because of my concerns about removing rollback from people without any warning that I added "[...can lead to it being removed from your account]...sometimes without any warning, depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse." to the note I leave on user's talk page after I've granted them rollback. Acalamari 11:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

He claimed that: "Rollback requires a thorough understanding of WP:EW, WP:3RR and to some extent WP:BLP all of which you are clearly having problems with." (which is not a requirement, as shown on the rollback page). He concluded that: "It should also be noted that you in no way abused the rollback privilege." Statυs (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

He didn't warn me once. It really was out-of-the-blue. Till I Go Home ^talk 11:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It should also be noted that you in no way abused the rollback privilegeNobody Ent 11:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If you really wished to have access, the logical and easy approach would have been to request access to it, whilst demonstrating that you do understand the relevant policy. Exactly as Toddst1 stated [44]: "It should also be noted that you in no way abused the rollback privilege. Because of that, I noted in your user rights log that rollback may be restored later if you demonstrate a full understanding of the relevant policies." IRWolfie- (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• As a comment from someone completely uninvolved in any of these issues with Toddst1, I can't see grounds for removing rollback when someone hasn't actually misused rollback. Rollback is for vandalism, the user was using it for vandalism, and as they seem to understand that it shouldn't be used for edit warring, what's the problem? OohBunnies! (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Exactly, thank you! You could go through my entire 6,700+ contributions and find that the tool was not misused once. The problem? Toddst1's administrative behaviour. He unnecessarily removed my rights just like he unnecessarily blocked other users. This is not new. Take a look at this previous thread about his poor conduct. [45] Till I Go Home ^talk 11:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If the editor has demonstrated an inability to recognize edit warring. Pre-emptive removing of the access sounds like good judgement to prevent future misuse until such a time as the editor in question demonstrates an ability to recognize edit warring [46]. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate that if I have never ever misused rollback for the entire six months I had it, I would not misuse it in the future. You learn more things as time goes by, not less. Putting this aside, it isn't even a valid reason to remove the right. It's just something that he made up to get his way. Till I Go Home ^talk 13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1 explicitly said there had been no misuse so further misuse is a non-sequitur. Nobody Ent 14:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I said future misuse not further misuse. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you did. In any event we don't preemptively assume bad faith. Nobody Ent 15:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest it might be in bad faith. If someone doesn't understand the relevant policies and guidelines then you can very easily, whilst acting in good faith and trying to do your best, make some mistakes. For that reason I can understand why it would be removed. I think it should also have been pretty straight forward to get the access back as well without resorting it to adding it to this ANI, by requesting it again with a small comment demonstrating understanding of relevant policies etc or even mentioning why he thinks the reasoning was flawed, and thus averting unnecessary further drama here. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I did, I don't think I should have had to re-request it at permissions. Todd should have reverted the move himself to understand why he was wrong in the first place. Hopefully something like this doesn't happen next time. Till I Go Home ^talk 16:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

But meanwhile keep in mind, to hope is bullshit: "Because I do not hope to turn again; Because I do not hope" (T. S. Eliot, "Ash Wednesday"). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've restored rollbacker rights. I'm going to assume this was a good faith mistake by Todd and just move on. Todd himself admitted that no abuse had taken place, so there is a flaw in the logic of removing it. Todd had previously said he was taking a bit of a break in an email, so I'm assuming he won't be around to reply. I'm the type of admin that gives permission to any other admin to correct my errors, on my user page, and I will just assume that Todd is as well. Since I am assuming the best of faith, and that Todd made a simple mistake, it should seem obvious that this isn't wheel warring or a comment on Todd's faith, only a correction in the name of fairness. If there is a concern with my actions, I welcome further discussion on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Of course it could be possible that Till I Go Home could mistakenly use the tool wrong, but from the months that he has had it, there are no signs to show that. You must know what vandalism is to use rollback, you don't need to know EW, 3RR and BLP to use rollback. It is clearly only stated that you cannot use the tool to edit war, which Till I Go Home didn't do. Todd removing the tools was a sign of bad faith in my eyes. Statυs (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Dennis, don't you think there's a huge double-standard going on here? When a user is blocked, it is literally demanded of them to address their behavior as condition of any unblock. But even though there is consensus here, that Toddst1, at a minimum, "made a mistake", well gosh, there's no admission of same from Toddst1, you seem to protect him from the need for making any such admission (instead "doing it for him" more or less), when there's no understanding displayed by Toddst1 in any of his comments here that show any understanding of how others believe he went wrong; nay, he disagrees he did anything wrong or deficient from what I can tell! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not protecting him, I'm providing my rationale for my actions as I don't want others to think this was part of a wheel war, because it isn't. I am choosing to correct a problem without passing judgement and take the high road in regards to faith. If you or others have a different opinion, I am not standing in your way of expressing or acting upon it. I think you might be misreading my motivation here. I'm stymied that I was willing to step up and restore the right to someone, which would appear to be exactly what you would want, yet it isn't good enough because I'm choosing to remove myself from judging the actions and leaving that to others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  "yet it isn't good enough because I'm choosing to remove myself from judging the actions". Negative. Read again what I wrote about double-standard. The double-standard isn't anything about what you should or were expected to do. It is about your comfort to end the whole deal without any degree of admission from Toddst1 as to what is the consensus here, he (at a minimum) "made a mistake", and how that is so vastly different from the automatic demand on a blocked user to address their behavior. Double-standard. (You seem to always misread what I write. Why is that?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Previous activity by admin

• Toddst1 removed my WP Email privilege while I was blocked, which was an extreme measure to take by any admin on WP as far as I understand it. And there was no justification whatever for the removal. There was no abuse of Email, to any degree, at any time. There's a big gulf between being "not perfect", and being abusive with the mop. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at your block log there is an extreme abuse of admin powers there. I'm curious to know why you were blocked for two weeks for something, which was changed to indef with no other developments. In the same minute even. Statυs (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed that too. One can only wonder. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The block log doesn't show anything. I fail to see why you would declare it as abuse when it seems you haven't looked at the reasonings behind them. The reasoning seems clear here: [47]. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem here (which is also stated in the above section) is Todd's rationales for blocking. His change of heart from 2 weeks to indef was not explained on the block log, which is generally what normal users who are looking would see (such as myself). Something like: "Actually, looking at it, this block should be indef; see reasons on talk page" would be reasonable. Then, a user would know the situation without having to do all the work themselves. A user would not also look at this and see it as unexplained and potentially abusive, which I clearly did here. Statυs (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

He provides a rationale in the section "Indefinitely blocked". Whether you agree or not is a different matter, but the rationale is there. I think focusing on that it was a 2 week block then instantly changed to indef is pointless, it may have been a simple mistype the first time which was then rectified, not worth thinking about, let alone demanding an explanation and arguing about. Nothing like abuse is shown there, note that it was also a different administrator that declined the subsequent unblock request. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't seen to understand what I stated above. For a user who just looked at the block log without checking previous diffs of the page, it simply shows the 2 weeks being changed to indef, without a reason. I'll quote myself: Something like: "Actually, looking at it, this block should be indef; see reasons on talk page" would be reasonable. Statυs (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It may have been handy, but it's not necessary, I think everyone would check the talk page like I did. Under no interpretation does that rise to the level of the "extreme abuse" you stated above. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Striked "extreme" as being an over-dramatic word. I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree and leave the rest at that, here. Statυs (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Move request at Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)

Could an admin or experienced editor take a look at this and do whatever they feel is appropriate. I have a few concerns but am involved, as I closed the last move request, so won't list what they are so as not to bias anyone else. Obviously happy to accept whatever action someone feels is appropriate (including nothing). Dpmuk (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• To me that is a tough one. I get the feeling it will end up being called a civil war here eventually and not that far in the future, so we are just stuck between names. It is rather quick, but there are no hard and fast rules on time between discussions. 30 days would have been nice, 8 or 9 is a bit fast. I can't think of any words that will change the minds of those that want to reopen the issue to a vote or I would use them, and the discussion is heated but on topic. I tend to say wait a bit and see what happens only because there is no other alternative that I can think of that would be less disruptive than what they are going to do anyway. It is a bit of a no-win scenario, and hopefully people won't get need to get blocked along the way. If anyone else has a better idea than "nothing", I would love to hear it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I also think that a renaming might be warranted soon, but I've move-protected (following a request at RFPP) until there is a clear consensus after a clear discussion (honestly, the latest wall of request wasn't all that clear or concise). Drmies (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, the previous requested move was closed around a week ago. -- Luke (Talk) 01:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

When I first saw another move request I thought I'd be posting that I didn't object to another move request as, in my opinion, the situation has changed enough since the last request that a new request could be warranted. It is the request itself rather than it being another request that I have concerns about. I don't think it's useful to have comments about the "biased" close of the previous request in the new request. This isn't because of the attack on me (although I feel it does fall under WP:NPA I think admins have to accept they're get a certain amount of this) but rather that it isn't helpful to the new request. Likewise again comparing the situation to some definition of civil war is unhelpful as this should never influence a move discussion as it is original research (a view I think was supported by the review of my close here). Finally I think that this request concentrates too much on the same reasons as the last one. While, as I say above, a new request that considers the new material may be worthwhile I don't think this request is likely to help that happen and is instead likely to lead to the same arguments as before. In short while I would support a new, well-argued request this is so far from that that I think it is disruptive. However if people here think it's best to let it run it's course then that's also fine. Dpmuk (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a personal message on his talk page. His comments were uncalled for and I've asked him to strike them. We will see if he does the right thing or not. I guess I've grown used to people attacking the actions of admins, sadly, and in this case it is easy to see that you acted in good faith in closing and it was completely out of line. As I told him, I agree with his position about the name, but I also agree with your close as well. This isn't about one or two opinions, it is about consensus, or lack thereof. As for the discussion, I still think we have to let them continue only because shutting down will cause a firestorm and more disruption, or someone could restart the discussion on a more neutral note and hat the old one. Unsurprisingly, these types of articles bring out the worst in people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit wars

Hello, there is a person that opens alot of users to vanadlize wikipedia. This person started to do this in last August. His first user called Karparthos and it blocked in September or October 2011. From his first blocking, he started to open alot of users (i think he have 15-25 users unitll now) and he's writing wrong information. For example, He decided that Qantas Airways will operate flights between Istanbul snd Sydney. This information was wrong and his proof was flight safety page and it's not related to his claim and "our" fight. His users were blocked for a week or month but that's it. He continues to vandalize pages in Wikipedia. He's from Turkey. I'm trying to talk with him but he does not return me an answer. Know he's vandalize the article of Ankara Airport, Rome-Fiumicino Airport, Milan Malpensa Airport and more. I know for sure that he is the same person and I'm not the only one that thinks that. His users: 88.247.101.165
46.196.46.3
178.240.95.21
178.240.11.236
31.142.170.156
178.240.119.214
172.218.89.36
46.116.176.233
88.244.151.102
46.196.144.66
88.250.125.163The message "vandalize" was from me i forgot to log in...
88.247.100.162
46.196.147.187
88.247.101.165
Karparthos
--Friends147 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Odd group of new users

further reading:

• Weber-Wulff, Debora; Isolan, Graf (2012-07-02). "Uncovering scientific plagiarism". The Signpost.
• VroniPlag Wiki

Lately, there's been a plagiarism scandal affecting a number of Romanian politicians. I noticed that all of a sudden, four accounts have appeared, making edits that deal with the topic, and that also happen to put out relatively decent new articles on the first try. The four are Sciencecopy, PlagiarismUS, Caragiale2012 and HildegardPuwak. The last is particularly noteworthy, since Hildegard Puwak is an actual politician. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In future, please notify the users with {{subst:ANInotice}}. I have done this for you. Thanks.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No need for a patronizing tone to a long-time editor, Chip123456. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I would hardly call Chip123456's comment patronizing. It was simply matter-of-fact. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The imperative is, by definition, not "matter of fact". Drmies (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Hildegard Puwak, usernames of people who share a name with someone famous or claim to be that person "may be blocked as a precaution, until proof of identity is provided" per WP:REALNAME. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, it is best that user specifically is reported at WP:UAA.--Chip123456 (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

^to expand - report, I believe there has to be some evidence.--Chip123456 (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the evidence is in the contributions and the link to the coverage of the scandal: you're not being helpful. The user name is only one aspect of a more complicated case. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Biruitorul, you're on to something--something of the "name 'em and shame 'em" kind. I've blocked the user imposter (I'm assuming it was an imposter--no answer was forthcoming), and I've looked at the other contributors, and trimmed Ioan Mang; I note that other editors have gotten involved as well with some of their edits, at Silvana Koch-Mehrin for instance (a clear case of wikinlinking for the sake of, well, spamming). Now, the best thing (that I can come up with) to do in the short run is to keep an eye out and edit aggressively (these are BLPs, so "aggressive" means "conservative") for BLP and UNDUE violations; another thing to consider is an SPI and request CU on the basis of behavioral evidence. Thanks Biruitorul; your efforts to keep the place clean are appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"No answer was forthcoming"? Only 92 minutes had elapsed between the request for confirmation of identity and the block, during which time the user was not actively editing and presumably offline. Sure, the username policy allows you to proactively block in such cases anyway, but it's rather disingenuous of you to claim that you allowed the user sufficient time to respond. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, sorry, sir; I've struck the offending comment. Thank you for reminding me of what the policy allows me to do. I can't find the claim you said I made, but I apologize for that as well. BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but the block I imposed did not block the IP or prevent them from renaming an account. Now, do you have anything substantive to add on the actual issue? That would be appreciated. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• A name such as "Sciencecopy" brings to mind a recent Signpost article. This isn't just confined to Romanians. Uncle G (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well done guys, I've just rumbled a sock farm here. WilliamH (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

William, I just saw it, and I'm a bit shocked. Thanks for your quick work; I know how much y'all have to do at the SPI desk. Biruitorul, here's your vindication. To other editors: the extent of this sockfarm indicates that there is an issue here we need to keep our eyes on. Drmies (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk page Soka Gakkai

THe following message was left at the talk page Sōka Gakkai Quote: Hey @catflop I know you are a pimp of Nikken. Don't push your NST ideology and motives here. Get the f*ck out of here you mtf !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.101.227 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I hope that appropriate meassures will be taken. I informed the user on his talk page. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It is I believe also worth noting that the same IP made some significant changes to the Soka Gakkai page today here and here. The rather odd edit summary "Perception and criticism are unsubstantiated,ridiculous and not necessary feels the Devil king of the six heaven" of the second edit may be an indicator of identity, I don't know. But this is a shared IP and I personally am not particularly familiar with how we recently deal with such. I do however think that a short block on the IP is called for, and likely semi-protection of at least the article page. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Devil king of the sixth heaven (第六天の魔王) (dairokuten-no-mao) The king of devils, who dwells in the highest or the sixth heaven of the world of desire...--Shirt58 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I already asked if the article could be temporarily protected this was declined as there were not enough reasons to do so.--Catflap08 (talk) 05:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Template:Recent death appropriate for use on userpages?

I asked on IRC, the general consensus was "No, unless they really are dead". I'm not going to list any users, but a few have put that template on their userpage, and then continued on editing. I'm genuinely curious as to what others think, but I personally think it's very inappropriate to have on userpages unless the person really did recently pass. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 21:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it is in very poor taste to place such a template on the userpage of someone still living, and such a practice should be strongly discouraged. Also, this is the proper template to place on the user page of a wikipedian who actually has died (and the death can be verified).--JayJasper (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the existence of an alternative template, I think it's inappropriate if the user is alive, but most of the time we can't tell, since the assumption that there's a 1:1 relationship between "accounts" and "real human users" is shaky at best, and when people start claiming drastic alterations to personal status it's wholly unreliable. If I were to die it would actually be quite nice if a relative used my cookies to log into sites like enwiki and say "By the way, the owner of this account has died and won't be bothering you any more. The party's on Friday, bring a bottle". I would, therefore, advise against removing the tag in many cases because there's a (maybe small) risk that it's true, and the hurt caused by treating a true-positive as a false-positive outweighs the harm caused by all the false-positives. If some folk want to edit whilst claiming to be dead on their userpage, that's unhelpful but hardly a crisis; we have people claiming to be dragons and historical figures and fictional characters, and it's no biggie as long as they behave themselves in other namespaces. bobrayner (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, if someone edits a user page to say they are dead, then the account should be blocked until they can prove otherwise. If the actual owner did this, we have to wonder about their intentions. But, if their account was compromised and someone else made that edit, then we have issues. So maybe I should have said, treat this as we would any compromised account. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ Vegaswikian.--JayJasper (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Either someone has already cleaned these up, the problem isn't great, or I'm not searching correctly. this list only shows four User pages with the template, and only two of those are actually displaying the template (the other two are test/shortcut lists). --Tgeairn (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin:OrangeMike reported by Avanu

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.

---

Despite a long debate not that long ago, and I am sure with the best of intentions, OrangeMike (talk · contribs) is continuing to summarily block new users in direct opposition to Wikipedia:Username policy and Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Specifically, "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username." and "Blocks should be preventative" (not punative).

SocialHostLaw (talk · contribs) is the latest person to get caught in this and is a very confused and unhappy editor. This editor has no problematic edits and seems to barely know how to edit a page presently. Recommend a 24-hour block for continued use of tools which contravenes clear policy. -- Avanu (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't block admins for misuse of tools. --Rschen7754 00:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We issue blocks to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. Why would this be different? This editor has no idea what they did or how to fix it. We issue blocks all the time for edit warring, civility violations, etc, why wouldn't this apply in the same vein? OrangeMike knows the letter of policy on this; it was the subject of an enormous debate. If not a block, then clearly at least a ban, until such time as this admin will agree to comply with that policy. -- Avanu (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on, Avanu, this is an absurd report. You also neglected to notify OrangeMike (Rschen did it for you just as I was about to). You're not telling the whole story as to what happened. No "problematic edits"? Give me a break. The guy cited his own blog on the page that is about the substance of his blog.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu, ScocialHostLaw was editing problematically, spamming his own website into into an article three times. For someone who's username is the name of his website, that's enough for spamusernameblock. While he was acting in good faith, even his confused and frustrated post-block statement indicates it was his intention on Wikipedia to promote his website. I also notice you haven't even pretended to discuss this with Mike. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it is not allowed by the blocking policy that you cited a few paragraphs ago. Also, did you try discussing this with the aforementioned editor first? I see another editor has attempted to do so, in a much more diplomatic fashion. --Rschen7754 00:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No, I did in fact notify him, Rschen7754 beat me to it. Clearly the editor doesn't understand the way Wikipedia works, and needs assistance. They typed a plea for help in all caps on their Talk page. Just because you or I might understand policy, doesn't mean the newbie does. OrangeMike has a higher expectation of knowing what policy is, and he didn't block the editor for spam, he blocked them under the username policy. Please stick to the specifics of the debate and stop going off on tangents. Policy is very clear here. -- Avanu (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, Avanu, some of your conduct lately shows that at best you are misguided in your intentions. You appear to be pro-abusive editor and anti-admin. OrangeMike did block them for spam and for a violation of username policy, and he was well within policy to do so. Give it up before you dig yourself deeper into a hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So, let me ask a question here. You are expecting me to discuss this with OrangeMike, who clearly knows the policy, and was recently involved in a long debate on that very policy, yet you are simultaneously exempting OrangeMike from policy (Wikipedia:IU#Dealing_with_inappropriate_usernames that says Talk to the user Many users who create new usernames have not read this policy. If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in bad faith, you should make an attempt to encourage the user to create a new account with a better username. Often, the problem can be cleared up in an amicable way. If you want, you can use the subst:uw-username template for this.

While it may not be a perfect case study, this editor has 5 edits only, none of which appear to be malicious. If OrangeMike is able to screen this person, it is easily seen that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Regardless of any error in protocol I might have made, biting a new editor simply isn't warranted. -- Avanu (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Another editor advised the user of the username problem on July 1. SocialHostLaw responded on July 2, but his explanation wasn't very convincing. He clearly wanted to edit in areas that were directly related to his blog website and to cite to his website, apparently believing that because it was "non-commercial", that was okay. He did not say he was willing to change his username or change his mission at Wikipedia. OrangeMike then blocked him because of the problems he had been warned of. If SHL is willing to change his username, edit other areas of WP, and not cite to his blog, he can appeal the block and say so. At that point, another admin will review it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to stick to the specifics Avanu, neither blocking nor banning prevents use of the sysop bit, so your request here is moot. What you want is a desysopping, and this is not the right noticeboard. Try over at the arbitration committee. Franamax (talk) 00:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And if you're going to cite policy, don't be selective about it. "The username policy does not have to override other policies. If you find a user who is spamming or vandalizing under a bad username, for example, you should follow up using the spam or vandalism policy."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I feel that de-sysopping someone for one offense is silly. We shouldn't have an either/or policy on that. If an admin messes up, they should be held to a similar standard that editors have. Essentially, it sounds like you're saying that all such actions against an admin would take the framework of a ban. Self regulated and community enforced. But the idea that an otherwise good admin needs to lose all admin powers over one incident is not cool. However, the idea that a person shouldn't be able to be held accountable, even symbolically, isn't that cool either. -- Avanu (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I also want to show you what motivated me to plead this case. SocialHostLaw wrote the following originally in all caps. I've added some minor punctuation and the sig for him.

I'm writing in caps because I don't know where to write the following on this page: How do I appeal this and change my user name? Why are two administrators making contradictory decisions in the same minute? Has Orange Mike even visited my website? Really, I'm not yelling, just trying to be seen in this format. The current contributor on the social host liability page, who added his own for profit law firm website seems to have no problem, yet my non-commercial clearinghouse with expert opinions from attorneys, lawmakers, parents and prosecutors is not permitted? Thank you for reconsidering this. -- SocialHostLaw (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2012‎ (UTC)

This editor doesn't know why what they did is wrong. This editor thought they were helping. Our policies ask us to guide and encourage new editors, to not bite them, and we even have policies to mentor new editors. None of this was done for SocialHostLaw. Are we that jaded that we simply don't care to hear it? Is this the best way to handle people? Some of you are accusing me of acting improperly, perhaps in bad faith, but I don't like beating up on people who can't do anything about it and don't understand. -- Avanu (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• We are working on a simpler, easier guide for COI editors here User:Dennis Brown/EASYMONEY but in this case, the editor was warned a day before they were blocked, and didn't ask about it but instead put the spam back into the article. The only time they spoke out was after being blocked. They can still get a new username and contribute as they aren't banned or anything, but I have to admit I think Mike acted within policy here since they were given fair warning and chose to ignore it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me say then, that I was a bit quick to react to OrangeMike, given the previous discussions a couple months ago, I saw this as him taking the same sorts of actions as he had done previously. I'd be happy to withdraw this AN/I at this time, given that I now believe my request was possible premature. However, our buddy SocialHostLaw still seems to be lost, and seems to be confused about what to do next. So, if any admin would like to reassure him or offer a word, please feel free. -- Avanu (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2012 (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.

Editor edit breakdown

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.

---

BTW, Avanu, this is the current breakdown of your edits.

Article 14.28%

Talk 32.90%

User 0.86%

User talk 22.03%

Wikipedia 23.15%

Wikipedia talk 6.06%

File 0.35%

Template 0.24%

Template talk 0.13%

How about working on reversing the proportions of the Article and Wikipedia namespaces? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

SOV, please notify a user when starting a thread mentioning them on ANI; additionally, it's generally preferred if you discuss an issue with them first before bringing it to ANI. Additionally, it's not clear what incident requiring the attention of administrators and experienced editors you're referencing here. Nobody Ent 01:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Facepalm It was not a new thread until you made it one: it was directly related to the one above, which was archived recently. Adding to threads after they are closed happens a lot. This should not be a new thread, and should be fixed appropriately. Doc talk 02:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Went and looked at your edits too. Seems like the side of the pie constituting the Article/Talk side of things is about the same, you have 10 times as many edits as I do, and your start date is two years before mine. I suspect that unlike me, you actually stayed at Wikipedia this whole time and have been editing, rather than taking a long break like I did. I generally tend to be willing to discuss an issue; that seems to be the common protocol to get anything done anymore, unless you have a lot of source material on hand to dump into articles. If you're implying that there is a correct ratio for the various edits to the project, I'm afraid that no one has passed a mandate about that yet. Generally, I want to improve the relationships here, with a slight bias in favor of the ordinary user. You and I have had our unhappy encounters in the past, and I've made a committment to avoid conflict with you in future. I don't mind taking blame, accepting fault, or being the bad guy, and I want what is best. I'm idealistic and driven to fix problems, even if others think it is insurmountable or unsolvable. So, I'll do my best, and I hope you do too. -- Avanu (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Ent has the right idea there (to close this). I think Sarek was simply adding this after the closed AN/I. He likes to poke just a bit, and I've discovered that once you know how a person works, it is a lot easier to simply work with them. Take care. -- Avanu (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2012 (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.

AIV Backlog

There is quite a backlog at WP:AIV, if an admin or three could take a look, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Two, Homer. Have a nice day, Drmies (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Athenean

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.

---

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.

---

The user is removing sourced material here and - unfortunately - claiming falsely that the sources don't actually say what I wrote. Perhaps he made an error, but the needs to be addressed, because he has removed sourced material. Ottomanist (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A better solution would have been to open a discussion. But that would require actually conflict resolution and discussion. Ottomanist (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

O, c'mon, that edit of yours is so big pov push! That should not be in the lede anyway! Better try to fix this content dispute, instead this report... --WhiteWriter^speaks 01:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. It should be noted that the ancient Greeks are not necessarily related to the modern-day Greeks, such a linkage was only made during the age of Nationalism in the early 19th century. This is an absolutely dreadful remark which has no place on an encyclopaedia. No source can remotely prove such a disgraceful remark because the facts on nations, people, ethnogenesis, national identity and all other properties are already laid out and scientifically proven. The Greek language, or Hellenic dialects, have survived for millennia and have been spoken continuously without a break and without the need for one set of people to revive the tongue by abandoning its natural speech. Everybody knows that ethnicity is subject to individual declaration and no members of any nation claim to be pure in that they descend only from their own nominal ancestors. People have always mixed, and people today living in other communities may trace some heritage in your nation. The seed of ancient Greeks is out there in today's world, and modern Greeks have a past - with the language and the location both having been fixed for centuries, nobody is going to prove that today's people are not descended from the ancient people. Athenian was absolutely correct to remove the section. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WhiteWriter, but the sources, peer-reviewed, have a different opinion. It is well known that nations have to be formed and are not fully-formed to begin with. To be a Greek before the modern-day republic was formed was more of a 'title' reserved. To suggest that Plato is the descendent of modern-day Greeks is like saying Pharaoh is related to modern-day Egyptians. Unfortunately, nationalism in the Balkans is what is stopping its inhabitants from realising that identity is fluid and inter-mixing with other peoples was very common in the past. P.S. comment on the material and stop personally attacking me since I have provided reputable material - Ottomanist (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody claims to be pure. The Egyptians are Arabian but Arabs themselves are a result of early Semites of which Egyptians were a part. History does not record the ancient Egyptians and Greeks leaving and new populations taking their place and then adopting the demonyms, there is continuity in both. The external populations assimilated and therefore both Greeks and Egyptians have a valid claim to their old populations. I believe Athenian acted in good faith with the removal of the piece. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:50, 4 July 2012 (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.

To suggest that Plato is the descendant of modern Greeks would be to claim that he had somehow travelled thousands of years back in time! RolandR (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

We want time travel.

When do we want it? Irrelevant.

Chedzilla (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2012 (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.

Malleus Fatuorum

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.

---

See User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Editing_someone_else.27s_comment, comments like "Just remind me, why should I give a fuck about what you think about anything?" [48], and "Actually what's clear is that you have no idea what you're talking about, and are incapable of independent thought" [49] seem way outside what an editor should expect in terms of basic civility. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this was precipitated by Malleus editing someone else's comment here, and responding to it having been brought up with "fix it yourself". Equazcion ^(talk) 11:45, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Note that the latter comment here [50] came before the presumably mistaken editing of my sig. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at his edits for today, there does seem to be a serious problem with civility and collaboration. I came to his talk page after he changed the signature of another editor in a discussion[51]. His replies[52][53] were hardly civil or warranted. Other edits today include reverting another editor with the edit summary "what gives you the right to change this?" (well, I would guess the basic Wiki principle grants someone that right), uncivil comments[54], and outright personal attacks[55]. Fram (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And his latest comment and edit summary can be added to the "personal attack" list as well: [56]. Fram (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Note I have notified him about this discussion. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It had already been done in the thread above on his talk. OohBunnies! (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Continuing personal attacks, block appropriate — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Block away matey, if it makes you feel like a real man. Malleus Fatuorum 11:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  That is a very clever rhetorical repost Malleus Fatuorum. However once it is seen as such, then blocking you will not be done because of any feeling that an administrator may or may not have, but because you are uncivil to many people and an escalating block my be the only way to persuade you to modify you behaviour as asking you to desist does not work. This ANI was not brought to make any one "feel like a real man" but because of your incivility. Your continued incivility to many editors, make interacting with you an unpleasant experience for those editors -- all of whom are volunteers -- and consequently such uncivil behaviour by you damages the project and ought to be stopped. -- PBS (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea where that "In the past there were varying levels of belief in a flat Earth" insertion came from, certainly not from me. I can only think that it resulted from an edit conflict. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To me, the "what gives you the right to change this" comment smacks of WP:OWN. Almost all of his other comments seem to be aggressive personal attacks. This user clearly has an attitude problem. – Richard BB 11:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

As do you. Malleus Fatuorum 11:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of behaviour that I am talking about. I have shown no negative attitude on this Wiki: such as calling other uses "arseholes". – Richard BB 11:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Could you possibly put down the pitchforks and back off for a few minutes? I see some minor incivility caused by a minor misunderstanding. I am sure it can be resolved without any need for formal admin intervention. --John (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Malleus Fatuorum could have easily defused the situation by reverting his/her edit when requested to do so. That Malleus Fatuorum instead escalated the issue is why it ended up here at ANI. As you know it is not as if this is the first time that Malleus Fatuorum has been here, and it is not the first time you commented in such an ANI. As a matter of interest have you ever done anything but defend Malleus Fatuorum in these ANIs? (a couple of recent ANI section found by searching for [Malleus Fatuorum John] Oct 2011 and Dec 2011 which includes a list of such ANI sections constructed by User:Spitfire . -- PBS (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"I have no idea..." Guess it was a mistake/technical error. The manner of reaction was of course unwarranted, but I doubt we'll solve that problem here today. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:01, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call "he's an arsehole" and "You're a waste of space and time [...] ignorant clowns like you" minor incivility, but YMMV. Fram (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  You're preaching to the choir. ANI has proven incapable of dealing with Malleus' civility and NPA issues though. The altering of the signature was the only reason I would've actually brought this incident here. Regarding everything else there's not much point. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:07, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't alter anyone's signature, and I would never alter anyone's signature. Obviously I realise that you're out to get me, but at least have the decency to give me some credit. Malleus Fatuorum 12:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  In my comment above I acknowledged that this was probably a mistake or technical error, based on your eventual explanation. Much as you'd like to pigeonhole anyone who criticizes you as 'just another Malleus beater' in the hopes of undermining them in the eyes of others, some if not most of us are acting rationally. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:33, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• This all arises from this edit which I'm quite certain was either an edit conflict or a slip of cut and paste. I know Malleus can be *cough* trenchant in his views and how he expresses them, but I've never seen him engage in signature twiddling - I think he's usually more direct. However his reputation precedes him and I can see why another editor thought something odd was going on. It would have been better had Malleus not made his usual hair-trigger counterattack, which then resulted predictably in the usual ratchetting up of emotions and words. Malleus, would you be able to step back and agree that the edit which appeared to come from you was a justifiable cause for concern? And that some of the heat of your subsequent language was uncalled for? If you do, would the rest of us put down the pitchforks and flaming torches? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• You can stick your pitchforks where the Sun don't shine as far as I'm concerned, but I did not, and I never would, deliberately alter another editor's posting. And anyone who thinks I might have done hasn't been paying attention. Malleus Fatuorum 12:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Editconflicts suck 1 2 3. Arcandam (talk) 12:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) with Kim, and 100% agreement with him on this point, as well as John. Heated words aren't necessary, but neither is blocking over them. This was a simple misunderstanding that got a little out of control. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Some of the diffs are from after the "misunderstanding", some occurred before (e.g. the "ignorant clown" remark and the "what gives you the right to change this?" edit summary. Note that these were aimed at different editors, so it's not a single incident spilling over, but incidents all over the place, all from today. Fram (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• (xteenth e/c today, sheesh) This is just Malleus acting out his bad side, as he periodically does. At least to the extent the diffs cited above involve me, whatever, MF seems to like having a run at me from time to time. I'll say again, MF, please bring up your issues directly on my talk page, in a thread you initiate. Beyond that, this all seems like rather manufactured drama. Unless people are taking Malleus seriously - but they're just blowing around insults, in a while they will go back to copyediting. Franamax (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It almost sounds as if several editors are trying to justify his attitude by saying "oh, that's just how he is". We shouldn't tolerate outright personal attacks such as these posted. – Richard BB 12:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What it really sounds like is "Oh, here's our chance to give Malleus a bloody nose, never mind whether he's guilty or not". Malleus Fatuorum 12:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What you are guilty of is very uncivil behaviour. – Richard BB 12:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Gosh... what honour to be able to comment amongst such delightful and heartwarming company --Epipelagic (talk) 12:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume you are referring to me Arcandam (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• The conflict started from the edit conflict, however, and went downhill from there, and that point isn't lost on me. The incivility was on Malleus's own talk page, which I think is a bit different than on an article talk page. It was rude and it isn't language I care for, but anyone going to Malleus's talk page knows that arguing with Malleus is like wrestling with a pig: You only get dirty and the pig actually likes it. Blocking would be an overreaction here, and if was another editor, I would say the same thing. I agree that his prose is article space is infinitely better than his prose on talk pages, but sometimes it is better for everyone to drop the stick and walk away, due to the confusion of the initial circumstances. It is my opinion that this is one of those times. Typically, for a singular event, I would go have a chat with the person and perhaps I will here after the dust settles, but we are all grown ups, and sometimes we are going to piss each other off and sometimes things go too far. I'm not excusing Malleus's poor choice of words, I'm just interested in a solution that will actually bring results and I don't think raising the heat is the solution here. That said, it is my opinion that Malleus would be wise to not labor the issue, agree to disagree here and reflect on the issue later, and perhaps crack open his thesaurus a bit earlier when in a "spirited debate". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  I was accused of altering someone's signature, something I would never do, so I didn't even look at the diff. And I'm not kindly disposed to Equazcion's accusation of being late to explain something that I didn't do. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• And the mix up is why I have tried to go the extra mile, but looking below, it appears my efforts might be for naught. I'm off to a 4th festival now, so I guess I will have to see how it pans out later. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• You did alter my signature. I think it is clear that it was completely unintentional, and I presumed it was (I assumed good faith). The changing of my signature is a non-issue. What was an issue is the unnecessary incivility and the insults you are throwing at me at the RFA, the refusal to change my signature back and the unnecessary insults that followed. Things are all the more puzzling because we have had no major interactions before [57] so I don't know why I attracted your ire. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  +1 -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom amendment request filed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Civility_enforcement Nobody Ent 12:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus Fatuorum's incivility makes dealing with him unpleasant for many people who opposes either Malleus Fatuorum or his friends. I would block any editor for the behaviour that brought Malleus Fatuorum to this ANI, the only reason why I have not blocked the account Malleus Fatuorum is because his apologists, would complain and say (rightly or wrongly) that our mutual history means that I am involved. Are there any administrators left who can not be tarred with the same brush? As I have said before I suspect that for high profile editors, like Malleus Fatuorum, ANI is not fit for purpose as people express partisan opinions which makes it very difficult for any dispassionate remedy to be found. -- PBS (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It helps if you treat his obscenity-laden remarks as satire rather than taking it personally. Has MF ever socked, or severely edit-warred, or made legal threats, or grossly violated BLP or copyright rules? The folks who do that stuff are the real and continual threats to wikipedia's integrity - not a foul-mouthed editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Throwing insults around drives editors away and wrecks the collaborative atmosphere. So yes, it does have an effect on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Does he make those insulting remarks indiscriminately, or is there merit to what he says? Hypothetical: "Sorry, but you're mistaken" vs. "You're a moron" are polite vs. aggressive ways of saying essentially the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum incivility damages the project see for example this comment by Charles Matthews. See my comments here (back in 26 October 2011) in response to SG saying that "'arse' is such a cute little word" -- "In the part of England where I have spent the most time as an adult, if you were to call a stranger (of the same sex) with whom you were having a verbal disagreement "an arse" in a pub you would get a glass in the face end of discussion. ... It is not that [the clientèle] do not use four letter words, most of them could not string a sentence together without swearing, but they would not tolerate such an insult from someone they were having a disagreement with. I would have thought that the level of civility we should expect here ought set at a higher level that that which would trigger a bar room brawl in parts of England." -- PBS (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

How many of the editors who've complained about his gutter language are still editing? How many editors who think he's an angel are still editing? If the former significantly outnumber the latter, it should be no problem getting him sent to the phantom zone. If not, then this might be one of those cases that needs to be brought to Jimbo's attention. He's the face of wikipedia, so what he thinks would carry a lot of weight. (Admittedly, there's a good chance that he might say, "Figure it out for yourselves.") ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need to compare figures that mean nothing to determine whether this editor contributes positively to the project? We aren't here as judge and jury to delve into this editor's entire history. Just the stuff since the unblock in the past six months is more than enough to determine that this editor is a nuisance. We block knowledgeable editors who refuse to get the point all the time, indefinitely, without any discussion. It's unfortunate I am not an admin in this case (or I suppose fortunate in the eyes of some), because I would have absolutely no reservations against an indefinite block. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• An old lady called the police, saying: "Come quickly! Come quickly! The young man in the flat across the street is naked at the window and you can see everything! It's disgusting, come quickly!" When the police arrived at the old lady's flat, they went to the window. One officer turned to the old lady and said, "But madam, you can only see him from the chest up, surely you can't be offended by that?" Trembling with outrage, the old lady replied "You have to climb on top of the wardrobe!" --John (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of the comments in the diffs, were at RFA and not at his talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Ho-hum, another day, another example of how Malleus' poor attitude acts as a net drain on this project. And yet more apologists going out of their way to paralyze the community's ability to deal with it. Personally, I think it is inevitable that Arbcom will dump him off the project, but I doubt today is that day. Resolute 13:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

{{archive top|result=Nipping this in the bud: no block is likely to come out of this, and more discussion will not ''make'' someone decide to block: they will do so based on the evidence already presented, after which we can have a separate discussion about the block. The matter at hand: WP:CIVIL is not particularly clear, of course, and ''it seems'' (citing the complaint) that Malleus pissed someone off with their word choice, but there is no consensus that the two diffs cited in the complaint are blockable or bannable. Let us move on, please, and close what experience tells us has a habit of going nowhere. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)}}

Refactored the above close by an involved admin. It's well past "the bud." We don't actually know where it will lead, and if editors wish to comment there's no reason they shouldn't be able to. Nobody Ent 14:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Involved my ass. You're much more involved than I am, given your ongoing vendetta against MF. And you're wrong on the other count as well: "if editors wish to comment there's no reason blah blah..."--there's plenty of reason. You're stirring the shit pot, and you're inviting others to do the same. ArbCom is now again involved, since someone didn't have anything better to do (consider writing some articles, maybe?), so what good is continued drama at ANI? Answer: no good at all, but some editors seem to enjoy it. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• This was Mally-baiting by Fram:
  • "I wanted to draw your attention to it and wait for your reaction. It turns out to be quite telling."^here

Such drama-mongering is incompatible with a collegial environment and is far more uncivil than anything Mally has said. And the "puling masses" get all ginned up, and and then /further/ escalation is sought by taking it to arbcom. No wonder serious editors don't much care what "teh community" thinks. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• • • Which is a viewpoint that I'd have much more sympathy towards if Fram had actually been the target of the incivility which started this thread - unfortunately he wasn't.
    • Even if we assume that Fram provoked Malleus, which to an extent seems reasonable, that doesn't excuse non-borderline incivility towards other editors involved in the discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute

Why is it okay (at least nothing done about it) to make comments like these[58][59] and it's not okay to even talk about it?[60][61] That's unacceptable. This page is for resolving matters that need administrative attention, not for attacking or defending editors, and this appears to be something that needs administrative attention. Those of you who are administrators, please attend. That's your duty, whatever the outcome. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I surfed through this lovely topic looking for anything related to me and found only the first diff Wikidemon used above (which was reverted by Franamax). Just in case anyone cares in this little free-for-all, the comments MF made directed at me were provoked by me. In other words, I started it. And, to the extent it matters, I didn't - and don't - take offense. I'm not a pro-MFer or an anti-MFer. I have far less experience with MF than many here, so I tentatively accept certain assumptions about MF. One, he's a prolific editor who writes great content. Two, he can't control his mouth. Three, he's reasonably honest. With respect to #2, I haven't been on the receiving end of his tongue before, but as I said at Franamax's Talk page, I found it more amusing than offensive. It's kind of hard to take it seriously, even assuming he really means it, or at that moment in time he means it (I think he's somewhat volatile depending on his mood). As for the larger question of whether he should be sanctioned for his behavior, I'm not for it or against it, but I think it's unfortunate that we waste so many resources discussing it every time a new incident is reported. I have a suggestion: how about an automated filter that affects MF's comments and only in non-article space? MF's actual comment: "You are all ignorant arseholes whose editing skills resemble horseshit but don't smell as good." Filtered comment: "You are all charming editors whose skills resemble blooming roses." And if we really wanted to punish him, we could tack on a banality like "And have a lovely day!" By the way, I liked John's joke.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently when something is beyond this board, we sweep it under the rug instead of escalating it to the next level of enforcement. As I stated above (and was summarily reverted by an editor who has supported Malleus in the past,[62] and who then closed this topic despite that conflict): Just block him so that the nineteen (and counting) editors that have wasted time on this person in just three hours can actually go about being productive contributors to this great project, something Malleus clearly is not. Can we not arrive at a consensus of what action to take and implement it? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It has been escalated to Arbcom: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Civility_enforcement}. Leaky Caldron 15:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In which universe are you a productive editor and I'm not Floydian? Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This one I suppose. You make productive edits, but you overshadow that with your vexacious and vindictive attitude against anyone who makes a slight against you. Instead of turning to lunge like a rabid wolf, you might consider saying "Alright guys, I'll try to work on it." - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he said you weren't. As far as the close, it irked me seeing Drmies close this. I suppose everyone is on one side of the fence or another in this matter, but I don't think Drmies should be closing a Malleus discussion any more than I should. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:07, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Right. Show me, please, where I've been involved as an admin by, for instance, unblocking MF against consensus, or blocking someone who was directly involved with a block against him. What irks me is the repetition of this whole thing. It's so boring. It's the Fourth of July--don't you all have something better to do? I have at least one decent excuse: it's another relatively boring stage in the Tour, at least until the finish. Congratulations to you all for escalating this--great job, again, from a bunch of editors who are apparently not here to create or improve articles. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I never said you were involved. That was someone else. Though I do think you've shown some clear support for Malleus' side of the larger debate, so I don't think you should be deciding on closings. The question of whether Malleus' behavior is an important issue worthy of discussion is exactly where the divide is, so it isn't all that profound and neutral of you to say we should be spending our time elsewhere -- that's exactly the point of contention. I respect your opinion, but such an opinion is where this begins, not where it ends. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:52, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Well, what then was it about my attempting to close this useless debate? Equazcion, you're always around when the topic of "MF was uncivil" gets opened up here--and when, pray tell, did it get anywhere? I don't understand your last comment, I'm sad to say, but what is plain to see even to the blind is that threads like this do nothing but create dramah. What's the point of discussing this again and again? Why don't Malleus haters start a Facebook page and periodically post a link here? And why don't you run for admin so you can occupy yourself with things that need to be done, like having a look at UAA and RFPP, while I'm here crying in the desert that these threads are useless? Good luck. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Again, as discussed last time, blocks have proven ineffective in changing Malleus Fatuorum's behavior, thus a new block of determinate length will be equally ineffective and therefor inconsistent with the blocking policy.. There are really three options, 1) a community ban discussion where we decide if MF is a net asset to the project or not (which I opined in the affirmative last time this came up), 2) Arbcom case so the community can avoid taking responsibility for the hard decision option 1 would require, or 3) No admin action. Continued bickering in the hopes a random admin reviewing this discussion decides to pull the trigger on a civility block despite lack of consensus and how obviously it wont change behavior is a waste of time. Monty₈₄₅ 15:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Lots of things could have been done better. MF could have taken five seconds to look at an edit, and saw why someone thought he had edited a sig. Fran could have handled it better - what's wrong with "I've never seen an example where you've edited the sig of another editor, yet this edit certainly looks that way. Is there an innocent explanation?". However, they weren't done better and we've collectively wasted a lot of time. So now we want ArbCom involved? Please. I hope they reject it with prejudice.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• MF's last block was only for 3 days. If 3 days didn't work, I suggest a week this time. Further offenses can be addressed with blocks of increasing severity (1 month, then 6 months, then a 1 year) until the message finally hits home this time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

He has been blocked for a week before, is this going to work better then the last time? In essence you want a defacto ban to avoid the discussion of a ban. If we proceed down the block escalation path expecting from the outset that the escalations wont change behavior with the goal of a multi-year block then we are doing so in bad faith and should have had an honest ban discussion in the first place. Monty₈₄₅ 15:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. If a week didn't work, I strike through my previous suggestion. A one month block is in order. Again, increase the length of the blocks until the message gets through. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why put in a block that of course would not work? I would cheerfully support a community ban for this chap were one proposed; it is plain that it's not that he doesn't get it ... it's that he doesn't give a damn. Wikipedia doesn't need that kind around. Ravenswing 15:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Block and ban discussions don't work because Malleus "retires" whenever a block or ban discussion seems to be getting serious. The discussion is then abandoned as moot. When his editing ramps back up, we go through this again. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:38, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)
  • Remind me again why the community has put up with this for so long? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Malleus represents a divide in the community between those who think the civility policy should be enforced and those who don't. The split appears to be equal enough that we never get anywhere with these discussions. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:44, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)
    • Some editors have buddies who prevent imposing the same civility requirements on their bud that other editors are expected to observe. Different standards for different folks. Edison (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

One side of the Civility pillar is simply being gracious and willing to ignore an impolite outburst. It is easy to see incivility when someone complains or uses bad language, but another aspect of incivility is to be overly touchy and unwilling to forgive. Is this Malleus guy a little *too* brash? Sure seems like it. Taking civility complaints to AN/I is a bit like traveling to Mos Eisley for a compliment. "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." And so it is here. You get insulted simply for walking in the door. It isn't necessarily directly about you, it just is there. So Malleus was a jerk. How about we learn to call a spade a spade, tell him to knock it off and stop being a jerk about minor stuff, and move on? Make him wear a sticker that says "I'm mean to people". Since it started from an honest misunderstanding, we can either punish the hell out of him for not being perfect, or we can apologize on his behalf for our poor manners. Your call. -- Avanu (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• You know, that worked the first two dozen times MF has been uncivil. Oh, wait, it didn't, because his antics are a regular feature on ANI. Telling someone to stop only works if they are willing to do so. When an editor figures he can be uncivil with complete impunity, it not only doesn't benefit him to change his ways, but it encourages people to do likewise. Ravenswing 16:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• That would only make sense if it wasn't so egregious and constantly repeated over the course of years. I rarely if ever see Malleus except in connection with vulgar insults, bullying, or whining. It's a bit much to call anything an "outburst" if it lasts days or more. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(Standing and applauding) Bravo! And yet again we see illustrated before us the Wikipedia prime directive: if you are an editor who has enough edits, or enough accolytes (or in MF's case, both), a basic tenet of Wikipedia, civility and collaboration, does not apply to you. Instead, you can respond in a manner entirely out of proportion to the issue at hand, make as many and as vile personal attacks as you wish, and generally make yourself feel important by gutlessly diminishing others. A nascent sociologist could make tenure studying the group-think at work here that not only excuses grossly and disproportionately uncivil behavior and unjustified personal attacks such as we see here, but which also manages to make the offender the victim and the accusers somehow the aggressors. It's incredible. Sadly, MF lacks the courage to do the one thing that could have prevented all this -- acknowledge an error was made and make a simple revert. And his cadre of supporters assure we will be treated to these little MF-driven dramas again and again. "Mild incivility" indeed! --Drmargi (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd find that "civility and collaboration" are two of Malleus' strongest points when he's engaged in a civil and collaborative manner. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

He was engaged that way here. The problem though was that in this case the comment pointed out a problem with his edit. That needs to be done sometimes, and doesn't necessarily denote a lack of collaboration or civility itself. Fram asked Malleus to please correct an edit he made. It was quite courteous in its language. Malleus nevertheless told him to go shove it (to average out his responses). Equazcion ^(talk) 19:18, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The argument that a week block hasn't worked so we shouldn't even bother trying to stop him from breaking our policies and just let him do whatever is just ridiculous. Firstly, because it's just plain illogical on the face of it, as if applied to other rules would mean no rules should ever be enforced if someone just repeatedly fails to follow them. Secondly, it's inherently unfair in that it is only applied to certain people here instead of everyone equally. Thirdly, in the past some people said the same of me -- blocks don't help, etc. -- but eventually escalating blocks DID work. I don't remember what my last block length was, nor do I remember my last block. But one week? Of course it didn't work. Block MF a month, then two, then four -- whatever it takes. He will eventually decide whether he wants to continue to act like rules don't apply to him or whether he wants to conform to acceptable behavior if it means he gets to participate here. Right now he doesn't have to be civil because nobody is forcing him to. As far as the argument that his only being uncivil and not causing any real harm, certain levels of incivility I think ought to be ignored, but there's also a point when it becomes bullying and a play for power. I think that's what has been going on here for a while. He's not just being incivil incidentally, he's being insulting to show that he thinks he is better than everyone and doesn't have to listen to anyone else... and then proceeds to ignore rules and policies to do whatever he wants to do. That's WP:BATTLEGROUND thinking, and it's a tactic that often works, unfortunately. I don't want to go into any detail here on MF's (and his main defender, User:John's) specific behavior in the past, but I think trends can be identified by those who take the time to look. DreamGuy (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

John was bought up in the last Arbcom case and he was admonished.

I think also you make a good point, one of the ways that we have treated people who have continually behaved badly unfairly is by ignoring their problem at an early stage (see the below section) they very rapidly go from no sanctions to an indefinite ban, which has always come across to me as unfair.

If we actually make an effort to solve problems early and appropriately then we can solve them much more productively. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Better things to do, anyone?

Why not go and improve an article? Nothing good is going to happen here, and Wikipedia is not therapy, a chatroom, or Usenet. Just saying. --John (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Fine then, end the drama, enforce civility policy, and be done with it. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The community is too large and unwieldy to enforce civility. --MuZemike 18:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In the real world people generally manage to act with civility. If you call a policeman a cunt in any part of the world you'll be arrested. If you go into a bar and call a stranger a cunt unprovoked you'll probably get punched.

In more borderline cases, or where there is provocation, sure incivility happens in the real world, but it is incredibly difficult to see how that has possibly taken place here - everyone else has been pretty polite. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• User:Geogre/Comic, and thanks to all for today's entertainment. Chedzilla (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Malleus isn't a victim. He's spoken to the way most people are, and alternately claims his reactions are either misunderstood due to cultural differences or they are excusable because of his past mistreatment. One comment that got him going in this case was this, and its manner represents the way issues are generally brought to the attention of editors -- editors who, in the vast majority of cases, respond well. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:22, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• WP:STICK. One user says something obnoxious, clearly baiting another user with a known thin skin on such matter. I say everyone drop it per Chedzlla. Montanabw^(talk) 17:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Indeed. On a similar point, anyone who's involved in ARBMAC, caste articles and many other areas will know that this sort of minor incivility flies around the Wiki 24/7. None of the editors involved in this are ever sanctioned (well, not for incivility anyway). Some people need to get slightly thinner skins, not to mention the utter tedium of any vaguely incivil remark by Malleus ending up at ANI. Someone ought to write an edit filter that prevents the word "Malleus" being typed at ANI (if he does anything really stupid, there are other venues). Seriously, go and do something useful. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but if someone said that stuff to me, I'd escalate the matter, this isn't minor incivility. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite frankly if this incivility is still continuing, post Arbcom, maybe we need to go back to them and let them deal with it - this hasn't exactly been a super short discussion either.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And waste an exponentially larger amount of everyone's time? Really? Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because that way we might be able to avoid having numerous further threads on this issue forever, and we might actually vaguely follow our rules which is essential to editor retention and our ability to co-operate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The llama of drama is all tired out, time to give it a rest.

• Articles. What an idea. Br'er Rabbit (talk)

Yes, what an idea, however it can only happen if people manage to behave with an appropriate level of decorum, something that clearly isn't happening in this case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You should quit stirring the pot; it's obvious and it's unhelpful. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So suggesting that the final decision of an Arbcom case is actually enforced is stirring the pot? Really?

I have personally never had a bad interaction with Malleus, which is the only reason I am commenting here, but given this problem is continuing I really don't see any other option. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And honestly what do you suggest as an alternative course of action? We've already been to Arbcom once over Malleus in 2012, no-one can seriously believe that this issue will resolve itself, so what other options do we actually have? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

just cut it out, you're being disrupting, at this point. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So basically you have no serious alternative course of action to suggest. As a project we need to solve problems constructively, and so there needs to be some sort of constructive solution to this problem - even if I go and edit articles, you aren't going to prevent someone else from bringing this up again and again in the future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

time to shut up. it's crap threads like this that lead to talk of MfD'ing ANI. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Br'er, I can't help notice you "wasting time" here too. Just saying... Equazcion ^(talk) 18:48, 4 Jul 2012 (UTC)

ya, drama-whores have that effect. it's disruptive of them. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. Resolute 19:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As you have quite effectively demonstrated Br'er. Telling people that want to address the problem that they are disruptive for even discussing the problem is not helpful, useful, or a welcome contribution here. In fact, there is a term for it: obstruction of justice. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

you're all just making useless noise. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If we ignore the issue and fail to take any productive steps then eventually Malleus will be indefinitely banned, without much warning - that has happened (or has effectively happened) to numerous other editors in the past. And its clear the Malleus' level of support in this discussion is lower than it has been in the past.

What is sad is that we seem to be unable to shortcut the process to avoid wasting editors time and/or manage to actually solve the problems and keep productive article editors like Malleus in a position where they are able to contribute to the project as we seem to be unable to sanction them seriously at any level below an indefinite block. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since this has been converted into yet another colossal waste of everyone's time is being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Civility_enforcement now, and it's clear no admin action is going to take place, can I suggest someone who hasn't commented here close this? Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I second that wise suggestion. Otherwise it's forum-shopping. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2012 (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:184.161.10.194

Nonsense and edit warring at Magic Kingdom Parade Magic Kingdom Parade and SpectroMagic. Crystal balling and nonsense has been reverted by multiple editors. Multi-level warnings have been given. The user's other contributions may be suspect. A pattern of cross-wiki vandalism is described at q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Disney Festival of Fantasy Parade. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This editor has also vandalized Fantasmic! by adding an entire section to an alleged version of the Disney show that actually does not exist. The vandalism alleged that there was a version in Canada, where the IP geolocates to. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• See also Talk:Disney Festival of Fantasy Parade (deleted, fake article). ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy keeps removing info on Alfred Hitchcock

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.

---

User is constantly removing material from infobox (US and UK). Standard practice is to include, for birth and death locations, the city, state and country. Tried to compromise by adding UK without periods beside birth location, but user disregarded reasoning for inclusion on talk page. I felt as if a consensus was not necessary for such a small detail. I challenged user by stating that he edited John Lennon, which contains US and UK inside i-box. Editor was questioned as to why he didn't remove this? This is an example of being contradictory. This encyclopedia should be consistent, per Wikipedia:CONSISTENCY. Years ago, I was criticized for removing this information. The user has a history of edit warring. Tinton5 (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Seek dispute resolution. There's nothing here that requires admin action. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2012 (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.

RfPP backlog

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection has a backlog going back nearly 24 hours, it would be good to clear it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User removing and editing comments at AfD

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.

---

Bennifer is currently at AFD and the article's creator, User:Status, !voted to merge and redirect the page [63]. Not long later, after a user !voted to keep the page, Status removed what he called an "admittance of defeat" [64] and, as well as editing my opening comments, decided to voice his decision to keep the article [65]. Whilst his changing of my comments is inexcusable, his change of opinion is fair enough. I later reinstated his keep comments with a strikethrough, explaining in the edit summary that "[t]he closing administrator should be able to see changes of mind without scrawling through the page history" [66]. Status then removed his strikethrough comments with the blunt summary "no thanks" [67], so I wrote on his talk page and explained that Wikipedia policy (WP:AFDFORMAT) states "[d]o not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one" and the strikethrough technique is reccomended [68]. He replied claiming that this is not necessary and implied that I only reinstated the comments to sway the discussion in favour of delete [69] (even though his original !vote was merge).
As I've only just noticed the editing of my comments, I have yet to discuss these edits with Status. However, as a user who has been blocked twice in the last week alone, I feel that further action needs to be taken to ensure that this unreasonable behaviour is stopped. I shall invite the administrators User:Toddst1 and User:Kww along to this discussion (as they have dealt with Status' rulebreaking before) but would like other administrators to join in this discussion too. SplashScreen (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Which diff shows him modifying your comments?—Kww(talk) 21:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

[70]. Subtle and not something I'd be too concerned about in normal circumstances, but this seems like an attempt to sway the AfD when coupled with the removal of his comments. SplashScreen (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd call that a technical foul at worst: he's correcting the format. You had made your nomination appear to be a vote.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But what business is it of Status to a) make that change b) do so without an edit summary c) do so without notifying me on my talk page and d) do so when there is no policy that AfD nominations can't begin with "Delete -"? SplashScreen (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done this previously in some of your nominations. Why didn't you report me about it then? Statυs (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Had you? I'd never noticed. The fact that you've been continually editing other people's AfD comments without notifying them that/why you're doing so makes this even worse. SplashScreen (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. As Kww already explained to you. You need to stop with the WP:DRAMA. Statυs (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

And you need to WP:AGF. My concerns are perfectly legitimate, especially now it has come to light that this is fairly regular practice at AfD (here, here and [[71]]). SplashScreen (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I could probably show you nominations without the nominator saying "delete" than with. Besides the point, Hahc explained to you why this shouldn't be done. Statυs (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First thing, I removed "delete" as the nomination itself is a deletion vote; therefore stating "delete" is saying delete twice. I, in no way, edited your comment what-so-ever. Secondly, my comment to "merge" was, as I said, an "admittance of defeat", since I assumed that other users would also vote to delete the article. I then saw that wasn't the case, and removed my comment. Splash added it back so a closing admin could see that the creator of the article actually said merge, and then changed his mind. No where does it say I cannot remove my own comments, it says it is recommended you don't. This report is very LOL-worthy. Statυs (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not your business to remove or edit anybody else's AfD arguments, be it in whole or in part, especially without consulting them first or even explaining your edits in the edit summary. SplashScreen (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not remove or edit anybody's ADF arguments. What does "Delete" add before a nomination? Surely you wouldn't be nominating the article if you thought it should be kept. It's bad form; therefore I didn't find it to be needed it to explained. Statυs (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

So if you haven't edited anyone else's comments, whose comment was that "Delete"? SplashScreen (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

First, this is not a topic worthy of ANI. Second, i smell too much WP:DRAMA from SplashScreen, which has been nominating a bunch of articles at AfD, and many of them are being kept. So, i'll recommend a read or two of WP:BEFORE. Also, if as Kww said, Status is correcting the format, nothing out of the book is happening. Further commenting Splash, the fact that you made your nom to appear as a vote is a serious COI that shows your personal commitment into deleting the article by messing with the AfD Statistics. Cheers! —Hahc21 22:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, so that doesn't make any sense. There are not "AfD Statistics" to mess with in the first place. SplashScreen (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd let this drop. If I had noticed that while closing the AFD, I might have fixed it myself. As for changing his own comments, you need to demonstrate materiality: did anyone respond to his earlier version? Is there something about the change that now makes the apparent discussion not match the actual discussion?—Kww(talk) 22:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

But you would be doing so in your position as an administrator and as an impartial AfD closer; Status is neither. In regards to the inclusion of Status' earlier comments, I feel that it is important for the closing administrator to see his change of opinion. It only helps to create a fuller view of the debate - what is wrong with that? SplashScreen (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To @Splash The fact thet AfD is not a vote doesn't give you open doors to double-vote on every AfD you start. Such comment shows that you still need to understand how the AfD process internally works. Actually, there exist and "AfD Stats". If you pay attention, you'd now that Wikimedia Software storages data from each AfD and compiles it into a table with the statistics for each "Delete", "Keep", etc vote made on any page. It is not much important for a result, but it works for the 'pedia in ways you may not understand yet. —Hahc21 22:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"The fact thet AfD is not a vote doesn't give you open doors to double-vote" - not making any sense, I'm afraid. SplashScreen (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Splash. There's nothing wrong with "I feel that it is important for the closing administrator to see his change of opinion. It only helps to create a fuller view of the debate." Actually , it is good. But you have to ask the user first why xe deleted the comment. What i meant is that you don't need to vote after nominating the article. If you do so, you are falling into a conflict of interest, showing you are very interested in getting the article deleted, and that's not what AfD is for. —Hahc21 22:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Might I add that Splash is making some serious allegations with his edit summaries: "Reinstated the edits made to my comments". I did not edit his comment. I removed the word "delete", for the exact reason Hahc stated above. Statυs (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is the third time I've seen you at ANI very recently, SplashScreen. Look, sometimes this noticeboard is a good last stop for a dispute, other times bringing stuff here is completely pointless. This is not a place to come every time you have a minor disagreement with another user. Removing the word "delete" from the start of an AFD nom is no big deal. On the other hand, putting the word "delete" at the start of an AFD nom is also no big deal, albeit completely pointless - as the nominator of an Article for Deletion discussion, it's assumed that you want the article to be deleted. However, I don't believe there's any realistic way that having "delete" at the start of a nom could affect the closing admin's view of the discussion. SplashScreen, Status's behaviour, while perhaps irksome to you, is definitely not ANI-worthy. Everyone needs to just drop the stick and move on to more productive things because honestly, this is silly. OohBunnies! (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with OohBunnies. This report doesn't belong at ANI. SplashScreen, don't start nominations with a !vote - start it with something banal like "Fails WP:GNG" followed by an explanation. Status, don't take it upon yourself to "fix" other people's comments, particlarly w/o a clear edit summary. You can now both of you go back to fighting about something else or, better still, maybe you can learn to live with each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I fail to see how any admin action is required here. Status should probably have just left a note on SplashScreen's user talk rather than refactor his comments at AfD. SplashScreen probably shouldn't have dragged this to ANI. Either way, I don't see how further discussion of this is really productive. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2012 (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.

Excessive block of Kiefer.Wolfowitz

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.

---

Kiefer.Wolfowitz was recently blocked for two weeks by Kafziel for personal attacks/harassment at User talk:David Levy. While I agree with the block rationale, I feel that it is an excessive block for two edits made by Kiefer. The incident started with some refactoring of Kiefer's comments at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37. A section was moved to Wikipedia talk:Village pump (technical)/Proposal by Jc37/Discussion (which now exists as a redirect to the proposal talk page. Kiefer undid the removal of information, and it appears that he did not understand that it was moved to another page. No attempt was made to contact Kiefer about that issue. In addition, Kiefer had an insistance on numbering his remark with a hash sign rather than an asterisk, which may have been mildly disruptive; however, disputing the issue was a battle that shouldn't have been fought by other editors. In the end, the existence of the numbered comment made no difference. Kiefer made a remark on refactoring to David Levy here which contained an inappropriate remark about fundamentalist Christians. David Levy did not diffuse the situation and instead deleted the section with a response no. Kiefer responded with a relatively mild personal attack (compared to what is normally seen around here). I am disputing the block length of two weeks, because of the relatively mild nature of the attacks and because I don't believe a block length of 2 weeks will prevent further disruption in a better manner than a shorter block would. I'll be notifying David Levy, Kafziel, and Kiefer shortly. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't David Levy's second negative response to KW seen as a clear violation of WP:TPO "If you have their permission." Refactoring comments is recognised to be a problem - if an editor complains about it being done to their comments, then the person refactoring them ought to stop forthwith. Yet it's KW who has been blocked here?

(I came here to join the chorus of "Hang Kiefer high, it's about time too" - yet from these edits, much as I might want to, I can see no reason for any block at all) Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Hang Kiefer high, it's about time too"? Really? Even if it's in jest, is that the most moderate way to express it? Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

One could get blocked for that. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's somewhat refreshing that the lynch mob attitude towards K-Wolf is being verbalized. There are those of us who see what it is, now it's being explicitly professed. NOW STOP IT!!! Carrite (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you're aware of the sequence of events.

To begin with, I didn't even single out Kiefer's comment; I manually restored the discussion's original formatting after someone added numbering to all of the "support" and "oppose" messages (which had been discussed without leading to consensus, though I assume that the editor was unaware of that).

For this, I received a complaint about "editing others' comments" and "fundamentalist Christians being scared of being numbered by The Beast".

Kiefer then renumbered his comment a minute later (long before I even saw his message). I never undid this edit. (MSGJ did, and Kiefer reverted back.)

Also note that while editors are given significant latitude regarding their messages' content, they aren't entitled to break a discussion's formatting (thereby creating accessibility issues, particularly for users of screen readers). Kiefer insisted upon having his comment numbered, apparently because he accidentally formatted it that way when posting it and objects to any and all third-party refactoring of his messages. This was disruptive. —David Levy 17:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the first comment (re "fundamentalist Christians) is utterly unacceptable; can't comment on the remainder of the case or validity of the block as I haven't had my coffee yet. I will say though that if the block is a good block, the timing is not excessive given previous similar blocks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I read that as a joke. "Numbering of the Beast"? Of course that's a joke, and unless David Levy is identified somewhere as a fundamentalist Christian, in a way that Kiefer could have known, I don't see the insult. Maybe Kiefer should put ";)" behind every comment, just to make sure, but the joke was clear to me. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm not a Christian, and I didn't interpret anything in that message as a personal attack. (The name-calling occurred later.) I interpreted it as further nonsense from a user engaged in deliberate disruption of a community discussion. (And that was before I learned that he'd reinserted outdated versions of threads moved to a subpage, thereby causing another editor to respond to one without realizing that earlier replies were missing.) —David Levy 20:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless I missed it, the number of the best doesn't seem to have been involved anyway. Having said that, I'm not sure if humour was a good idea here. Beyond the possibility for misunderstanding, or causing offence even if properly understood, it seems considering the apparently strong feelings involved it's an area where jokes are probaby best avoided particularly if they're ones a substanialy number of people aren't likely to find funny. Nil Einne (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TPO is a guideline. David Levy may or may not have violated it. WP:CIVIL is a policy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz absolutely violated it. For the Nth time. Following blocks for disruption of 24 hours, 24 hours, 1 week, and one month (later shortened to two weeks), a two week block for continued incivility is plenty generous, regardless of the circumstances. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Long block of KW for accumulated incivility over a long period. I'm happy with that. Yet I believe such things aren't policy (we require a conviction for a specific event) and I don't see such an event here. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The blocking policy clearly states that a block should be based on the severity of the behavior and previous incidents of the behavior. I think it is important to take the severity into account. It also states that successive blocks for disruption are typically longer than the 24 hours first block, but there is nothing to say that they must be, or that the number of blocks should be considered over the cause of the block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

We've covered all this on the user's talk page, Ryan. I'm not going to have the same conversation over and over again. It's nice that you're running for administrator, but I'm not, and this isn't a soapbox for campaign speeches. I'm quite aware of what the policy is, and what to consider, etc, etc. I did so. This isn't my first time around. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I take offense to the fact that you believe I only did this because I am running for administrator. In fact, I assumed it would hurt my chances more than help. I felt the block length was excessive and I didn't feel that you adequately addressed it at Kiefer's talk page so I brought it here for review. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Vastly premature. If you want to be an admin, you need to be able to discuss things without running to ANI every time. I'd say this would hurt your chances, now. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not run to ANI every time, in fact, I rarely take an issue to ANI. In this case, you were taking a hard line approach and I felt community comments would be appropriate. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I would prefer to be denied the bit than to sit on my haunches in order to obtain it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• We are now able to see what Kiefer.Wolfowitz has to say for himself.[72][73] Charming stuff, to be sure. I stand by the block 100%. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Still going.[74], and that's all I need to see. Revoking talk privileges. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please see "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page, including requesting unblock. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page." I don't see continued abuse of the talk page. Kiefer expressed disapproval, which can be expected. In addition, I don't believe you are in an appropriate position to make that decision. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• (ec) Being that he's disputing your block, isn't it very inappropriate for you to make the call to silence him.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No and no. As (I think) anyone can see, the box was not checked by me until later, when he persisted in abuse on his talk page after the block. That is exactly what it's for. Blocked users may edit their talk pages only to appeal a block, not to continue airing their grievances about any and all editors who may have pissed them off of late. I showed him how to appeal it and warned him to be civil. He chose to disregard that, instead citing a supposed conspiracy from JC37, telling Ryan to "ignore the clown car at ANI", and telling me that he had no intention of discussing the block with me "until you can fill out a block form without tripping over yourself". Consequences followed.

Cube (and Avanu, and Nikkimaria): Incivility is incivility. There was obviously nothing secretive about what I did and what he said to cause me to do it. The links are above, for all to see. Admins are not required to sit around waiting for admin after admin to come to rescue them. Some admins like to do that, but I don't. I'm not a crazy "hangin' judge" kind of admin—I haven't blocked anyone in over a year—but I know a good block when I see one. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The block is debateable. With the second move, you were way to connected to make a detached evaluation. You may not think you're a hanging admin, but you don't know when it's time to back off and let a clear headed admin evaluate.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Everything is always debatable, sure, but that doesn't mean I couldn't make a reasonable evaluation on my own. That's what they pay me the big bucks for. And I don't have to "back off"; other admins are always free to evaluate everything I do. Do you think I thought I could block a user—or any other user—and nobody would notice? That doesn't mean I have to run and hide, it just means I have to be sure I'm right when I do it. When I got the bit, it was with the understanding that I am the kind of admin willing to make difficult blocks and take the time to go back-and-forth when necessary. Semantic and procedural arguments aside, I have yet to see a single admin say I was wrong in blocking this user. Because I wasn't. Anything else is just navel gazing. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where your locking of the talk page was over-ruled and a second admin endorsed that move?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no... Did you miss the part where he's still blocked? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You have dificulty with reading comprehension. I said the original block was debateable. I didn't care for it, but others are ok with it. The issue I stated was truly problematic was your second move of silencing KW on his talk page after he disputed your block. By that time you were too emotionaly invested. Other admins, those able to make a detached evaluation, have looked at that move and reversed it.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, don't you start with the personal attacks. My reading comprehension is fine, as is my understanding of wheel wars. One admin overturning another does not mean that the second admin is right; it just means that the issue has to stop going back and forth pending further discussion. Which is ongoing. As for the talk page... I see not a single thing of value added there since it was unlocked, so I still feel fine about my original decision. I wasn't wrong, I was just first, and now we have to wait and see what he decides to do with the rope that's been given to him. Which is what I told Ryan waaaaaaaaaaaaay back when we were first talking about this on the user's talk page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Kafziel, just because he's still blocked doesn't mean you're right. Was a block appropriate? Potentially, if the situation could not be otherwise resolved. Was your block, with the time/settings/circumstances/commentary you initially included, appropriate? No. Was your removal of talk-page access appropriate? Hell no. Your reasoning for that change is incorrect by both policy and practice, and AFAICS everyone commenting on that issue has disagreed with your action. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion. I think I'll just wait and see how things go. Sure looks like lots of positive progress is being made on his talk page... Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this clearly illustrates the need for you to back off on this issue. You're clearly letting your emotions cloud your judgement.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Back off from what, exactly? I'm not doing anything. I haven't done anything for hours. I'm just sitting here talking to people like you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I used the wrong words, I should have switched back off with calm down.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Given the content of the message, in which I was accused of "editing others' comments" and asked to restore broken formatting on the basis that Kiefer is "tired of the fundamentalist Christians being scared of being numbered by The Beast", I'd say that "No." was a rather restrained and civil response.
  Also note that Kiefer didn't mention the threads' relocation, so I was unaware that this was even an issue. And he clearly knew that I didn't simply remove them; I explicitly stated that I moved them to the subpage (and provided a link) in my edit summary, which he must have seen to know that I was responsible. When inexplicably restoring the threads without the messages posted on the subpage (which I learned later), Kiefer even mentioned the fact that I "moved" them. (Note that the history is weird because the two pages have been merged.) —David Levy 17:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The block is good - it is 2 weeks because KF continues behavior that got him blocked 4 times already in the past year, including a 1 week block 2 months ago for incivility.[75] TFD (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafziel, the most recent block you implemented on Kiefer has raised some questions for me. While you stated it was for "continued incivility", I don't see where you specified what that incivity was. I also do not see that mere incivility is cause for a block on the WP:BLOCK page. It uses the term "gross incivility", which seems to take a fairly high standard. What standard did you use that you feel is in line with the term "gross incivility"? I focus on the WP:Civility pillar mostly because that was the standard that you used in your block explanation. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I linked to it here. Why would I link to it on his user page? It's still there. See my reply above for more details. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so the diffs referenced in your comment above at 16:53 and 17:02, 3 July, are the examples of "gross incivility"? I have to say that my impression after reading those is that the comments are aimed directly at you. Per WP:INVOLVED, you should have asked for another administrator to decide whether this constitutes "gross incivility" or simply a vocal grievance. Also, even though you didn't state it, I would say WP:COOLDOWN might have been another reason that this block was added. For sake of form, please state that you rescind the block on policy grounds and permit another administrator to review such an action. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

That is not correct - it doesn't have to be "gross incivility" to have talk page access revoked. If the user is already blocked, any continued abuse on the talk page is sufficient. He is permitted to use the talk page to request unblock or discuss it in a civil manner. If he doesn't want to do that, he doesn't need his talk page. I'm certainly not going to unblock him just because you think it would be nice. Adminship is about doing what's best for Wikipedia, not about saving face; Other administrators have reviewed it, and are reviewing it, and if another admin wants to undo my block, they are able to do so at any time. They can shorten the duration, they can unblock him entirely... none have done so yet, because they're (wisely) still seeing how it shakes out. I'd be happy for Kiefer to prove me wrong. But so far he hasn't. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it means to be "involved". From the policy:

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

Warnings, blocks, etc. do not mean I have a conflict of interest; it just means I am following through with the matter at hand. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with your rationale on the idea of acting only in an administrator capacity, but if the editor's incivility is primarily directed at you, and you take action on that basis, doesn't that mean that you acted partly in self-interest? I'm also curious where policy mentions a different standard for someone already under a block. I've looked at WP:BLOCK and don't see it there. I would assume that neutral evaluation of the editor would require the same standard whether a person is under a block or not. -- Avanu (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's fourth on the list at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#setting block options. If the block is a done deal—and every admin thus far agrees that a block was justified, regardless of the details—then allowing talk page access is an administrative courtesy. If he abuses it, he can lose it. Posting on his talk page is not a user's last resort, because he is still free to send emails to request a review of the block. Besides which, there's no shortage of wikilawyers waiting to pounce on every block that comes across the logs.

It has nothing to do with self-interest. My email address is available to him right on my user page. He can send me all the hate mail he wants. Obviously a great deal of the attacks will always be directed at the blocking administrator - that's a given. But that admin is absolutely not required at that point to run away crying and waste someone else's time with it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I see Nikkimaria has restored Kiefer's talk page access--thank you, you beat me to it. Now, to the matter at hand. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support seriously shortening Kiefer's block. I have no problem with "no" as a response on David Levy's part, but I sense too much of a piling up here (along the lines of what Andy Dingley signaled). Drmies (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block and would support shortening it to no less than one week. KW is the type of editor that needs an occasional reminder to be civil. The longer it's been since his last block, the more "courageous" he gets with his insults. -Scottywong| express _ 18:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment At minimum the length needs to be adjusted. I'm not a fan of the original block, but I may be in the minority. However the length is inappropriate.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• No comment with respect to block, restore talk page access immediately review Kafziel's adminstrator status with respect to his massive personalization of issues, his violation of WP:BLOCK with respect to the talk page access and grudge-holding, both in the short and long term. He no longer is aware of the standards for adminship. Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What grudge? You're mad because I remembered you were a sockpuppeteer? Please. It wasn't hard - you were one of the most disruptive editors I've ever dealt with in my 7+ years at Wikipedia. There's a difference between holding a grudge and having a good memory for names. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In the threads I've seen about Kiefer, his comments seem to get treated as more uncivil than they really are. Cardamon (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The original block seems good, if a bit long, but I also tend to think along the lines of Cardamon above. I am concerned, though, about the follow-up actions (talk page block, etc.). Doesn't seem appropriate to me. Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Endorse block but it seems a bit long; I've seen worse. I'd say somewhere between 1-2 weeks might be more appropriate. --Rschen7754 19:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen administrators behave far worse with scarcely an eyebrow raised, and for Kafziel to compound his felony by removing KF's talk page access simply proves his unfitness to be an administrator. Why not block Kafziel for 1-2 weeks to prevent him cocking up like this again? Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think the correct answer to that question is "because we have common sense". Arcandam (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I on the other hand think the correct answer to that question is "because we don't have common sense". Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Would blocking Kafziel for 1-2 weeks prevent him making mistakes in the future? If that would've been true I would've made a request to be blocked for 1-2 weeks a long time ago. Arcandam (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  It would prevent him from fucking up again for 1-2 weeks, and if he continues to fuck up with his blocking then it could be increased to 2-4 weeks next time. Isn't that how it works? Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• We don't block admins, Malleus. You know that. Drmies (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• If he, I quote, "continues to fuck up with his blocking" it is better to desysop. If not we don't need to block him, just explain stuff (assuming that he has made a bad block, I am too lazy to check if that is true ATM). Proposing a block doesn't make sense. Arcandam (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  On the contrary, opposing a block doesn't make sense. You need to start thinking outside the box. Malleus Fatuorum 04:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Malleus, trust me, if there is one person on this whole 'pedia who thinks outside the box it is me. Back when I was in school I got in a lot of trouble for that. Arcandam (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I don't feel comfortable commenting on the appropriateness of the block (because it stemmed from a comment directed at me). I'll state, however, that I regard Kiefer's deliberate and persistent disruption of a community discussion (one in which he and I both opposed the proposal, incidentally) as stronger grounds. —David Levy 20:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, fellas, this has been a blast, but I have better things to do. Can't sit around all night checking ANI. I've spent a few hours on this, and I see a whole lot of talk on here, but nobody is showing me any policies. Just opinions. Opinions about block duration. Opinions about talk page protection. Opinions about whether the attacks were egregious enough. But you know what opinions are like, and everybody has one. I'm satisfied that I did my job correctly in blocking him, and continued to do my job correctly in locking his talk page. After four hours of listening to Wikilawyers rage about it to no end, I think we're all done here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

May I ask which specific editors you are referring to when you say "Wikilawyers"? Because I read in policy somewhere that to call another editor that name, is a violation of WP:CIVIL. (Do you disagree?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that your statement on block duration was just as much of an opinion as anybody else's. There is no prescribed rule for block duration because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Ryan, that's right - it's my opinion. And as the blocking administrator, that's the opinion I went with. I didn't use your opinion, because you were not the blocking administrator. In fact, I had never even seen or heard of you before, so using your opinion would have been difficult. I would hope that, if you ever become an administrator, you use your opinions. I would hope that you form your opinions carefully, as I have, so that you can safely disregard the baselessly puling masses, as I have. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"puling masses"? That's close to blockable right there, Kafziel. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not close to blockable, it's well over the line. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

More opinions. Certainly not founded in any policy, as it's obviously not a personal attack against anyone in particular. Pretty sure criticism of Wikipedia process isn't in itself a blockable offense. If you choose to self-identify as part of the puling masses, that's none of my business. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it is based on my own block log, which includes one block for the general comment "sycophantic admin wannabes". Or another for the general comment that some administrators are "fucking cunts". But of course I'm not a member of your priesthood, so the same rules don't apply to you. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Kafziel, I just want to follow and understand your logic here... Are you saying, because it was "not a personal attack against anyone in particular", that a personal attack against a group of editors, not one editor in particular, is okay then? (And if so, does it matter how profane the attack is?: If a profane personal attack is directed against a group of editors and no one editor in particular, do you feel you can be *as profane* as you want to be, without repercussion?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it was your opinion. You should set a block length based on what your opinion says is correct. I am of the opinion that the block length was excessive, and I feel that a number of others here are too. I just don't find it fair for you to discount arguments because because is a whole lot of talk and just opinions when the block length was opinion in the first place. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There are two important distinctions between my opinion and everyone else's: 1) My opinion about the duration of the block is based on long-standing, widespread practice, and 2) I am the one who actually did the blocking. If the buck stops with me, then my opinion is the only one that should matter to me. If I were actually wrong, that would be different, and I wouldn't have a problem admitting it. I've unblocked users before. But if we're just talking opinions, then I don't care. People don't make us admins because we can parrot policy; they make us admins because they trust our judgment in applying those policies. I trust myself to do that, and I did so here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The buck doesn't stop with you, Kafziel--you're not "Wikipedia". My opinion (that the block is too long, and that the talk page block was silly), I like to think, is also based on long-standing, widespread practice, and additionally on common sense. Now, maybe you want to take a bit of advice: stop digging. Your "puling masses" (I'm sure I'm not a part of that--am I?) is bad enough; if I were you, I'd go clean the pool or cook dinner instead of responding here and raising the temperature. Drmies (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the original block, but it sure as hell would be nice if you, as an admin, would start caring about other people's opinions. That's kind of the entire damn point of collaborative editing, you know? You're only one admin out of thousands, and not the only sheriff in town. --Conti|✉ 22:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm not the only admin, and others are welcome to their opinions, but at the end of the day my decisions are my own. If someone thought it should be shorter, they should have done it. If someone thought someone should have talked to him a little longer, they should have done that. I'm not going to take a poll every time I need to block someone (which, as I mentioned, is once in the last year). If I make a mistake, someone can change it, because there are lots of us. But blocking has nothing to do with collaborative editing, and I'm not required to discuss it in committee. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@Kafziel, I think you've been very patient and willing to discuss the block and I thank you for that. You're right that your decision is your own, and I think you've explained yourself fully at this point. Of course the community can weigh in and change things, but you've shown that you believe in doing what your conscience says and standing by that. You also sound like you're wielding the mop handle very lightly, so in a way I feel bad that you've gotten so much debate on your block considering how infrequently you use that option. Thanks for being willing to talk and I wish you the best. -- Avanu (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I just now noticed this, and glad to see someone else has already restored talk page access. To be clear, when a user is blocked, they are NOT restricted to only using their talk page for requesting unblocks. This is flatly mistaken and is completely unsupported by policy. See the talk page at WP:BLOCK where this very fact is being discussed. As for the block, I don't see how 2 weeks is required in this situation. We can discuss prior instances and all, but at the end of the day, a block is supposed to be long enough to prevent disruption. It would be my opinion that 2 weeks is unnecessary. I'm not convinced I would have blocked to begin with, but if he is going to be blocked, the time should be limited to what is necessary, and we should take care to insure it isn't punitive, so that we are just as neutral and fair as we are asking him to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Show me where it says blocked users may use their talk pages however they please. Maybe it's being discussed somewhere on the WP:BLOCK talk page, but not by me. If something changes, change the policy and let me know. Otherwise, your opinion is your own, and you are welcome to it. In my opinion, what he posted there (and continues to post there) is abuse, and a page lock was justified. I've seen nothing but opinions to indicate otherwise. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLOCK itself says that an editor blocked can edit nothing but their own talk page, as long as there is not ABUSE. It puts no restrictions on nonabusive usage in any way shape or form. There is no authority in policy for limiting the use of the talk page in this way. We don't need policy to give a user a right, but if you are going to take away an editor's rights, you need it to be policy based, and saying it can only be used for requesting unblocks isn't supported in any way whatsoever. Many people think that this is correct, but they are mistaken. If you want to strip more rights than the current policy does, you need to change the policy. I pointed you to the talk page of the policy as it is being dissected there in greater detail than would be appropriate here. We do not take away rights from editors unless their is a clear policy basis. Blocked users are still part of the community. The burden is on you to show where it says that they can only use it to request unblocks, as you are the one saying you can take this right away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You put the emphasis on it yourself - what he posted was ABUSE. He was blocked, he posted abuse, and I locked his talk page. Not because he posted something unrelated to the block, or because he ignored it, or anything like that. He posted abuse so I locked his page. End of story, as far as I'm concerned. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Suffice it to say that you and I have different ideas regarding what constitutes "abuse". Had someone said this to me, I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Since the talk page block was reversed, I can only assume that I am not alone in this. Admins really need to be a bit more tolerant of this minor venting on talk pages, particularly when it is directed at them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that remotely rises to the level of "abuse". Removal of talk page access should be very rare, and only used in extreme situations.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Block seems too long. This seems excessive and somewhat inappropriate. --John (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• I can't judge the appropriateness of the block - I don't have enough background to KW's previous blocks - but you, Kafziel, need to heed your peers regarding the appropriateness of revoking talk page access in this case. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you apologised to Ryan for your thoughtless slur above? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:23, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just as a general comment...usertalk pages should allow extremely great latitudes for verbosity and other excesses.--MONGO 01:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal that due to totality of circumstances, block be reduced to "time served"

Struck as not supported by the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Chedzilla (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously, as no reason was given and user has expressed no intention to act differently. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The "totality of circumstances" is that KW has made himself a long-term problem and he is a multiple-times repeat offender. There is nothing inappropriate about the action that was taken. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, obviously. Kafziel, who originally should have been censured for an unnecessary block should now be desysoped for punative withdrawal of talk page access. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think desysopping is necessary. If we desysopped an administrator every time they made an action that wasn't fully supported we'd have none left. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your second point. I didn't suggest desysoping for the block with which I disagreed. I suggested it for his vindictive withdrawal of talk page access, which everyone who has commented agreed was inappropriate. That Kafziel chose to dig in his heels and insist he was right shows me he is unfit to hold an admin bit. Also note that when I said "desysop him", I was speaking rhetorically, because as we all know, that will never ever happen no matter what he does. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose this is not the user's first block for incivility. If this was, maybe, but this is a repeated offense. --Rschen7754 23:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't know whether a two-week block is appropriate, but I see no justification for unblocking now. Thus far, most of Kiefer's messages have comprised further personal attacks and denials that he behaved disruptively.
  I do, however, support an immediate unblock when Kiefer provides a credible indication that his problematic conduct has ceased. —David Levy 23:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  I would have no problem doing that. Would have from the start. He just never asked. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mild oppose Sorry Kiefer. His actions were uncivil and this isn't his his first offense. As I said, a two week block in this instance does no more good than a two day block; however, I'm not sure that unblocking now would do good either. Kiefer was also a bit hard on the blocking administrator, even after I asked him to stop. I'd support reducing the block to no longer than 48 hours from the time of the block. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  You can always propose something else. It is obvious this isn't a consensus view. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hat these threads and get back to editing articles? (I was working on SMS Brandenburg when this drama was spotted.) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  The blocking administrator already has consented to lifting the block as soon as Kiefer provides a credible indication that his problematic behavior has ceased. Isn't that ideal? Blocks are supposed to be preventative (not punitive), right? —David Levy 00:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  I would have to agree with you David. What got me worried was the talk page access blocking, which I think the threshold is too low on. I don't begrudge the original block, even if it is a bit long, and I don't question Kafziel's faith, I just don't like to see talk page access stripped so easily. I'm involved in a couple of projects that are trying to address this exact issue. But yes, that does seem reasonable. Ironically, I was involved in Kiefer's last block and his last talk page unblock, but not in ways you would likely guess. I've struck the proposal as obviously it will not have a consensus, and now that Kafziel has stated a willingness to consider a short block based on the merits, that is reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, this was overdue. Who is this 'Kafziel'? I think Jack likes him. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  You're obviously not aware of the "contempt with which he is held in the community". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

  That moar o' teh "puling masses"? "Teh Community" is toxic, haven't you heard? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Kafziel. SÆdon^talk 23:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: this part of the so-called community was sleeping, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal that the block length be reduced to 1 week

As a mostly uninvolved editor, I propose that the block length be reduced to one week (expiry date July 10). I agree with the OP that two weeks is excessive for the offense at hand, but also agree that at least a full week is necessary for KW to get the message. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 13:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• How about reducing or lifting it should he actually get the message and pledge to be civil? Blocks are about avoiding trouble, not about proportionality to the harm done. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose However, I would thank you profusely for exhibiting the EXACT reasons why third parties should never be requesting unblock. Indeed, there's nothing GAB-compliant about this request. The user's block was based on the escalation process already set in place, and has stood accordingly. Reduction should only be based on the editor themself submitting a GAB-compliant request (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yes! He must prostrate himself before the blocking admin and beg. Thank you, BWilkins for a dose of sanity! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose had it been an individual incident from an otherwise perfect editor, it might be called excessive, but as part of an ongoing pattern of disruption, if anything it's lenient. While we're at it, after the previous unblock request was trounced so soundly, it seems questionable to try again with a different length. Looking forward to voting again tomorrow when someone inevitably suggests reducing it to 1.5 weeks or 9 days or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support No necessity to deprive the project of a quality accademic contributor for the extra week. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as before, and above (Andrew). This new sub-thread is a wp:Run to Mommy and the whole mess needs a hat. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion, and that you disagree with me, I do not feel that that was an appropriate comment. In a best-faith reading, it implies that I am being canvassed. I understand that it's not exactly a personal attack, so I won't ask you to strike it, but I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith about my motives in suggesting this. Specifically, I suggested this as a compromise position, since being able to compromise is necessary to a collegial environment. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not see where you're getting canvassing out of that (and I'm not asking). This amounts to another try at the dead-thread, above; regardless of your motives. KW isn't going to "get the message" in two weeks, either (or two years). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, especially considering continuing incivility after block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment, entirely agree with Wikidemon above. So far this entire episode seems to have been rather counter-productive. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Haggling over the duration (with terminology along the lines of "time served" and "excessive for the offense at hand") sends the message that this is about punishing Kiefer for past deeds, thereby discouraging him from addressing the community's ongoing concerns.
  The blocking administrator has consented to lifting the block as soon as Kiefer provides a credible indication that his problematic behavior has ceased (potentially sooner than proposed above). Otherwise, what's the justification for unblocking? —David Levy 18:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Um let me see...oh yeah-he shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  There doesn't appear to be consensus for such a view. If there were, that would justify an immediate unblock, not an abbreviated duration. —David Levy 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Shouldn't any the decision to unblock now by made a wholly uninvolved third party admin? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  Kafziel hasn't stipulated (not that he'd be entitled to) that he must make the determination. —David Levy 19:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  I must have misinterpreted his comment on KW's Talk Page: "So, for now, I feel the block has to continue." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  As explained earlier in the message that you've quoted, Kafziel believes that the block should continue because Kiefer hasn't properly addressed the community's concerns. I've expressed the same opinion, as have others above. Kafziel hasn't asserted that he possesses special authority to dictate what occurs (and he would be incorrect to do so).
  Kiefer has expressed willingness to redact the "asshole" remark, so I consider that matter resolved. But as I noted above, I believe that the main problem is his deliberate and persistent disruption, which he continues to defend, denying that he did anything disruptive (apart from the redacted insult) and attacking others for suggesting otherwise. —David Levy 21:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  To an outsider, the original "disruption" at the start of this sequence of events, seems to have been about the numbering of comments. Is it possible to cause disruption that is less trivial than this? How many editors were actually inconvenienced or "disrupted" by these actions? How many complained? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  That isn't the full extent of the disruption. Kiefer also interfered with the normal proposal process by repeatedly inserting (thereby reverting multiple users) an "amendment" on which to vote (which he claimed would automatically take effect if it received majority support, thereby applying retroactively to support/opposition that the proposal already had received). This section was relocated to the talk page, where Kiefer left it (increasing the confusion) when continually re-adding it to the proposal page.
  And when he saw that some threads (one of which was initiated by him) were moved from the poll page to the discussion subpage, he restored the pre-move versions (without any of the subsequent replies) and left both sets in place, leading another editor to unknowingly participate in a conversation with messages missing.
  In several instances, Kiefer responded to others' actions (performed in good faith, Kiefer's disagreement notwithstanding) by threatening to have them blocked.
  As noted above, I opposed the proposal even more strongly than Kiefer did, but that doesn't justify disruption. —David Levy 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Shutting down talk by the blocking administrator is a rogue action, as far as I'm concerned — it's a textbook example of one taking administrative action to advance a controversial position from a state of engagement. If this is not regarded as involved action under the standing rules, it certainly should be. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the innocent prisoner's dilemma that is being discussed elsewhere. As David noted, Kiefer has admitted poor judgement for the "asshole" remark, and is willing to redact it. Apart from that, he has chosen-as would most self-respecting people- to remain blocked rather than admit to disruption he genuinely feels he did not cause. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

...while personally attacking those who disagree.

And I'd be interested in reading his explanation of how restoring outdated versions of discussions moved to a different page (leading another editor to unknowingly participate in one with messages missing) wasn't disruptive. —David Levy 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Unblock with a zero tolerance ruling for new problems

I think it is better to look at what Kiefer did wrong now and in the past before being blocked and before things escalated a lot. A consensus can more easily be formed about that. One can unblock him with the understanding that he doesn't repeat that behavior. If he does, then it must lead to an indefinite block. Because then it is certainly more than reasonable that he admits being wrong. This is more difficult now, because things did escalate and he can reasonably claim that he isn't repsonsible for all of the brouhaha.

A zero tolerance ruling can be can be written in the unblock comments with a link to this section, making that visible to any new Admin who has to deal with him. Count Iblis (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. While Kiefer has exhibited poor behavior, I don't believe that "zero tolerance" is warranted. He needs to simply accept responsibility for his actions and do his best to avoid repeating them (with any slip-ups resulting in warnings, not instant blocks).
  At this juncture, there's no reason to believe that Kiefer wouldn't deny being disruptive next time too, putting us right back in the current situation (except with an indefinite block instead of a two-week one). —David Levy 23:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle zero-tolerance is almost never a good idea on anything. Looking Kiefer's contributions, the guy seems to have a lot to offer, but wow he's a jerk and a half. Thinking about this reminds me of some of my professors in college. We're not very tolerant here in Wikipedia of that kind of personality. I.E. Someone who is beneficial, but doesn't follow all the rules quite closely. So what to do? I don't have a good answer except for keep a rolled-up newspaper ready. Every person is different and a one-size fits all approach simply doesn't work. -- Avanu (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Favor unblock, oppose "zero tolerance" - End the dramahz. Carrite (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• oh hell no - in fact, I just removed talk page access again for his latest insults. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Chances of the second part actually being put into place... slim. --Rschen7754 02:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see a need for special treatment. Zero tolerance is a messy can of worms. Can you imagine the traffic if an admin actually acted on it? Meters (talk) 02:38, 5 July 2012 (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.

Historical revisionism; needs to be stopped by an uninvolved admin

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.

---

74.104.54.122 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been adding unsourced questionable material to Taxation in the United States and Excise tax in the United States. As I reverted the changes, I cannot be the one to block; there is no BLP violation. I warned him for NPOV, but other warnings may also be appropriate before a block. At the moment, all but the first 2 edits from that IP are of that category; the first two edits were unnecessary and reverted for other reasons. I can't say he is a vandal if he believes what he's saying.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped. For the moment.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2012 (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:Suspected sockpuppet of Kinu

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.

---

Obvious troll account. Please block... -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 07:36, 5 July 2012 (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.

Legal threat?

Resolved

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a legal threat. While I doubt the editor is serious, he is a COI editor on the article in question. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• This would almost be funny if it wasn't ridiculous. For those who haven't been following, the issue is that the only free image of the subject we have shows him with very long hair, but now it's a lot shorter. It's not a BLP issue in a million years. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

While it is not likely to be a harmful image, the BLP policy is clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

On Talk, the editor made a claim that the image violated some portion of WP:BLP and summarily removed it. Other editors reverted the image. This seemed to turn into an edit war over the inclusion of the image. Seems like this was poorly handled and not quite in line with how the BLP policy says to handle it. We may not always immediately see what another editor sees and a couple of the other editors in their edit summaries said "Reverted good faith edits by Canoe1967" (although this appears to be part of a templated response by Twinkle). Point being if they are willing to claim the edits were in good faith, why were they going against BLP guidelines and reverting without a consensus having been established? -- Avanu (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

There were two editors with COIs. Every established editor on BLPN, the editor's talk page, and the article's talk page soundly rejected there was a BLP issue. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't a legal threat. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of folks are under the delusion that we are MySpace, and that bands and musicians too lazy to set up MySpace or Facebook pages should be able to control their images as presented in Wikipedia, since we are allegedly their only source of publicity and information about their recording history. Canoe1967 says this is mean and thoughtless and they should sue us, and that he/she would help. I have to concur with Rjd0060: this is borderline, but falls on the non-actionable (if slightly pathetic) side of the NLT policy.--Orange Mike | Talk 18:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have placed a note on the talk page of the article instructing the subject or his record label on how to resolve this issue. Black Kite (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Alan Liefting again

See User talk:Alan Liefting, specifically my commenbt here, his reply (to further comments by other editors) Take it to ANI, my final warning here and his further actions [76] [77] [78] [79] . I'm going to bed now, so if someone wants to unblock (or extend the block further), go ahead. Alan's edits are still likely to damage Wikipedia, by making more work for editors creating drafts in user-space or AfC before moving the articles to the live encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Note also the related discussion Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 48#User sandboxes in content categories - again. On the one hand, he considers it a trivial matter[80], but on the other hand it (or the principle) is important enough for him to get blocked over. No one doubted that the initial edits (and the bot request) were made in good faith and to improve Wikipedia: but his refusal to change his approach after being asked by different people to do so, and his immediate continuation of these edits after it was made clear that it would get him blocked are clear examples of disruptive editing. It's sad that a block is needed for something that could have been easily avoided. Fram (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the blocking admin "involved" so maybe somebodyelse should have blocked? And why block and then "going to bed now"? Couldn't you just wake up in the morning in do this? Just asking, not passing judgement on either party. --Mollskman (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)I have to go to work now so I won't respond right away :), I know, sort of ironic.--Mollskman (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can we just get it carved in stone somewhere that 1) user pages don't get categorized to mainspace categories (i.e. cats other than cats specifically for userspace) and 2) the fix for this, for any passing wikignomes, is to replace these links with the colon-added form and not to simply remove the cat. The arguments to WP:preserve the links to categories are good, as are the arguments against making userspace drafts appear prematurely in live mainspace categories. Wikignomes, including Alan, are encouraged to make this change (and affected users can be directed to an explanation of why it's a good change).

Removal of these cats from userspace should be regarded as any other edit in another user's userspace: potentially problematic and not encouraged. Removing obviously_(sic) incorrect categories would be regarded as any other such edit: assumed to be well intentioned, probably an improvement, but also possibly a provocation to other editors, if they aren't intending that userspace page to be a collaboration as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure that this was worth a block, but I see no evidence that Arthur Rubin has acted inappropriately here, just that this might have been handled better all round. On the content issue I'm inclined to agree that removing the cats was unhelpful. It's all a bit meh really. I certainly think Alan should be unblocked if he undertakes not to do any more of these, if that is the consensus. --John (talk) 14:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no prohibition from removing them, after all, they're still in the edit history, and can be easily restored should the draft be moved to article-space.

But in the face of such criticism, the diplomatic thing to do would have been to do one of the other common practice solutions: just comment the categories out or use the colon trick.

If I were to guess, I think that this may be more a case of identifying an pattern of disruptive editing (note the "again" in the header above) than just only focused on the category removals.

As such, endorse.

That said, as noted by User:John, above, "I certainly think Alan should be unblocked if he [agrees] not to do any more of these". - jc37 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Does anyone else think it's time to start discussing the removal of Alan's AWB privileges and/or a topic ban from automated editing? He doesn't seem to be cooperative enough to responsibly use such tools. -Scottywong| confess _ 16:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite yet. Perhaps we could discuss putting him on probation with automated editing though. My idea is that he's placed under a strict restriction: if anyone raises a concern about an automated edit set he's doing, he must stop until the concerns have been resolved (and it can't just be Alan's opinion that it's resolved - there has to be some kind of consensus). If he does not abide by that restriction, he's automatically topic banned from automated editing. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd support that. -Scottywong| communicate _ 23:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI - Alan has escalated the situation since this discussion. I have decided to remove his AWB access for the time being. See the subsection below and Alan's talk page. -Scottywong| chat _ 02:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not in isolation. He's being soundly attacked as a bad editor in general, with vague references (no proof; just attacks) that his last 5000 edits are all bad, implications he was found guilty at WP:AN/I recently (provably false), and etc. Stop kicking the puppy. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• So Alan is or isn't the puppy? Or is the puppy now some metaphysical device you can use and modify depending on your perspective? Regarldess, Liefting has made his disruptive position clear. If you support his position, then presumably you advocate the disruption of Wikipedia too. Is that correct? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• He makes 12 edits using HotCat scattered over 2.5 days that are deemed problematic and you guys want to sanction his automated editing and removing removed his AWB privileges? Do you have any idea how absurd this looks?!?!? My prediction is coming true. 12 edits are being turned into a dispute of epic proportions. Drop the sticks and walk away. This is a non-problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This is not a "first-time offence". The user has been involved in several issues of a disruptive nature in the recent past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, the last 'offence' was dismissed by the community as good edits that should be performed, and which were performed on a massive scale before Alan did it, and have since been performed to completion. Note that the mere existence of a thread on a person is by no means proof that there is disruption by that person, you'd have to be more specific than that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Even if we were, would it ever convince you? I doubt it. Most bad behaviour from the user doesn't even get sent to ANI because users are resigned that AL will be defended by users who don't know the full circumstances and can't be bothered to find out—even though they can bother to comment here ad nauseum on a subject they have had little to do with directly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
        • It's nauseam, not nauseum. --JN466 00:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Thank you; in this case, nausea's the right word! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Admitting to disruption to prove a point

Ok, so Alan has lodged an unblock appeal here where he says (paraphrased) that he deliberately disrupted Wikipedia to prove his point. It's not the first time he's seemingly lost the plot and disrupted the project (like this little outburst at WP:AIV), and been blocked for it. I think, at the very least, we should consider removing his access to the semi-automated tools he uses ad infinitum even when asked to desist, and perhaps consider topic blocks (such as recategorisation) until such a time we are confident that he is improving the project rather than causing work for others to undo/redo the edits he's making. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite the effective WP:SHOT he just fired. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• How many times has he been to ANI now over the years for his AWB and automated edits? I don't really want to dig up the old discussions, but I can if it's wanted. It's probably going to be pretty long. I think, at this point, enough is enough, especially when Alan was at ANI, what, twice in the past two weeks for automated edit issues? Silverseren^C 22:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Right, ok, this is getting ridiculous. He disrupted purposely, to make a point, and has now stated flat-out that he intends to continue that disruption when his block wears off. I know Alan is long-term constructive editor, in general, but I'm really struggling now to find a reason at this point why he shouldn't be indeffed until he's willing to stop disrupting in this manner. Bad: losing a long-term editor who's done a lot for Wikipedia. Worse: not giving an involuntary vacation to a long-term editor who's done a lot for Wikipedia but has now gone disruptively off the rails and is informing us that he has no intention of going back onto the rails any time soon. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• You know, what I'm seeing is a puppy who peed on the floor. In response, he was spanked. Then when the dog wasn't happy about being spanked and seems to intend on peeing again, you spank him again. When he seems to not like that, you decide the next best course of action to improve his behavior is kick him in the jaw, and throw him down the stairs. You don't make a situation better by adding fuel and flame to it. Drop it. If Alan returns to removing cats by way of removal instead of colons, then block for increasingly long periods of time. Easy. We don't need to make this a federal case. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Um, it was dropped, about 12 hours ago. Why pop up in each and every thread here Hammersoft? Move on. We all have. If Alan is intent on saying he'll deliberately disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, he deserves whatever he gets. The Rambling Man (talk)

• Um, not it wasn't dropped as the presence of this thread on WP:AN/I is testament of. Further, I don't require your permission to post here, do I? --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I repeat, if Alan (as he has stated) will continue to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, then he deserves all the sanctions (including the sacred AWB withdrawal) he gets. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• In addition to the ridiculous hyperbolic characterization of the consequences of Alan's own behavior, you do realize that you are, in effect, saying that Alan, an adult human being, has the same self-control as a puppy dog? Is that a characterization of an adult human being that you think is helpful? --Calton | Talk 13:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• The analogy isn't one I started, as I was previously referred to as a "faithful hound" by our esteemed bureaucrat and administrator Mr. Rambling Man. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• The analogy of Alan being a petulant puppy is entirely of your own making, and while it characterises his behaviour, taking his AWB access away is hardly analogous to being kicked in the jaw and thrown down the stairs now is it? A little less hyperbole and and a little more thinking required. And it's The Rambling Man, not Mr. Rambling Man by the way! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, I was referring to the community as being petulant, not Alan. The idea being of course kick the puppy until the puppy is happy about being kicked, and being astonishingly puzzled as to why the puppy isn't happy. As for hyperbole, you were the one claiming 12 edits over 2.5 days as "mass semi-automated edits". It's time people dropped the sticks and walked away from this. It's almost a day and a half now since the block has expired and nothing bad has happened. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wonder why nothing bad has happened..... Seriously, I didn't claim his 12 erroneous edits were "mass semi-automated edits", I claimed the many thousand of edits he made in 2.5 days were "mass semi-automated edits". Still, much like a bad politician, you're continually avoiding the point that Liefting has stated without a shadow of a doubt that he would continue to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Removal of AWB is lightweight compared to an indefinite block and site ban which would be the obvious staging posts for an editor who can't control his desire to disrupt Wikipedia. Now we can move along. Of course, as soon as Liefting returns to disrupt Wikipedia, no doubt we'll be back here again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• So now you're equating me with a bad politician? First I'm a faithful hound, now a bad politician? I wonder, do you feel WP:NPA applies to you? Comment on content, not the author. Sure, removal of AWB for doing something that had nothing to do with AWB is quite lightweight (cough) when compared to an even more incongruous and overboard suggestion he should be site banned. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, removal of tools for an editor who threatens to disrupt Wikipedia is perfectly reasonable, no matter if he was going to use those tools or not. We allow trusted editors to use the tools. People who disrupt Wikipedia get blocked, if their disruption continues they get indefinitely blocked, and if they disrupt further via sockpuppets/IP edits etc, they get site banned. Hardly incongruous, hardly overboard, just a clear and well trodden path down which Liefting is wandering. As for NPA, it was you who called Liefting a puppy. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• No, it is a removal of tools for an editor who threatens to continue to improve Wikipedia which is, by some editors, found disruptive (and actually, the last AN/I thread was obviously not found disruptive, there was massive support for the performed actions). And no, it is not reasonable either if he was going to use the tools or not - it's like saying to a murderer who used a knife to kill someone that he is not allowed to use spoons anymore. If, and only if, Alan would indeed disrupt Wikipedia again, you stop him from disrupting Wikipedia, you don't take some of his tools so he can't use those to disrupt. "We'll put you in jail, and we take your belt. I hope it is clear that you should not hang yourself, so you can keep your shoelaces."
• Regarding the claim "I claimed the many thousand of edits he made in 2.5 days were "mass semi-automated edits" - yes, and those edits were, by the community, found to be OK (the mass removals of placeholder images), except that he was asked to next time go through another level of bureaucracy (which only applies to Alan, since all the 58000 images were removed without that bureaucracy - still it is hold against him - HIS mass semi-automated edits were deemed wrong - yet, other editors who perform mass edits, mass semi-automated edits, or mass automated edits are just ignored, but that is surely besides the point, because editors asked Alan to stop, and the editors who asked the other editors to stop and discuss (or show that they have consensus in favour of the scheme they are applying and wait to continue) can be ignored. But well, the community desysops and restricts editors for those things, so it must be what the community wants. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

See above:

• I repeat, if Alan (as he has stated) will continue to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, then he deserves all the sanctions (including the sacred AWB withdrawal) he gets. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Of course that's not the situation; he's being forced to admit guilt for something not proven, else his AWB privs will not be restored. Maybe they were removed (illogically, I might add) for the stated plans, but they're being withheld until he agrees to terms that are supposedly a "compromise". See Scottywong's 13:59, 30 June 2012 comment on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Too little too late, the editor has left the building. And all this started because some silly people disagree with something and thinks Alan is going to blow up the project with HotCat. Meanwhile, we have some admins who got the power to delete pages, threaten and block people yet those people were left unchecked (and confused enough that they can't tell the difference between HotCat and AWB). All those who instigated this drama should be ashamed of yourself for the loss of yet another content contributor. It has become a common trend lately. I can name at least 4 to 5 names without any searching who left the project because of bad blocks or threats. Even when I worked my butt off to bring more educated people to start editing Wikipedia, I am no match against you guys if you bite newbies and chase existing, well-established editors away. Using marketing's lingo, the cost and effort to retain an existing customer is far cheaper and easier than recruit for a new one (and Wikipedia is no different). Now, I really wonder if my time and efforts are even worthwhile anymore because many admins are entrenched in a near-invincible position and carry a "my way or the highway" attitude. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• For Alan, this is nothing new, nor newsworthy. For reference, see this. - jc37 05:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I'm perfectly familiar with this essay. Nonetheless it's laughable that all it takes is 12 good-faith edits and some minority making a mountain out of a molehill to chase away an 118k-edit editor. For every editor that puts up the "goodbye" sign and returns later, there're dozens more who put up that sign and never come back. The attitude of the community has soured and is one of reason why editorship is on the decline for past few years. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

AWB access removed

I've removed Alan's access to AWB, mostly per this comment (see bottom of the diff). Alan clearly states that he fully intends to continue making bad automated edits after his block expires. These are not the comments of someone who understands what he's done wrong and is striving to correct behavior that the community has clearly condemned. For those of you joining this thread, Alan has been at ANI several times in the last few weeks regarding his misuse of AWB and other automated editing tools to make large numbers of edits. I've left more extensive comments on Alan's talk page. -Scottywong| gab _ 02:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good call: I fully support removing a tool from an editor who says he intends to continue misusing it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Extremely poor call and Scotty you need to seriously consider whether you are appropriate to the administrator roll. Take away his AWB privs for using HotCat on 12 edits in a way you find objectionable? This is like painting your house a different color as a response to a solicitor showing up at your door. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Reality check: he's not having privileges revoked for making a few bad edits, he's having them revoked insisting he will continue to make more bad edits -- bad edits because he can't be arsed to do a simple edit properly -- not mention a track record of making questionable edits. --Calton | Talk 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• This particular call does not make sense to me. Take away AWB priviledges for misuse of AWB. Don't take it away for misuse of HotCat. Alan's actions here were wrong; they were not a misuse of AWB though. LadyofShalott 12:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• That's true, a revoking of all automated editing would make more sense, since it's such editing in general that he's threatening to continue with in a disruptive manner. Silverseren^C 19:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support. If he refuses to use a tool properly, why continue to let him use it? --Calton | Talk 13:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• In this case, he did not use the tool at all, properly or otherwise. Also, as has been pointed out, the last ANI case that was about his AWB had absolutely no consensus that he misused it. If anything, it was leaning the other way. LadyofShalott 14:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not about which tool he's using to make bad edits, it's about the fact that his behavior with regard to automated editing in general is unsatisfactory. Based on his recent actions and the statement in the above diff, he is far too high a risk to allow continued AWB access. I've left a further explanation at the growing thread on Alan's talk page. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Mild Support: While I'm not nearly as inflexibly convinced as some people here that Alan is a force of evil whose edits must not only be reflexively opposed but routinely characterized as destructive, and that LadyofShalott is right that there is no consensus that any of this is true, there certainly is a broad faction holding that they are bad edits. As such, Alan should properly gain a fresh consensus for them, and hold off until he does, and so his language in the diff Scotty put up is disturbing. Announcing that you're going to bull ahead no matter what anyone says, short of being blocked, is poor form. Ravenswing 14:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - first, it is removed because he is basically saying that he is going to use the tool in the future, and when he does, it could be in a way that could be objected to by others. It is impossible to already conclude that the way he is going to use it will be inappropriate (a kind of WP:CRYSTAL problem). So this is 'preventing' something that may not happen, but which someone thinks is highly likely to happen. Anyways, anyone using AWB is capable of doing actions which may be objected in the future. Secondly, he was using hotcat in a way that some people find objectable, and we are here now with AWB. By the way, can someone show me where in this diff Alan is saying that he is going to use AWB to continue editing .. he was blocked for using HotCat, he says he will continue to do the edits he was blocked for, so we take AWB. Do we now need to find editors who find it bad that AfC articles have colon-ed categories at the bottom (I find it ugly - that is only used in discussion, then you get strange links at the bottom - I don't like it, newbies may not like it - just like they may not like the altogether removal of the categories). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support we tend to provide use of things like AWB to trusted editors who are happy to stop mass-automated edits and discuss what they do. We also consider that trusted editors will not state plainly and clearly that after their block period runs out, they will engage in behaviour that will once again disrupt Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. I don't care about the preceding 5,000 edits, nor really the twelve where Alan could have just commented out the categories rather than wholesale delete them (of course, things like HotCat don't allow that, so it slows Alan's edit count increase to do something other than just remove categories). What I do care about is the fact he would rather go ahead and repeat disruptive behaviour, be blocked again, rather than work collaboratively to find a solution to the various issues that have been brought up. It may be a coincidence, but Alan's been blocked for this kind of thing before, has been blocked for deliberate disruption at WP:AIV, has been brought up a number of times at AN/I and has now offered to continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Do we really think editors who have this kind of track record should be afforded the privilege of the use of tools we tend to enable for users in good standing? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Obvious action to take when a user is threatening to continue disruptive editing with automated programs even after being told to stop by multiple users. Silverseren^C 19:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose; he said he was going to use AWB to do things which are inappropriate; as far as I can tell, he didn't actually use AWB for the specific actions I was complaining about. Of course, there may be other inappropriate things he was using AWB for, in which case, I'd have to Support. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not quite, he said "I have a dilemma. I want to fix Wikipedia but cannot do so if blocked. When, and if, I am unblocked I have every intention of doing the very things for which I was blocked in order to improve Wikipedia." which doesn't mean to say he was going to mis-use AWB. It meant to say that he was happy to tell us all he would be happy to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Ordinarily, this would result in an indefinite block; of course, while Alan's positive contributions are welcome, deliberately setting out to disrupt the project, and after his block for flipping his lid at WP:AIV, the privilege of having AWB is in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support - He has explicitly stated his direct intention to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point the instant his block expires. Indeed, this doesn't go far enough - all automated editing tool privilidges should be kerzapped until he retracts that declaration and agrees to abide by community standards in all respects. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support The diff shows a clear intent to use automated tools in a WP:POINTY way once the ban expires, even whilst aware that this will lead to another ban. I think it is irrelevant whether he has misused the tools or not yet; it would not make a lot of sense to hang around and wait for the misuse which he has promised, first, before removing access. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment for the crystalballers You have no idea if he is going to cause disruption or not. What you DO know is he has engaged in discussion on the issue on his talk page, and his block expired more than a day ago. If he actually causes disruption, you can block then. What, are you just planning on banning him from the site entirely? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • A declaration of intent to disrupt is treated the same as actual disruption, as blocks are meant to prevent disruption. As for the block having exprired, that's true, but this is about the AWB removal, not the block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • AWB had nothing to do with the 12 edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
      • AWB is a privilege for trusted editors who don't threaten to disrupt Wikipedia with ongoing pointed edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Then I'm sure you can cite multiple other cases where editors with AWB privs have had such privs removed for doing something completely unrelated to AWB? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC
          • What part of "trusted editor" aren't you getting? Trusted editors don't threaten to disrupt Wikipedia to prove their point. Semi-automated tools like AWB are provided to "trusted editors". I'm sure you can fill in the gap. Now time to stop badgering just my comments, there are plenty of others here who support the removal of AWB access, go chase them. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
            • What part of "trusted editor" aren't you getting? Trusted editors will continue to improve Wikipedia, and that is what Alan was saying. And note that you were replying in this sub-thread to Hammersoft, so why do you think that WP:NPA is not applying to you (because you think that Hammersoft is badgering you - while you started to respond to Hammersoft). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
              • Re that last bit - That may be carryover from the half of this discussion occuring at Alan's talk page, where Hammersoft was displaying behavior in defense of Alan that I, personally, would call "almost-but-not-quite badgering". - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                • If you want proof of badgering, you need only look as far as the people who are after Alan's hide. All of this massive, epic proportions debate...over 12 edits. If I were he, I'd be terrified of clicking "Save page" for fear of how someone would try to use it against me. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                  • No, it's the bit where Liefting says he'll continue to edit Wikipedia in the same way to prove a point and get blocked again. We don't trust editors like this. It's nothing to do with crystal balling, his threats to continue disruption are enough to warrant our trust in him being removed. Hence tools we allow trusted editors to use are removed. This obsession with what he did or didn't do with AWB or HotCat or whatever is beside the point. He has stated that when he gets back to editing, he'll do the same thing he was blocked for. It's really very simple, why is it so hard for you understand that someone who has said he will deliberately disrupt Wikipedia shouldn't have privileges above regular editors who want to make things work here? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                    • • ^ What he said. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                    • @The Rambling man; No, it's the bit where you get to hold his AWB privileges hostage for vague references to bad editing somewhere (no proof yet, still waiting) in his "mass semi-automated" editing. Meanwhile, 25% of your last 5000 mainspace edits have been done using a script. Yet, if I make vague references to poor editing within that, I'll wager there'd be accusations against me and demands of proof. It's really very simple. Holding his AWB privileges hostage unless he admits guilt for vague references to his editing is wrong on the face of it. If, when he returns to editing, he continues in the manner he threatened, then block him. Why is that so hard? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                      • Nah, final answer - editor with privileges threatens to disrupt Wikipedia despite block. Community take privileges away. Done deal. Nighty night. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
                        • No, not 'community' takes privileges away, that was done by one editor without consensus to start with based on his interpretation of Alan's words. I think the words were that he threatened to improve Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User has explicitly stated that he would use tools to prove a point. A no brainer. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So ? I vandalize wikipedia, I like it. I do it repeatedly, I've done it before and I'll do it again and I'm serious. Try to stop me. here is a diff, ban me. I even use sock puppets to vandalize and I'm getting bolder because nobody cares, I'm completely out of control. People could just be more polite to the guy if they want a reasonable conversation, or they could find bigger problems to devote so much time to.

Big talk. Rhetoric. So he says he's going to kill his best friend if his friend forgets his birthday, the policeman who arrests him is an idiot. If you can't tell if it's true or not find something better to do with your time. No doubt someone else will watch him closely, and no doubt all of wikipedia would collapse and come to an end if he was left unchecked. Penyulap ☏ 23:04, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, your pointy comment is not helpful to anyone. It seems to me you've done this kind of thing before, and I'd like to urge you to spend less time on the noticeboards, and more time improving articles. That's where the real work of Wikipedia is done, this stuff is quite frequently a sideshow. Please don't get sucked in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Penyulap did nothing pointy. If he wants to contribute to WP:AN/I, he is more than welcome to do so. If you don't want to read his comments, then don't. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, FFS, if you don't recognize this as pointy behavior, I have to question your comprehension skills. Pen is deliberately making these statements as a taunt. His flair for melodrama has done nothing but inflame ANI discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I have no comprehension skills. What I see in Penyulap's post isn't what you see. That doesn't mean you have excellent comprehension skills and I have none. From my chair, Penyulap raises a very valid point, that disruptions can and do happen and don't cause the project to collapse. Yet, no disruption has occurred since the block expired. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I must lack those comprehension skills as well - because for what I read is that Alan Liefting was threatening to .. low and behold .. improve Wikipedia, knowing that editors would block him for that. But as I said, I must have misunderstood - it apparently obviously says that he was going to use AWB to disrupt the project. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was going to block User:Penyulap for one second on account of his initial comment above so his sense of justice could be vindicated, only to find that he had already been blocked for another incident. Lol. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose for the record. 12 edits with HotCat and you take away AWB? It's like you are caught not wearing a life jacket on a boat and the police takes away your driving license for not wearing a seatbelt. Unbelievable. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In this case, it's more like the offender has been caught not wearing a life jacket on a boat and he has a history of being stopped by police for reckless boat driving without a life jacket, and he has been given several stern warnings by police and told that any further infractions of the rules will result in penalties. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • So, can you please show me that history, Good Olfactory? Alan Liefting has never been stopped earlier by the police for reckless boat driving .. the last time he was asked to stop, was because they though that he was driving a car without number plate, but that number plate was quite obviously there. Any better examples? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Take a look at the last few months of others' edits on his talk page and search the ANI archives; check his block log, and so forth. I haven't been involved in each issue, but I personally have been aware of at least six in the past month or two. You claim that the user "has never been stopped earlier by the police for reckless boat driving". Well, if reckless boat driving = disruption of WP, you are flatly wrong, because I have blocked him myself in the past for such behaviour. This stuff is not that hard to find, which makes me wonder how hard you have looked. (I'm not sure how specific you are trying to make the analogy, but what is clear is this is not a "first time" incident" for which AL has been blocked for, as some have suggested.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
        • A) no, I explicitly did not say that reckless boat driving = disruption of WP. I explicitly meant that there were different things that editors found disruptive on WP (if I translate your block, he was throwing a empty coke can onto the sidewalk while riding his bike, and showing his middle finger to a police officer). And actually, I still have to be convinced that the outright removal of categories from AfC articles is disruptive, or more disruptive than colon-isation or commenting-out. And for the image removal, what was found disruptive there was actually common practice, but just turned into disruptive because someone thought they had the right to stop Alan, and I think that those reasons were pretty much overruled. Actually, looking at it, in both cases (de-categorisation of AfC and the placeholder image removal) people did not convince him why he had to stop, and hence could not get the right answer out of him why he continued, and that is then deemed 'Alan does not communicate'. And I don't think either that I said that Alan did nothing wrong - but I just see that at least in these last two threads that what is made such a fuss about is .. minimal. But of course, Alan is pulled before AN/I twice, so he must be wrong, even if he is completely right. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Interesting read, though, those old AN/I discussions. Quantity != quality, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
          • Your attempt to defend what I view as indefensible behaviour is noble, but I do think it's misguided and ill-informed. I guess you have misunderstood what he was doing that resulted in the block he received from me, because it was far more than "throwing a empty coke can onto the sidewalk while riding his bike, and showing his middle finger to a police officer". It was vandalistic disruption of a kind I have rarely seen on WP from a non-IP user. Were it not the first time he had been blocked, I have no doubt that it would have been indefinite. So yeah—more like attempted murder than anything if you want to draw analogies. If you fully investigate all the other instances over the past 6 weeks in context—several of which did not ever get moved to ANI for precisely the reason we see here that it's very difficult to convince users who like defending those who can't play nicely with others that a problem even exists—I think you would see there's far more here than you have suggested. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
            • Misguided is a POV, and ill-informed shows that you may just be as ill-informed about in how far I am informed or not. And I think you hit the nail right on the head. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
              • Of course it's a POV—it's my opinion and was stated as such ("I do think..."). I could be off on the ill-informed comment, but judging from all I have read here, I don't think so. If you do know all that has happened and yet you are defending AL, then I would be a little bit worried about your intentions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
                • My intentions .. no, maybe I am just well-informed and misguided .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
                  • Anything is possible, as this page repeatedly demonstrates. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for AWB restoration

All right, I've backed away from this and now I'm going to put in my revised opinion/proposal. If Alan Liefting agrees that he needs to communicate better when using automation, restore AWB to him. That's it. Not an admission of "guilt," an admission that this is an area in which he should improve. No requirement that he agree to restrictions, just an acknowledgement that there are people in the community who have shown concerns, and that their concerns should not be dismissed out of hand. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• From my view, this is a considerable improvement! Thank you! I'd still like to see evidence of where he has failed to effectively communicate when using automation. I'm not saying such evidence doesn't exist, just that I haven't personally seen it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The only logical explanation is that everyone except Hammersoft is batshit crazy. -Scottywong| talk _ 15:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is completely uncalled for. I am engaging in reasonable discussion. I even thanked Jorgath. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't have time to find it right now, Hammersoft, but I can point you in the right direction: in the previous AN/I discussion, I seem to remember at least one instance where Andy ignored a request to stop and talk about somethin. I'd also like to note that I'm not saying Andy doesn't communicate at all, just that it's something he should do better than he does. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean that thread that revolved around something that was discussed with Alan Liefting, he responded a couple of times, explained the actions, shown that there was consensus for it, and then someone comes along and demands him to stop because that editor does not like it, and when Alan then does not respond again but continues that is construed as 'he does not discuss' and gets blocked for not having consensus for what he was doing, while what he was doing was going on for years already, and has since been done anyways? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) You might be referring to Alan's lack of response to Fram's second inquiry. Alan had already responded to him. There were mixed thoughts on that one. Is there something else? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm all good with the initial proposal here. It's not a coincidence that Alan's been cited here at AN/I on several occasions, but I think the following:

• If Alan uses AWB to perform a large swath of edits, then he should also use AWB to be crystal clear as to the reasoning for it, e.g. in the edit summaries.
• If more than a couple of a editors request him to stop using AWB because there seems no clear reasoning for it then he should stop and discuss and probably expand upon his rationale.

I have been witness to Alan moving a reasonable number of pages (glossaries) without any prior discussion. This can be witnessed at User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 14, where he insisted that the reason for his numerous moves was simply "WP:ARTICLENAME". This reasoning (while possibly valid) was not expanded upon at all, and it was left to numerous editors to question his motives. It's clear he thought he was right, but he was also asked many times to expand his reasoning, which he really failed to do. While these were manual edits, many of which were undone, the thought of a similar approach to using AWB against so many questioning voices is troubling. But if Alan is prepared to be more communicative to the editors who ask questions as to why he's doing things, there should be no real disruption. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but that was not a refusal to discuss, or a lack of communication - that is a disagreement, and/or a problem of getting a point across. As far as I see he answered most comments to him (which still may not have been satisfactory). So, how much more communicative do you want Alan to be? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and to quote Alan: "And I am yet to get strong arguments against my page moves. In a few cases there is an argument to revet but not in all of the 70 odd pages I moved. And another thing, moving 70 pages out of 3,989,627 is hardly wiki-wide. Please keep things in perspective. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)" I can agree that there were things which could be handled better - but does that all get together to a level that this needs removal of AWB, accusations of not discussing, and even a block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like, when asked to expand a rationale, he doesn't just continually quote a guideline title. Perhaps say why he thinks a certain article title does meet the article title guideline. That's quite a reasonable question I think. We're not all as clever as you or Alan, clearly! And in answer to your second point, whatever, there were several editors who questioned his move rationale, without satisfactory response. As for whether "that all get together to a level that this needs removal of AWB", we're discussing giving it back, aren't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Nono, I can see that, but it is not a lack of response, or a lack of communication - it is suboptimal, I agree to that. And you are talking there about a discussion about 70 manual pagemoves, here it were 12 hotcat edits .. both of course could have been done by AWB (can you actually move pages with AWB), these cases would not have resulted in wide-scale disruption (and yes, next time it could be 7500 pages, and that could be disruptive, but that is pretty much a crystal ball for everyone with AWB rights) - I think there was not much against him having AWB rights, and the more reason to return it, after all, all he want(s/ed) to do was to improve Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so all I'm asking for (perhaps too much?) is that if Alan is questioned on what he's doing, in reasonable terms, that he respond (which he normally does) and if required by further request, to expand upon his rationale so it's not simply something like "see WP:N" (which he hasn't done, but is an example of an unhelpful response given the vast nuances of such a policy, or any similar guideline). To be part of this volunteer project must include collaboration, and that includes extended and open discussion. That means, if required, expanding on your reasoning rather than claiming a guideline and continuing to do the same thing unabated. If Alan can take a couple of minutes of his valuable time out from making so many edits and explain more precisely why he's doing it, it would save a lot of bother. This is, pretty much, all that a few editors have asked him directly to do, yet he remains unconvinced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Rambling Man, I mostly agree with your original comment above, but I would change point #2 to read as follows: "If any single editor requests him to stop using AWB because there seems no clear reasoning for it, then he should stop immediately and discuss and probably expand upon his rationale. If an agreement cannot be found with the complaining editor(s), Alan should either start a wider discussion to find a consensus for his edits (i.e. a village pump thread or an RfC) or just abandon the task and revert the edits he's already made." One of the problems with Alan's behavior is that someone will disagree with what he is doing, he'll stop temporarily to discuss, and once he realizes he can't get the other person to agree with his side of things, he stops discussing and resumes making the automated edits. That's not how things work around here. As I said on Alan's talk page, you don't have an implicit right to make whatever automated edits you want; Wikipedia is a collaborative environment and automated edits have a much higher risk of damage to the project. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 17:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm .. well, in those threads you pointed to, in the end there is a "And I am yet to get strong arguments against my page moves." (same timestamp as in my earlier remark in this section) - which suggests that it is a two-way traffic problem there. Similarly, upon the removal of the categories (the 12 hotcat edits), Alan also asks 'why?' .. it may be that the questioners are not convinced by Alan - but Alan is standing there alone, waiting to be convinced by .. a number of others (and maybe they have not convinced him either - and if I look up, there are others also not convinced that what Alan was doing was the worst of the solutions to the problem). And then, when that two-way traffic does not come to a conclusion (maybe either way), he gets .. demands to stop, or even threats to be blocked if he does not do so, and later he runs into blocks and his AWB privileges are removed. Now, that is the way the community treats people ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

@Scottywong - remember that for the removal of the placeholder images, the wider consensus existed, it was done already for a long, long time (and was continued while people were discussing about Alan). Do you suggest that Alan should have stopped and .. go through another layer of bureaucracy because of one single demand to stop .. you lay the fault on Alan that he did not stop the image removal? Alan needs consensus to continue something for which there was already consensus, but one single editor can demand to stop an operation for which consensus can be shown? And here, we have in total 12 removals. And for that you want to start an RfC or a VP discussion - do note that that also means that any other forms of category removals (colon-isation or commenting out) then should also wait for that discussion to come to an end. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember, the original placeholder image discussion that Alan was basing his actions on was from 5 years ago, and never discussed the possibility of removing them entirely from Wikipedia via automated methods. The consensus was that the images were unsightly and something should be done about them, not that the images were unsightly and they should all be removed from Wikipedia by a bot. So yes, in that case, if a single editor questions what he is doing, he should stop and find a consensus for the automated removal of the images. Being cooperative in a collaborative environment can often be a pain in the ass, but it is absolutely required if you want to use automated tools to edit Wikipedia. It may have been 12 edits this time, but next time it could be 1200 before someone catches it. -Scottywong| confess _ 18:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• It was demonstrated in that thread that the consensus from 2008 was to remove the images, and that the images had already largely been removed (several tens of thousands of them). Alan's work in that area wasn't done by a bot, and it was a small fraction of the entire body of work. When he was queried about it, he responded promptly, in fact within minutes. "1200 before someone catches it" is just speculation. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating, I'm sure, but let's deal with here and now. Please see my comment of 17:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC). I'm trying to conclude this debate with a positive outcome. Alan 100% must improve his way of dealing with people who ask why he's making the edits he's making. If he agrees to do that, in the manner described above, or a variant thereof, no issues. If he continues to use AWB or any other version of editing (including manual moves of 70-odd pages in a few hours because he re-interprets a guideline his way) then he should respect the community when (a) they ask him to stop and (b) ask him to be clearer in his explanation as to why he's doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• The same requirements exist for all editors. This is nothing special. Further, I still haven't seen it demonstrated how Alan has failed this requirement in the past. And again, I'm not saying such evidence doesn't exist just that I haven't seen it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, in the talk archive I linked to, I would hope you (along with all the other editors who objected did) might see a reluctance in Alan to further explain his thinking. Instead, he would just offer a link to a guideline, despite being asked for clarification. It happened a few times. Maybe you think it's all fine, but a number of editors in that archive page demonstrate that the need for further explanation wasn't just a figment of any one person's imagination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, The Rambling Man, as I already said, maybe you think that you explained your actions fine, and you are right, there are others there who have the same concerns, I still think that you also did not manage to convince Alan. Maybe the need for further explanation wasn't just a figment of any one person's imagination, the fact that all those person's did not succeed in explaining to Alan why they were right is also not just a figment of any one person's imagination. In fact, you, Fram, ScottyWong, and others did not convince me yet why the outright removal of the categories (using Hotcat, which leave a very, very clear edit summary) is more bad than colon-isation or commenting out. At all. For me, all three methods are of similar quality.
• So someone tells Alan to stop, because that someone does not like his method, and whether or not Alan explains, editors have failed to convince Alan that their method is the one to follow either. The community goes as far as to block Alan over it, and to remove his AWB rights. And that goes just as well for that previous discussion about the page moves - the community may be right, but you failed to explain why. So tell me, what gives you (or ScottyWong, or Fram, or Sandstein) the right to tell someone to stop without being properly able to explain why (after all, that was his first question after he was asked to stop), and what gives you the right when the editor, where he is not convinced after the explanations (and I am not convinced either!), to enforce him to stop. Is it that because you (or ScottyWong, or Fram, or Sandstein) say that it is wrong, that it is therefore by definition wrong, and the editor has to stop, and it excuses those from properly explaining why? You see, I wonder still - there was community consensus to remove the placeholder images (yes, old discussion, but hey, I am not the one who tells all the time that Alan is here regularly on AN/I, so he needs to be stopped, it is used as part of the argument that he needed his AWB right removed), and he discussed that with others on his talkpage, but because someone told him to stop, he HAD to stop, so he was brought before AN/I with a threat that he would be blocked. And with these categories it is similar. And actually, with your pagemoves, The Rambling Man, as well (though it did not get that far). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll give up. I came back here to try to help progress the issue, to try to explain why a number of editors would have just liked Alan to explain his reasoning a little more clearly. That's all. I can see that I can't convince you of this so I'll leave it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, Alan has explained his reasoning on his talkpage. I have yet to see an explanation why colon-isation or commenting out is a better method than outright removal. I think it is .. telling that editors step out when we are trying to progress the discussion and get to the heart of it, why does Alan have to explain his actions better, but he does not deserve a better explanation of why his actions are bad enough to first receive threats over, and later blocks and removal of the AWB privilege. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't referring to the colon discussion, I was referring to the various requests for explanation in the archive link I provided. Seriously, I wanted to come back here to help progress things but you're really making it too difficult. You can redirect your comments to the people who did block him, who did take away his AWB rights, who did bring him to AN/I several times, who have blocked Alan in the past for vandalism of WP:AIV. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well, there it is, 'who brought him to AN/I several times' .. 3 serious times (including this) in this year (at least, the search comes up with 8 threads .. most of them not about Alan). And this thread is the one that took his AWB rights. And one previous block for vandalism .. so. That is what it adds up to. And I have gone through the several discussions in that thread, and in the end there still is a remark from Alan that he did not get a satisfactory explanation. And here, regarding this one thread (which took his AWB rights), also I am not convinced that the explanation given against his category removals is sufficient - just as insufficient as him communicating why he did the removals. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• As I said, perhaps you should directly address the people who brought up the threads at AN/I, those who blocked him, those who withdrew his AWB access, not me as I'm none of the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• They are free to respond. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• I blocked AL before. I would respond here with detailed information, but it's become clear to me that doing so would be futile. I doubt that anyone's mind is going to be changed at this point, regardless of what evidence is presented to the contrary. Incidentally, this is the precise reason that several editors have failed to bring issues regarding AL to this page in the past month: they are, quite frankly, afraid that the points they raise will face a wall of argument from users who will defend AL's behaviour regardless of how bad it has been and the evidence they present to back that up. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is complete speculation. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is, but it's fairly solidly based on past experience with this page and with certain editors. You see things enough times and it becomes easier to "speculate" on what will probably happen in a given circumstance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree, Hammersoft. Good Ol’factory should better provide diffs or it never happened. Alan was here since 2004(!) and his account only had 2 blocks (May & June 2012). I can easily find AWB users with more blocks and shorter editing history than Alan. Basically, I can sum up the entire drama in one sentence. The drama is started by people who aren't happy that things don't go their way, then they lost an argument, blow things out of portion, 2 trigger-happy admins (1 for the block, 1 for removing AWB), and results in the departure of an editor with over 118k edits. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not speculation, absolute fact. I would have brought his behaviour here as well in February, but he has his staunch defenders and it would have been pointless. That anyone editing Wikipedia should instantly know what "It is WP:ARTICLENAME of course, as previously stated" means when questioning why moving multiple pages without discussion is acceptable is beyond me. His reasoning "I see no need to explain an edit that is done for a blindingly apparent reason." It wasn't "blindingly obvious" to me (perhaps mea culpa) but I've been here since 2005 and my account has had no blocks, and I have over 80,000 edits (not that any of that is relevant). For editors who are "less experienced" than Alan or me, perhaps this "blindingly obvious[ness]" is even less .. obvious. Do note, he hasn't "depart[ed]", he's just having a break. He has "retired" before if I recall correctly, but that didn't last long either. Don't worry, he'll be back! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Would have? Could have? Should have? How do I know if you're making things up to fit the story. Again, back your story with diff or nothing happened. Many editors have repeated asked for diffs yet you didn't hear it. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well perhaps you haven't read this thread properly, I linked everyone to User talk:Alan Liefting/Archive 14 where, instead of diffs (which you know can be taken entirely out of context), you can read the whole lot of threads. You can also check his block log" to see that he was blocked for vandalism (you don't need a "diff" for that, surely?). "back up your story with diff or nothing happened"? Weak. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• You might further wonder why we don't bother. It may not be for the reasons you think. Could it be that some of the user's edits were administratively deleted and are thus impossible for non-admins to see through diffs? Or could it be because we've seen this movie before and we know from past experience with this user and other users that certain users will always defend and minimise all sorts of outrageous behaviour? Or could it be a combination of both? Then again, maybe you are correct. Maybe nothing has happened at all and we're just making it up because we are crybabies. No doubt that also applies to the editors who have suspended their WP editing and have said they won't resume until the AL situation is "resolved". But on the third hand, I could be making that up too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This entire discussion is just inflammatory Bad Faith assumptions on both sides. I'd suggest it end here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 05:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to drop it, but if someone suggests that I'm making stuff up, I will respond. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And how is that remark not exactly the inflammatory part that The Hand That Feeds You wants to be stopped, Good Olfactory. Drop it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Evlekis

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.

---

Edit warring and blind reverting on Republic of Kosovo, infringement [81], [82] of the 1RR rule [83] on Kosovo (of which I'm a little bit guilty too, I have to confess). Majuru (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is highly tendentious and the user Evlekis has broken the revert rule three times. He has been asked to revert him self here Ottomanist (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, uninvolved admins. Per ARBMAC, User Majuru is the first and only one to be blocked, as he tried to POV push highly controversial data, without ANY talk page agreement, and then reverted his pov back in the same day, what is strictly forbidden in 1RR per week restriction. So, i think that WP:BOOMERANG should apply here, as he was also invited to revert him self, what he didn't do.... Thats it from me. --WhiteWriter^speaks 01:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish to start by explaining that I was initially unaware of the 1RR policy on Republic of Kosovo and I'd like to explain why. I have the page on my watchlist and I was aware that it is protected because when you click the "edit" section, the pink background message explains the status. I contend that it is not mentioned within the pink box but nevertheless, it has now been brought to my attention and I am aware of the procedure. Obviously content dispute is one thing but when an editor produces a highly radical comment that debases everything the entire article stands for and everything good-faith editors strive to avoid then I felt justified in removing the remark. For someone to claim "Abkhazia is fully sovereign" is no different to an opponent writing "Abkhazia is an integral part of Georgia". Reality: two mindsets, two radically opposed perceptions. Our job as editors? To reflect these very sources of conflict and to find ways of presenting material in a neutral manner. I did not replace the "Kosovo is fully sovereign" with "Kosovo is legally a Serbian province", if I did this, Majuru/Ottomanist would have a fair reason to accuse me of a content-based edit war. The sources used by Majuru/Ottomanist simply did not substantiate the claim made in his main space contribution. Be that as it may, I part-reverted myself by restoring Majuru/Ottomanist's sources and editing the section so now it is not a case of me reverting but rather me making a change to an edit which is not the same thing. See here[84]. Meanwhile, Majuru/Ottomanist requests that I revert myself and this is something I am prepared to do. Reverting myself will once more remove the two edits and return the page to a point before the source of this conflict was introduced. If this is the user's wish, I am happy to do that, but as I said, my last edit was evidently in good faith as it acknowledged Majuru/Ottomanist's edit. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please revert your edit since you are now aware of the rule and make sure you're more careful in the future in such a prickly article - Ottomanist (talk) 17:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well on this occasion. I've done it[85]. Let that be an end to it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You're an old user and it will depend whether the admins buy your line about not knowing the revert rule in place. I personally think you should be blocked because it is very obvious that the revert rule is in place in such a tendentious article - Ottomanist (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether it is just my settings I do not know - when I click "edit" I usually read the pink information boxes and the pronominal article does indeed state that it is protected. If I am to be blocked it will be for so long - probably not indefinitely - but what will have been achieved? I could not see the 1RR policy, nothing jumped out and you have already admitted you violated it yourself when you began this post. Now this way or that way, I have already reverted myself and I really believe that the edit I reverted was something in good faith as it acknowledged your two sources - I did it to keep peace and demonstrate that I do observe rules as well as reasonable requests from other users involved in the disputes. If there is something more you want, please say. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Elvekis, you are 100% aware that all Kosovo-related articles are under 1RR restriction. To claim otherwise is a load of malarky (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't claim otherwise. I maintain that I was unaware and I have produced irrefutable evidence to support this - that being that no message of 1RR appears when you click "edit", only a message that the page is protected. I edit on a wide range of topics and do not follow religiously the activities surrounding the subjects which you know me to edit. I edit some music related subjects and for all I know they too may be 1RR but unless somehow it comes to my attention, I cannot be expected to know. Put simply, I cannot be everywhere all at once. Now that I have been involved in this incident, you have proof that I know should 1RR be violated in future on Kosovo topics. But before passing judgment, just take into account that Ottomanist-Majuru admitted breaching the policy with his opening statement. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 21:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Question to Bwilkins: Why are you so certain that Evlekis is not being truthful? I'm trying to figure out how to ask that neutrally - I don't doubt you have a reason to be certain, but having not seen it, I can't endorse it. Has Evlekis received a talk page message or somesuch about it in the past? Were they part of a discussion/decision that instituted the 1RR in the first place? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 22:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jorgath. Can I make one suggestion, that we focus on the future and not the past. If I am to be blocked for any period, you have already seen the nature of the comments for which I would appeal the block so there is no need to repeat them. I believe nothing will be achieved if my editing ability is restricted for a set time but I assure you, Bwilkins and all other editors involved that I am now wholly aware of the 1RR policy which applies to all Kosovo topics and subsequently I shall observe this. I hope this is deemed fair. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the article has been on a 1RR since 1 August 2009 (UTC), and if one checks the History section of the article it clearly shows that the said user has been heavily involved in this article since after that date. This is a flagrant violation of the rule, which is very banal to be honest and shouldn't have happened from an experienced user on such a tendentious article. Just my two-cents - Ottomanist (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is one point I wanted to make in connection to Ottomanist's statement above this one. The 1RR was indeed introduced on 01/08/2009 which frankly is...a very long time ago. Naturally this has not changed but any review of the activities on the article and you will soon establish that I haven't been involved with revert violations nor have I had a great deal of conflict there. So with one pronouncement on a talk page now buried in archives, there is little to inform any user of this status and to be honest, I don't even recall this striking a cord back then. What I can say however is that the judgement was made on Kosovo and this particular page, Republic of Kosovo had already been created at that point by demand from some and all because this article had so much else to say from the plain Kosovo page. The ruling said "Kosovo" only, nobody went out of their way to decree "all Kosovo-related subjects have 1RR" and if that is the case then I still haven't encountered where this was implemented. I wish to point out however that there are several Kosovo-related pages and most would have conflicts come and go without any admin activity required. But note that there are hundreds if not thousands of pages which allude to Kosovo and each one can be a source of "Kosovo-related 1RR", particularly if the minor section referring to Kosovo is the subject of dispute. Think, people's birthplace, locations notable individuals have visited or worked, the references to the place and its settlements and subjects are endless. So where does this 1RR begin and where does it end? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't violate the rules then and did so now, to me at least, shows that you were aware of the rule. You're an old user on tendentious articles. Anyhow, it's up to the admins to decide. - Ottomanist (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't violate the rules then and did so now, to me at least, shows that you were aware of the rule. You better explain yourself - produce a link where I have been found to be discussing the 1RR at some stage between 1 August 2009 and 4 July 2012. Unless you can find this, you know nothing of whether I was aware of the rule. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Evlekis clearly broke the 1RR rule at Republic of Kosovo. People tend to expect that admins will enforce the 1RR rules in the Balkans. I suggest that he be blocked 24 hours. If he will agree to abstain from Kosovo-related editing for the remainder of July, this report could be closed with just a warning. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

EdJohnston, please read this entire thread and particularly my defence. You are playing right into the hands of the tendentious editors, moreover those who are striving to push POV thus keeping such articles "sensitive". One examination of my edits on and off Kosovo and you will see that they are all constructive and nobody can accuse me of POV-pushing. Whilst me having been unaware of the 1RR system is unequivocal, I have demonstrated good faith firstly by cancelling my final contribution per request of Ottomanist and by having since edited on the article without edit-warring or fundementally altering the mass removal of sourced content by Ottomanist (I made a copy-edit only). No harm has been done here, but be aware that the user who opened this file has admitted breaching the 1RR himself (see top of post). To that end, there is nothing to be achieved and no good will be done by either blocking me for X-amount of time nor by ordering me to keep away from the Kosovo page. I'll remind you that this is Republic of Kosovo - a separate article, my previous post already outlined the ambiguity of not clarifying which articles are 1RR and which are not when so many allude to Kosovo or are directly on the region. The pronouncement of 1RR seems only to stand on Kosovo per se. At the moment that page is quiet, each article has its own activities and so far nobody has shown Republic of to be on a 1RR policy. Unless I am mistaken, it seems editors have created an arbitrary and unsanctioned code of conduct to continue a trait from one article to the next. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 05:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has a large banner on the talk page saying that it's under Arbcom probation, and all editors are limited to *one revert per week*. You broke the 1RR per week by reverting three times in a week. Majuru made just one content addition and then restored it after it was reverted. That counts as only a single revert. Are you saying we can't enforce prominently-placed notices because it is unfair to assume that people read them? EdJohnston (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

EJ: aren't edit-warring blocks preventative rather than punitive? Is it different for 1RR (I genuinely don't know)? The block you suggest appears punitive. DeCausa (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

THREE times??? Are you sure? Perhaps you should recount. It was twice unless of course you are counting this. If you are, please read the summary - not only was it a self-revert which is not a case of edit-warring but it was only carried out to placate one of my detractors[86]. If my move was wrongful then you have to agree that I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Furthermore, the 1RR is displayed on Talk:Republic of Kosovo and not Republic of Kosovo which is where I made the edits. So the answer to your question is no, a user should not be pardoned if he fails to read an order; but as admins, the responsibility of erecting your signage clearly and prominently lies with you and subsequently, that notice needs to be in the Republic of Kosovo pink information box. Perhaps if it were, I may not have made this mistake. Can I suggest that we start behaving like adults and close this discussion, it has been sat for two days with newer cases opened and closed, this is dragging on needlessly. No action needs to be taken, NO damage has been done, the violation of 1RR or 3RR is NOT an automatic self-destruct activation and admins do not have to block a user just because he did it. I have explained how and why it was not immediately clear to me, I have pledged to observe restrictions as such in future (even if it means click "edit" on the talk page to read notes without any desire to make a contribution there), I have already demonstrated this by not interfering with this[87] egregious removal of sourced information, and I declare from now that if I violate a revert ruling again that I should indeed be blocked. Can I ask that this vow be taken as a sign of good faith and the matter be closed thereof with no editing restrictions and no demand to stay away from any particular page. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Following on from De Causa's remark which was placed on top of the above paragraph. EJ is an admin and has the power to block. Now whether this be punitive or bureaucratic, it is his decision. I guess I cannot appeal a block because all the grounds on which I would have appealed are stated here in this section. The time it is taking the heavy mob to get around this one has enabled me to enter my plea and present my defence before any measure was taken! :) I must say it is nicer like this than when you're actually blocked because atleast you can move around more freely and help your own case by editing in the desirable way needed. But I assume that the block would not be indefinite and therefore it may not be too harmful. Temporary blocks as opposed to indefinite blocks (ie. outright bans) are made precisely to allow the editor time to think about his actions, so that when the block is lifted he may return to make positive contributions. Atleast that is what the templates say. I've already done the thinking, no longer defend my violation of the ruling so there is nothing to reflect whilst I'm placed on gardening leave!! So whatever decision is taken, I will have to go along with it. But just to reflect on something else, do you know I cannot help but think I was the guinea pig here, led into a trap. Majuru - an account I do not believe to be genuine owing to its long absence periods and familiar editing patterns with other banned users down the years - inserted something he knew to be both disruptive, controversial and moreover, incorrect. Some users such as WhiteWriter are very much aware of the 1RR so do not even make an initial edit. Along come I and remove the piece. Majuru cleverly restores it knowing that this is his first revert and then the fool takes it out a second time and lands himself right here. The person in control of the so-called "Majuru" account is now turning cartwheels and I cannot blame him. Then a related account which may or may not be the same author but not a new person anyhow, called Ottomanist, joins this campaign on the side of the plaintiff but not before he has encouraged me to revert myself - and like a lamb to the slughter, I did it thinking it was the cordial decision. It is very interesting however that Majuru still has not make any real effort to obtain a consensus to have his edits restored, those which are the source of this discussion. And Ottomanist, a user who I may add is the subject of this case, has only taken over "Majuru"'s talk space to argue non-encyclopaedic matter, nothing that would encourage any editor to support Majuru's proposed revision. Perhaps this is all because Majuru never really wanted the edit he proposed to stand, he just wanted to watch some idiot fall! Well, that idiot is I. I am glad of one thing, I now know exactly how to handle dumb edits such as Majuru's in future without violating 1RR and without deploying a separate account. If it's strict rules the admins want, it's strict rules that will be obeyed! I've learn my lesson, so EJ - or BWilkins - however you gentlement wish to handle this slip-up by me, I accept it, over to you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 09:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You violated 1RR on Kosovo several times and instead of promising to not engage in such a manner in such disputes or even accept that you caused some disruption too and mishandled the situation, you go on to claim that Majuru and his dumb edits led you to that position (how can someone make you violate such simple restrictions repeatedly?) and even going as far as claiming that there's some sort of plan by Ottomanist and others against you. I've defended you in past reports, but given the way you treat your own participation measures should be taken. It's especially troublesome that yesterday when I reported your 5 reverts/less than 24 hours you treated the situation in the same manner and even after the admin gave you a final warning you still went on and on about the correctness of your edits.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 09:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have left the matter in the hands of the admins. I accept you are bitter because you did not achieve the result you sought in your attempt to have me blocked but that is largely down to the fact that I made only two reverts, the other three were certified cases of vandal-fighting. Be that as it may, we are not here to discuss that. You have joined a discussion that predates your failed purge. Had you read my above statement carefully rather than selecting bits and pieces of it, you'll have seen that I was merely reflecting on what took place after my advanced acceptance of any decision made by admins. The edit by Majuru which I twice reverted was clearly an attempt at humour, not the source itself but the accompanying remark. Of course, if you believe the edit to be constructive there is nothing stopping you restoring the piece. As for being led, I don't blame Majuru for this, I congratulate him on being clever; he got what he wanted because a rival editor (me) has slipped up. Meanwhile, if an editor believes his edits to be correct then that is that. I have the right to my opinion and you do yours. You need to realise that I am not being questioned for my edits themselves, it is for the overall action which has been reverting when I should not have. And as I said, I accept the decision of the admins so this really should be an end to it. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 10:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• All right, here's my proposed solution. Evlekis, you're let off with a warning...this time. We'll all assume good faith and accept your claim that you were somehow unaware of the 1RR restriction, although that claim calls your WP:COMPETENCE into question. I also propose we agree that your self-revert, since it was demanded by local consensus, does not count as its own violation per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. However, if you violate the 1RR in this area again, your blocks will begin with durations escalating as if you had been blocked for this incident. Fair? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 10:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair! And thank you! Concerning competence, I am the first to admit that I can be somewhat "incompetent" but that's nothing that cannot be worked on. Before reverting a user, I'll check the talk page and whatever else to see what the status of the article is. But at this point, even I favour a ban on myself should I violate any revert ruling. I can only hope your proposal shall be influential with the admins concerned. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 12:37, 6 July 2012 (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.

Long-term disruptive editing by User:Rkononenko

User:Rkononenko has engaged in a long-term habit of removing alternate Russian-language names for Ukrainian cities, despite a clear consensus among editors in that area to leave them intact. He/she is not a consistent editor, but whenever he/she shows up the first order of business is to always remove the Russian alternate name for Kharkiv. Is there anything that can be done to "disrupt" this disruption? Here are links showing what this user has done since March: [88] [89] [90] [91] User has had warning templates placed on his/her Talk page on several occasions which are ignored. --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I would like to propose either a 1RR restriction on all related articles that the account has removed the name, or a topic ban on these articles. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A topic ban on editing articles related to Ukraine would be best.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The previous ANI topic relater to this user was sent to archive without any consequences, and it would be good if this time some decision were made.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Rkononenko has again performed his/her special vandalism today. --Taivo (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Any reaction from administrators?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This was archived without even a comment from an administrator. I have copied it here from the archive. The simple courtesy of an acknowledgement and some response would be appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• There is something that can be done to prevent further disruption from this long-term disruptor, who seems to have only one interest, and I just did it. They seem to return with some periodicity to Kharkiv and I've blocked for three months. I am open to other admins' input on the length of this block, but that this long-term disruption needs to be stopped is obvious. It seems clear to me also that if the editor returns to the same behavior (and note there's been IPs making the same edits) the block should be extended to indefinite. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Taivo (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:GrapeOrange

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.

---

Please take a look at this user page: [[92]]. User also appears to be a vandalism SPA. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked; Orangemike (talk · contribs) zapped the userpage. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:57, 5 July 2012 (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.

Concerned about Madmans stone (talk · contribs)

Madmans stone (talk · contribs)

Newer user began making confusing edits [93] [94] as well as using abbreviations such as "rv" in edit summaries [95] [96] [97].

Usually I would ignore this, but I also noticed some concerning (trollish?) edits [98] [99].

User notified.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• The other edits aren't much better. Reverting edits calling them vandalism when they aren't, and other unusual talk page issues. This edit [100] shows some editor thinks he's a banned user, although I don't know which banned user he could be, that edits in Moldavian topics. Most of the edits are bordering on troll behavior however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think we can be confident that it's an old hand who... has previously had some run-ins with User:Dahn. For instance, [101], [102]. I have no idea who that might be, though. All suggestions welcome... bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree, perhaps we should ask Dahn. I will notify him of this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, and now I see you already had. D'oh. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Fairlyoddparents1234 vs User:DreamMcQueen

These two have been edit warring and communicating with each other in uncivil ways:

User:Fairlyoddparents1234

1. Uses all caps frequently
2. Is aggressive and demanding of other users
3. Makes personal attacks against DreamMcQueen
4. Participates in an edit war, suggests consensus, then continues edit warring
5. Threatens to report DreamMcQueen to an admin, but never does

User:DreamMcQueen

1. Constantly reverts Fairlyoddparents1234's edits without an edit summary or explanation on the user's talk page
2. Edit wars instead of seeking consensus
3. Makes personal attacks against Fairlyoddparents1234
4. Threatens to report Fairlyoddparents1234 to an admin, but never does

You can find this dispute at these pages:

• User talk:Fairlyoddparents1234
• User talk:DreamMcQueen

Thanks,

Gold Standard 18:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have decided not to participate in any editing of articles that User:DreamMcQueen unless necessary and I am considering a one-month editing abstinence. I do acknowledge I have conducted such uncivil offences above, however, it was his rather unusual edits that have caused me to get to this stage. Also note that I have been waiting for a serious conflict, since my WP:DRN post was closed due to inactivity (see this post. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is already solved. An admin already left a message on User:DreamMcQueen regarding this issue between these two usershere. Fairly OddParents Freak has also decided to retire from being involved with anymore articles with DreamMcQueen. I think cooling down after this heated discussion is the best thing to do so that both users can move on.119.224.27.62 (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I will try to do my best to avoid him. However, I think we need to get User:Rotorcowboy into this discussion and see if User:DreamMcQueen may need to be looked over. I also think that we need a representative from the television station WikiProject to consider whether or not the reorganization and DMA stripping from List of CBS television affiliates (table) is welcome. His behaviour has made me very suspicious. And I doubt he would EVER get into this conversation... Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 13:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dave Days YouTube entertainer article

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.

---

The startpoint, for me, was here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dave_Days

I have been working as a new reviewer for a little while now. After working to get some substantiation for this article, and more NPOV language, I was prepared to accept it and create the page, with appropriate warnings and inducements. However, I got an error saying that the destination page name had been blocked from creation. Looking back through other reviewer comments, I saw that one had mentioned that the article appeared to be in violation of CSD:G4, which indicated that the same topic had previously been found worthy of deletion. (I only found this out when I looked up what that meant.)

Looking at the AfD history - which, again, I've just discovered exists :-) - there was a nomination AfD in 2008 and again in 2009, of which the latter was clearly successful. From what I can make out, Days seems definitely now to be more notable than he was then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David FLXD (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The contributor, who may or may not have been responsible previously, had found some good sources to substantiate reliably, notably and verifiably, in Forbes magazine. On the basis that we could regard YouTube statistics (not viewer-submitted material) as an indicator of notability, I felt that this was an adequate basis for accepting the article, at leeast as a starting point. I don't personally have any taste for YouTube entertainers, or YouTube itself, but then Wikipedia is not about my personal preferences, is it?

However, I have no personal stake in this, nor do I have the experience to know what I might have run into! I am quite open to comment, guidance, and even criticism and correction!

Could someone please look into this, and advise me how to handle this sort of situation in general in future, and what I can tell the contributor in this particular case? David_FLXD (Talk) 19:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For the future, you can first try to talk to one or more of the involved admins from the past. The one who closed the AFD itself, the one who processed the G4, the one who locked down the page name, etc. Ask one or more of them to review the new page and see if they still think that it is a G4 violation. If you get no response, or are declined but still disagree, then you can take it to Deletion Review for a wider review of the salting. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I an the reviewer who made the G4 piont. The article has constantly been deleted, so the page is protected. I may do an unprotection request sometime... Mdann52 (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Mdann52 - if you hadn't left that comment on the AfC page I wouldn't have had a clue where to go! I have contacted admins Nancy and MBisanz re this, as they appeared to have closed out on the article in 2009 and 2008 respectively. I will go by their guidance when they come back to me, so I think we can leave this one here. Thanks also to TexasAndroid, for future guidance, I will know what to do first next time! David_FLXD (Talk) 11:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I happened to pick this article up at random this morning at AFC. I agree with David_FLXD, the subject of the article now meets notability requirements, and the target page Dave Days should be unsalted so the article can be moved out of AFC to mainspace. Mdann52, I'll drop a note at your talk page making that request. Zad68 17:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV first, then it will secure it's place on Wikipedia, and it won't end up with another notability tag/AFD. This guy makes good videos, shame he didn't already have a page.--Otterathome (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2012 (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.

Disruptive editing by Fyunck(click)

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.

---

Here we go again; another editor who insists on re-adding a diacriticless "alternative" spelling time after time. One would have thought that he would have learned from GoodDay's example. Like GoodDay, he plays the "censorship" card.

• user: Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• article: Sophie Lefèvre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A warning from this body is motivated. And maybe another editor could remove Fyunck's latest re-addition? I'm already on 3RR (although what I've reverted has not been identical from time to time.)

User is notified.

HandsomeFella (talk) 20:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hang on - the tennis player in question IS also known by the accentless form of her name, as can be very quickly seen by following the WTA and ITF external links (and the French language link from the French Open). It seems sensible to at least mention this spelling of her name so that readers will know that they have come to the correct article (and not to an article about someone with a similar name). Such edits should not be automatically reverted, with admin action being sought to enforce one side of a conflict but discussed rationally. Both of you should stop the edit-warring.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If my removals of Fyunck's various additions are considered edit warring, then I have indeed already stopped – as I indicated above. Over time, at least three other editors have removed his additions, so there is apparently a consensus against including it. To keep re-adding against consensus is disruptive.

These sources you mention, do they actually state that she is "known as Sophie Lefevre", i.e. in addition to being known as Sophie Lefèvre, the correct spelling of her name? Or are you just referring to common misspellings and/or deliberate omissions of diacritics?

I think most people, or even all, who look for "Sophie Lefevre" here and find "Sophie Lefèvre" will realize that it's the same person. The chance of there being another French female tennis player of similar age and merits – and virtually the same name – would defy any probablity. Don't you agree?

HandsomeFella (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

But no source states the exact words "known as Sophie Lefèvre" either, yet that's where her article now sits. The fact is that the UK, US, AU and Canadian press heavily use "Sophie Lefevre" as do most Tennis organizations and tournaments. Why would we even want to consider giving our readers less info on these common alternate spellings when for 90% of them "Sophie Lefevre" is the only version they will ever have officially seen. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• As I explained on my talk page. Did I !vote to keep her name at Sophie Lefevre? Sure I did as I felt it was easily the most common English source amongst the press, the Women's Tennis Association, the International Tennis Association, Tennis Channel, the French Open's own French language page, etc...

• There were three very recent rfm's in which request one said to keep at Sophie Lefevre, request two was kept at Sophie Lefevre and request three (which was buried in a mass move) said to move to Sophie Lefèvre. So it's not like we have no one agreeing it should be at Sophie Lefevre to begin with. But hey, it lost the last round and that's cool. But I had made sure originally that the French spelling was listed as I felt it was a service to our readers to know another major language's spelling of her name. I've often done this. But If it so happens that a tennis page gets moved to the foreign spelling, then I also make sure that the extremely common English spelling is not censored out completely. Some players like Novak Djokovic are done the other way around and when they register with the ITF or Davis Cup they change a few letters to accommodate the English language. Most of our readers don't know a diacritic from a hole in the wall and the only spelling they will ever see by official tennis representatives will be the common anglicized version. What, are we to close our eyes and pretend that English versions don't exist at all? That would be a disservice to our readers.

• Also, as others have pointed out to me in the past, wikipedia Policy states: "significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings.... There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text..." This was why I started making sure that the foreign spelling was also present in the lead when I created new player articles.

• Maybe tennis is a lot different than a musician or a painter in that it has all its major governing bodies using the English version of a player's name, but that's not my fault. I'm only trying to give the facts and HandsomeFella and a couple others are trying to deny that. It's one thing to prefer diacritics in a title but to remove an officially recognized English spelling which the individual players register with, and which is by far more common, is simply wrong. I have tried (English: Jane Doe), known professionally as Jane Doe, also known as Jane Doe, alternate spelling Jane Doe. I have asked advice from administrators and other long tome editors and I have tried to work around the exact wording so as to accommodate the most editors. But a handful seem bent on total removal of any compromise. It's not like I haven't tried. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• The question at hand is that several editors have reverted you, which is why you can't claim that there is a consensus for including the phrase. If you think you can find another consensus, take it to the talk page, don't just keep re-adding the stuff. That's disruptive. HandsomeFella (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• There are editors who have put it back on pages also, and it's not just one page. The editors who want it removed want all English names removed from all foreign tennis articles... it's not a simple content dispute. If more editors than not wanted to remove "the sun is a star" from an article on the sun it would still be censoring vital content and wrong. This was there for over two months before YOU reverted it. By the summary I assumed you simply removed the "dubious" tag as others have done to tennis articles, but on closer inspection you removed everything. So I put it back. By wiki Policy it's pretty much required to be there but I'm willing to work on the exact wording. I'm not willing to censor it out as if it doesn't exist. That's not what wiki stands for. Heck even the big guys add alternate spellings: Nastase at Encyclopedia Britannica, so this is not out in left field. We can use the entry in Britannica as our standard too and say "also spelled Sophie Lefevre... as I said I'm pretty flexible on wording. But complete removal, no. It's only disruptive because of your multiple reverts and warning me of ani. I feel I'm on pretty solid ground and that you are being unreasonable in your analysis of how tennis names are applied in the English speaking world. And your "here we go again" and "censorship card" to start this ani shows much more of an attack style from you than it does from me. Sophie Lefevre is the registered name she plays under and the name the ITF and WTA recognize. Call it a pseudonym if you wish. It need not be the first name in the lead sentence, that's up to consensus, but per wiki it needs to be in that lead sentence or near to that lead sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• And now I see that someone else has changed it back to my wording and yet again you do another revert. And you are asking that I'm the one that should be warned? Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This really needs some sort of RFC to allow an equitable solution to be discussed and agreed, rather than adherents on both side of the argument fighting it out and leaving ANI or ARBCOM to clear up the mess, which may have unfortunate effects for all. ANI is not really the venue for sorting out content disputes.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was starting to think along those lines, too. But I don't understand why Fyunck has not yet started a discussion on the talk page in question, since he wants the phrase back so badly. I've suggested that several times. He has treated the issue as a content dispute here, while I addressed the disruptiveness on the grounds that a single editor kept re-adding the phrase over four other editors that had removed it. Now that another editor seems to have joined Fyunck, the picture has changed somewhat.

Let's close this thing down with "no action", and get the discussion going, to begin with at Talk:Sophie Lefèvre.

HandsomeFella (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2012 (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.

Legal threat? and some serious way beyond 3RR edit warring

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.

---

Would this "cease and desist" [103] be considered a legal threat? The IP in question 24.99.68.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is engaged in an edit war far exceeding 3RR just today as well as a slowmo edit war over the last several days against multiple editors at the Melungeon article. The matter has been taken to WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using non-peered reviewed sources for genetics), where their sources have been decided to be unreliable, they have some serious WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems, several editors have asking them to stop referring to everyone elses edits as vandalism, and they have so far not discussed at the articles talkpage. And now accusations of racism and a possible legal threat. Would an uninvolved admin look into this please? Heiro 20:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Per this [104], they seem to be making the same legal threat to multiple editors, all who oppose their version of the article mentioned above. Heiro 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Another editor, an admin though involved at the article, has taken them to 3rr board here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:24.99.68.123 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: ) but as yet no action has been taken and they have racked up several reverts since then. Heiro 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Strangely, my mind throught about an editor who was saying 'racism' a lot recently. Editor: Leaf Green Warrior.

I'm not saying its the same person, but the attitude seems similar. -- Avanu (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't think they are connected. Heiro 20:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Can't block for too long as it's likely dynamic, but a brief respite for combination of 3RR and NLT has been provided. Plus, semi'd the page in case they come back in another skin (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think its is pretty questionable under NLT, but clearly a good block for the 3rr/edit warring. Monty₈₄₅ 20:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, maybe they will take the time to read up on some of the policies that have been pointed out to them over the last few days. Incurable optimist, I know :-p Heiro 20:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2012 (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.

Automated article creation?

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 came to present a problem that worries me every so often that I encounter it. A few times before, I have witnessed ANI discussions pertaining to articles being mass created, with some users using templates to create articles. Users have been banned on such charges, so the concept is not taken lightly, especially with trolls potentially using these templates. Recently I have seen that a similar issue has arisen. I am a member of WikiProject Arizona, and I noticed that EmausBot was mass-linking articles from the Croatian Wikipedia. Upon further review, I saw that a bot was "importing" these articles to the Croatian Wikipedia, proof of which is here, here and here. The reason I am making this thread is simply to bring to light a troubling and frustrating issue, which causes much turbulence here on Wikipedia, perhaps to add a clause to the policies against article mass-creation. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm closing this right now, with the suggestion that you first have a conversation at User talk:Emaus. It's not directly an ANI matter (on the English wiki) in the first place, but really, don't bring anything to light until discussion has taken place elsewhere. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2012 (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.

OTRS Question

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 have an OTRS question, but it seems that none of the OTRS members have edited in awhile, where do I go for help? Unrelated to the OTRS question, the ANI page is INSANELY slow when one is typing. Might be time to archive somethings. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You might ask your question at WP:OTRS/N. —DoRD (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

none of the OTRS members have edited in awhile; we edit all the time :) what's the issue? --Errant ^(chat!) 15:28, 6 July 2012 (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:Evlekis again, see above discussion

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.

---

4 reverts at Luan Krasniqi's page, see [105]. I think some uninvolved admin should take action, because this user is unstoppable. Majuru (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Matter closed. Three were certified cases of non-constructive edit cancellation on a user who was blanking information. Number of genuine reverts: 2. Thanks for showing concern but if you wish to continue this, speak to the admin that declined Ottomanist's request. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Provoking edit, hoping to draw me in edit warring [106]. Majuru (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry???? You have lost me here!!! You changed "a partially recongised" to "an partially recognised". The indefinite article required before a consonant sound in English is "a" (eg. a pen, a radio). I only restored that one detail on that edit. Are you sure you have linked everybody to the correct contribution? Check again. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically your edit is a violation of the 1rr rule and you should self revert to restore the grammar mistake. While the result doesn't make sense, particularly in a case with such a history of edit warring, it is best not to try to push the boundaries of the rules. I would hope an admin isn't going to block you over something so petty, but it is still a violation. Monty₈₄₅ 18:31, 6 July 2012 (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.

harrass on edit summary

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.

---

check revision history of Mercy (Kanye West song). Jawadreventon (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

it was User talk:2pac Is Alive. he wrote "fuck you". Jawadreventon (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It sure is uncivil, but it doesn't meet WP:HARASS, doesn't meet WP:NPA. Did you discuss it with the user before bringing it here? Did you take to to WP:WQA? Did you even notify them that you raised it here, as required? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there's been a misunderstanding that has no relation on the subject. As you see, I fixed the vandalism in the article. 2pac Is Alive (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hang on... the edit was on June 30, and it's only a problem now?

That said, 2pac Is Alive, you should not be responding to edits with edit summaries like that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 05:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

i dont take this offensive. i reported this because i didnt want this to happen again and possibly offend someone else. Jawadreventon (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you called it harassment above.

In terms of "offending someone else" ... it's Wikipedia, people often swear. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:22, 5 July 2012 (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.

IP Vandal - account used solely to revert my edits

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.

---

2.29.138.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), likely related to 2.29.125.143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please simply look at user contribs, particularly the former - every single edit is reverting my contribs without explanation. I've reverted each of them but it's frustrating to take up time doing that instead of contributing to Wikipedia. Could someone please help? --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This user, who was banned for a week for doing the same thing, may be related as well - an IP Trace indicates all three are in the London area. 2.25.69.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Williamsburgland (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 1 week. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (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.

Cracker92

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.

---

free popcorn
Br'er

Cracker92 (talk · contribs) A "brand-new" editor immediately goes to arbcom page to attack another user? Obvious sock. Please send them to the Phantom Zone ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor admits to using multiple accounts with this odd explanation: "Not I'm not new, I just edit in burts. I try to avoid using the same account inbetween as it's the only way to avoid wiki-addiction in my experience."--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose an indef. block and a checkuser to look into this. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's odd that an account with less than 40 edits would claim to have "many thousands of edits behind me". The account is overall a constructive account and is not obviously being used as a sockpuppet (in the sense of having multiple accounts to cause disruption on multiple fronts); rather, this might be a case of WP:SOCK#LEGIT. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not clear what the editor is doing on any other accounts. I think the editor has to comply with WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, which I've asked them to do on their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Does WP:SOCK#LEGIT allow for acting on grudges from previous accounts? That would kinda make it hard to hold a user accountable. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That's why I think they have to disclose the other accounts, indeed cross-link them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't attacked anyone. If someone wants to block me for saying this as an "attack", then you'll simply be confirming what I said about the double-standard. I'm not a "brand-new" anything, I never said I was. I'm a wikiholic, and the best way I've found to deal with that is edit in burts and then dump the account so I don't have a watchlist to obsess over. I only ever use one account, and if I do come back, it's to work on something else. They're not alternate accounts, and it's not being done to evade anyone or anything. Casting a critical eye over the Malleus situation without being a certified King Tutnum is not a crime....yet...so get back under your bridge, Bugs. Cracker92 (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your last sentence puts your first sentence to the lie. Be that as it may, I'm still trying to figure out what "edit in burts" means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bursts? Spurts? Whatever - if an apparently-new account turns up making comments about 'double standards', it seems reasonable to ask why - and if you've been editing under another name, why not tell us who? Or failing that, accept that we attach little credibility to unverifiable claims of being a long-time contributor. You can't have it both ways. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wondered if he was editing from a rented room at Burt Reynolds' place. Regardless, the editor could demonstrate some good faith by telling his audience one or more of his previous user ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, don't rush to Arbcom in your very first edits, without saying who you are, to advocate for sanctions against an editor[107] who some consider the victim of grudges and vendettas. That opinion is going to be discounted, and does nobody any good. I think it fits the definition of a good hand / bad hand account. The bad hand account doesn't necessarily have to be doing anything wrong, just contentious / to avoid scrutiny. If you have any basis for your opinion of Malleus you really ought to disclose that. If your only reason for account hopping is to avoid wiki-addiction, that would be no imposition on you (and further, there are probably some more straightforward ways to limit your time onsite). - Wikidemon (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If it's discounted then it's discounted, I don't much care. The basis is obviously my general experience with Wikipedia as an on/off editor. I will not abide by this false notion that phony inquisitions must be satisfied before anyone can comment on Malleus. All Bugs is doing here is fishing, or FUDing, take your pick, as a way to shut me up simply because I've said it how I see it. I've never seen somoene so desperate to have a post removed or an editor blocked, and yet not be able to provide a single policy based reason for doing so. If anyone's operating a good hand account here, it's the one Bugs started prior to 2007, on which he presumably does all his content work on, insulated from the reputation he gets from pulling this sort of stunt. Cracker92 (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My previous account ID is visible, if you bother looking for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I spent 5 minutes trying to do just that, including looking under 'Biography' and other presumably relevant sections. I wasn't about to waste any more time looking for it than that I'm afraid. If it is there, you clearly don't want it to be known without some effort. Cracker92 (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Took me less than a minute, with no admin tools. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is it then? Cracker92 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here you go, Sherlock :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I searched his user page for "Wahkeenah", and found nothing. I uncollapsed the 20 or so boxes and repeated, and it appears in two barnstars awarded to that name. I checked the source code and it appears just two more times, in two diff links to that account's block log. With a good wikilawyer he might be able to get away with saying "My previous account ID is visible" based on the barnstars, and said lawyer might also be able to argue the block log links represent a link to a previous account. But full and open disclosure? Deducable within a minute? No way. He's game playing. Cracker92 (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk about the pot calling the ficus tree black, sheesh! 2007 just called and wants its drama-fest back. Meanwhile, we're well into 2012, and everybody knows who Baseball Bugs is and where he's coming from, Wikipedia-wise. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't get away with that I'm afraid. I don't give a shit who Bugs used to be, but I do give a shit about him giving me grief for not disclosing past accounts, when it appears his own past is not as disclosed as he claims it is. The fact that the actual reason why he dumped that past account might be all 2007 budge nudge wink wink is neither here nor there, albeit a very ironic point to make in this context. Cracker92 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your account looks dubious, and conducting opposition research on someone who points that out doesn't help your case. If you didn't have anything to hide it would have been better just to answer the question. Anyway, if you do intend to stick around a while, why not develop some history of productive editing and collaborative work on your new account so we'll at least have some feel for who we're dealing with, not a voice out of the dark calling for another editor to be separated from the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Opposition research is necessary in this toxic environment. If I didn't do any research, I might have made the mistake of assuming you made this comment having already improved several articles today, or had various helpful and collaborative interactions with others, instead of realising that the first thing you decided to do today was jump in here and make the same bogus observations and suggestions that others already had, but that clearly nobody in any position of authority is interested in acting on, if my status as an unblocked and unmoderated editor is anything to go by (it seems there's fat chance of anyone actually putting a stop to this witch hunt in an active manner though, sadly). If I stick around, it will be inspite of having to deal with things like this, and I've already wasted a whole day in this thread that I had originally intended to spend on an article. If it wasn't already obvious, if you want to know who you're dealing with, its an experienced editor who would like the freedom Malleus has to reply to posts like this of yours in the way they would want to, rather than the way they are hidebound to by WP:CIV. Cracker92 (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

So now you're inventing talking points to attack me? Gimme a break. You're basically writing an essay here on how to be tendentious. If you want to be helpful instead of just prickly, the articles are that-a-way - Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User contributions, earliest, makes it pretty clear. In any event, if you don't like playing games with Baseball Bugs, step out of the batter's box. Nobody Ent 17:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Game? He's seeking to have me blocked and you call that playing a game? Better yet, one that I should either like playing or leave? <insert the gratuitous insult you think Malleus would greet this comment with here> Cracker92 (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Purely by editing here, Cracker92 has twice violated WP:ILLEGIT: "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings#Sockpuppetry." Nyttend (talk) 10:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I is none of the above. I think you meant "by editing at Arbcom." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 10:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Me having undisclosed retired accounts <> operating concurrent undisclosed alternates. Ergo WP:ILLEGIT does not apply. If people want to silence me, they'll have to find anothe reason, not understanding the WP:SOCK policy is not good enough. Cracker92 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you could put this to rest by emailing an Arb to disclose your previous account privately per WP:FRESHSTART, and ask them to weigh in here afterwards. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:23, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I could, although I repeat, this is not a fresh start in the sense of me escaping any past conflict or other issues. I will consider it if an actual arbitrator requests me to. Cracker92 (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Someone needs to close the sock drawer here, as the person editing via this account intends to keep disrupting the Malleus Arb request. Tarc (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Someone needs to educate you on the WP:SOCK policy, which you clearly don't understand, but seem to want to enforce as if you do. To use the rather odd terminology you applied while trying to erase my comments, this account is my *real* account. It is the only account I am using currently, ergo to use another account, I would infact have to break the WP:SOCK policy and re-activate a retired account, while this one was still active, to meet your bizarre criteria. And bixarre they are, because there is no policy that supports your rather confused statement that "Post with your real account or not at all. Arbcom-related pages are for real accounts, not socks and trolls". Assuming your objection is sock-puppetry, and the trolling comment was intended as, well, trollery, then please familiarise yourself with the difference between active alternate accounts (which are barred from talk pages) and retired previous accounts. This is the latter, not the former. There is no policy that requires me to accede to anyone's request to know what my retired accounts are, before I can comment on something like an Arbitratoin clarification. Cracker92 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I am quite familiar with any and all terms used, sport, have no worries there. The problem we have here is that your actions have the look and smell of bad faith by being evasive about your past accounts. Blocked or banned in the past, perhaps? Pulled a Fae-ish "retired under a cloud" move? Had a beef with Malleus that would make posting via your real account be dismissed out of hand? There's simply something not right here, and your contributions to the Arb discussion as they stand now, by a red-linked "new" user who has edited under other name,s is a net negative to the proceedings. Tarc (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well if you ever get to be an admin, then you'll get to censor other people on mere hunches, because you'll be accountable for such actions. Until then, you'll just have to slum it with the rest of us and try to make sure that if you want to remove someone els'es comments, that it's actually justifiable in policy. Got that, 'sport'? Cracker92 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's a very simplistic strawman there. I have no desire to become an admin, though at times I find the thought of allowing Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tarc to run for a bit just to let everyone get in their two-minute hate to be intriguing. Yes, it was technically not allowed for me to remove your disruption; unfortunate, but it just means that someone else will have to deal with it. We're still left with the problem of your hiding of an old and at this point almost-certain problematic past user account. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a problem for the people who operate by policy, not hunches. You'd probably request it's deletion within an hour if that red link ever turned blue, it'd be one almighty epic fail. Trolls don't make good admins. Cracker92 (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The excuse given amounts to "I was too lazy to edit my watchlist". LeadSongDog come howl! 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The Cracker92 account is neither a sock -- no evidence of deception nor an alternate account eligible to edit an ArbCom proceeding. At this point all that is required is for another editor to remove the section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Cracker92; Cracker92 is 2r and I've just left the 3rr warning. Nobody Ent 14:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your 'eligble' statement is false. This is not an alternate account, therefore WP:ILLEGIT does not apply. Pending you actually laying a specific charge, such as being a returning banned user, or resuming a grduge, then it's a basic fact that I am not required to disclose anything before commenting at that page. As such, anyone who follows your request should first familiarise themselves with the policy, otherwise I will consider their actions and yours to be a joint enterprise, and hold you equally accountable. Cracker92 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but on the top of the page it says: "Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are one. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section." - and just for information, where is said that a new account can not add a statement to that page? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

My attempted revert was mistaken then, didn't see that msg til now. I still think a clerk should take initiative and lop this person out of the discussion though, and in answer to your last question, IMO it is a bad idea when the editor in question is plainly an old user under a new name. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If I understand properly, Cracker92's main defense is that his different accounts are not "alternative accounts" and, therefore, he is not subject to any of the mandates of the policy. His reasoning is that he doesn't use the different accounts at the same time. I don't see that as an exemption to the policy. I don't see any defense for his actions. Now, it may be that he is not using the accounts in illegitimate ways. However, that doesn't mean that he doesn't have to disclose what the accounts are so that may be evaluated. I don't know if there's a practical, technical way, with just the Cracker92 account, to investigate the other accounts. If there is, it should be done. If not, his account should be indefinitely blocked unless he agrees to comply with policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Usually this sort of issue attracts the attention of a checkuser who wanders by and looks at his historic account/s and if they are violating anything blocks them - so no action in such cases is a sign that there is no violation - although as we have seen interpretations of clean start and sock legit are open to differing interpretations - Youreallycan 14:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And so is the 3RR warning then. If it is an editor who is banned, sure - but unless someone can prove something like that, I think WP:AGF is the way to go, and assume that this is just an older editor who is using a new account. Again my question, are new accounts disallowed to make a statement there? Or IPs?

(after ec): WP:CLEANSTART: "A clean start is when a user stops using an old account in order to start fresh with a new account. The two most common reasons for wanting a clean start are to make a fresh start after recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment. The old account must be clearly discontinued, and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start," will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior." - any reason to think that the editor is editing in the same area, and is not avoiding an old dispute - of course, he will be very familiar with old situations, but I don't think we have a proof that this editor was banned before, or in dispute with MF .. mere suggestion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRESHSTART allows an editor to create a new account and abandon the old, with no disclosure requirement or prohibition from commenting at arbitration proceedings. So there's no reason to prevent him from participating. New accounts that are claimed fresh starts aren't restricted for that reason alone, nor is there any policy-based reason to require disclosure. Even in the event that they have been involved in conflicts related to those they comment on now, that's no reason they can't do so. They're just cautioned that it could lead to others making a connection and then they'd be subject to a review of the totality of their behavior across all accounts. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:57, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I have hatted off the discussion at the arbitration clarification as an unnecessary distraction. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion thread that followed his statement was indeed a needless distraction, but is there a reason initial statement needed to be included in the collapse? Equazcion ^(talk) 15:05, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

That is, you hatted off the whole thread by this user - any reason why his initial statement is not valid in this, or was it at the request of the Arbitrators? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The hatting of the users comment imo indicates there is a problem/previous history with the Cracker accounts previous editing in relation to the report at arbitration. Youreallycan 15:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Poor decision. If, in your judgement as an ArbCom clerk, you consider the statement to be appropriate, an affirmative statement on the talk page would settle the discussion. On the other hand, if it is inappropriate, you should simply remove it. Hats are simply pointers to drama. And they break the TOC. Nobody Ent 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The clerk must explain his decision. There are a great many "unnecessary distractions" over there, they cannot be hatted for no good reason. There is nothing in this discussion yet to justify it. Leaky Caldron 15:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Hm, either there is a violation or the user Cracker has a wiki right to have his comment replaced and only the discussion of it should be collapsed - Youreallycan 15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

On this, we are in agreement. I'd appreciate it if the limbo that this hatting creates is clarified. Cracker92 (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Message left on Alex's talk page. Leaky Caldron 15:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Alex has moved the hat to only include the thread that came after the initial statement. Thanks Alex! Equazcion ^(talk) 15:27, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, as all this sock's comment amount to is "Malleus sucks, his enablers suck, and everyone is quitting because of the suckiness. Arb pages shouldn't be a platform for QQ from past, non-identifiable users. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(After many edit conflicts). Whilst it was my initial opinion that the statement provoked an unnecessary distraction and that the entirety should be collapsed, I have changed the hatting to allow the statement to stand, and to close off the distraction that ensued. That said, if there is further distruption at the clarification, I will take appropriate action as a clerk. I will try and monitor the outcome of this discussion, but I'd appreciate it if someone could let me know if there are any developments. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This thread is clearly going to go nowhere now that the idea has bedded in that you can't just do what you want to other editors based on a hunch and a misunderstanding of policy. As for Tarc's continued moaning, all I can say is that this ANI thread only adds to the weight of my statement. I would dearly love the freedom to be able to respond to him and Bugs in the way Malleus no doubt would have were he to have been in my place, and to greet the misguided edit warring and policy statements as he would undoubtedly have, rather than the way WP:CIV demands. If Wikipedia stays like this, then yes, all the people smarter than me will continue to leave, in their droves. It's a horrid place to be, even when you've done nothing wrong, as this thread shows. Cracker92 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It would be wrong to remove Cracker's comment on the suspicion that he's a sock. BTW, so many "rules" are being broken at Arbcom. Theaded discussions are not allowed. Statements by non-parties of more than 500 words are not allowed without advance permission (did Volunteer Marek obtain permission for that incredibly long albeit entertaining piece?).--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that 500-word rule. I'm not sure if my statement exceeds it, but if someone an arb or clerk asks me to, I'll cut it down. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:48, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was for evidence, if the case was accepted, not statements. It says it must be 500 words on evidence pages, but nowhere on the page for statements. OohBunnies! (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought evidence included the statements. Is that my mistake (ignorance)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought statements were where you shared your ultimately wise opinion and urged the Arbs to listen to you and only you, and evidence is where you share your ultimately wise opinion and urge the Arbs to listen to you and only you, only you're meant to back up evidence with diffs and, unlike statements, you're not meant to go off on a rambling diatribe about Everything That's Wrong With Wikipedia. Or something. You know what? Fuck knows. :) OohBunnies! (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. I've asked a clerk for clarification. I reread the guide and although I'm leaning toward your interpretation, it's still a bit unclear to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, does it? The opinions advanced by Cracker92 (Malleus blames others for his actions, he gets special treatment, he drives experienced editors away, please do something about this) are widespread, and the arbs will presumably give them whatever weight they will, whether or not Cracker is allowed to say them. Cracker's saying them doesn't really add any weight. Anyone who wants to take a look at the collapsed discussion (an arb reviewing the matter will probably at least scan it) can note that the account is new and suspicious. So there's really nothing to be gained by fussing over this right now. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• @Cracker92, pursuant to your comment above about your inability to respond as you believe Malleus has the freedom to, I invite you to my talk page where you may leave whatever comment you like, and I grant complete freedom from WP:CIV while there...provided you do so with your previous account. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

  Get over it already Tarc, I'm not obliged to tell you my past account/s, you completely misread the policy in that regard and will just have to take your medicine accordingly (as it's not like anyone here is really that bothered about you running around trollishly reverting people without cause). Asking me again is pointless, it's only wasting time you've presumably allocated to doing this same thing to someone/somewhere else, making Wikipedia suck for more people than just me today. I did have a chuckle at the idea that you have the power to suspend WP:CIV on your talk page though, but then I realised that you probably were actually being serious. As depressing as that is, it would at least explain how you can confuse folowing your own hunches/opinions as if they were policy, with the actual policies that everyone must follow. Cracker92 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If WP:Cleanstart is the standard here, Wikipedia:CLEANSTART#Contentious_and_scrutinized_topics says "It is not an appropriate use of clean start to resume editing contentious or scrutinized topics with a new account" and "You may be viewed as evading scrutiny, which carries a risk of long-term blocks and bans." I can only believe that entering an arbitration discussion to criticize another editor falls under this, especially when your current account has no reason to go into it. Acting openly on your previous account(s) also blurs the line between your current account being a clean start account or an alternate account. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Or to be short, you can't take the "clean" out of "clean start" - Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your belief is wrong then, as I haven't resumed anything with that post. Cracker92 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no "power" involved, I think it would be a simple matter to say "this person can say whatever he likes to me on my talk page", and admins would honor that. The rest of your rant about hunches and whatnot is pretty much nonsensical. The matter here is clear; you edited an Arb page in bad faith, the bad faith being hiding your previous identity to avoid detection. We see it here all the time. If you decline, fine, I guess we're done here. Tarc (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Bye then. I don't like to expend too much time talking to trolls, they see everything as nonsensical when it suits them, and they never appreciate the irony of lecturing people about bad faith, when they embody the very concept with their every word and deed, like your revert, your edit summaries, and your charming/less talk page edit notice. But good luck with the whole 'I can suspend WP:CIV at locations of my choosing' idea, I think it has legs. Not really sure who 'we' is supposed to be, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'I' all the way in your case, otherwise I'd have been blocked and reverted already, under your totally correct and not at all bogus rationale that "Arbcom-related pages are for real accounts, not socks and trolls". So see ya round, sport.Cracker92 (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (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.

Suspicious barnstars

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.

---

Hello.

When I ran into User talk:Abitoby, I noticed a couple of barnstars left by Nentu (talk · contribs), who only has a few contributions, most in the user talk space. It sure makes suspicion of a conflict of interest of some sort. If it is not the user, then it could still be a friend or family member. What's even more suspicious is that the editor does not appear to have good reception (not intending to make a personal attack) among other editors, and has been involved in disputes, which drives me to ask a question. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Supreme Court found the Stolen Barnstars Act unconstitutional.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I did some looking and found this edit by Abitoby shortly followed by this edit by nentu. If it is the same user, I feel that we might just need to inform Abitoby that he/she cannot operate two accounts. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Is having a barnstar-only account a violation of policy? Would you deprive User:Materialscientist of barnstars? :-) Heh, I suppose you could follow up on it. First barnstars then heroin.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia policies, unlike the law, have no technicalities, and sensitive, tricky workings, or fine print, nor is it a bureaucracy. Wikipedia policies are based on consensus and reasoning, and are applied discretionally. The act of using fake barnstars would violate Wikipedia:Honesty. While it is not a policy itself, it is still an expectation. This type of behavior earns no respect and lends no credibility to editors who engage in it, and, furthermore, even with that aside, concerns about sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry are still warranted. 69.155.132.121 (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC), last modified 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To the extent it looks like I'm making fun of this report, I apologize. I do see it as no big deal, but that isn't to say that your intentions aren't constructive. Ryan (and you) may be right about the multiple account issue, but that could be dealt with at WP:SPI if anyone so chose or, as Ryan mentioned, you could leave a message on Aritoby's talk page if you wished just to see what kind of response you get, if any.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Even if there is a multiple account issue, I'd do everything possible to avoid an SPI. It certainly doesn't appear necessary for this. I'll leave a note at Aritoby's talk page mentioning the suspicion and advising them not to use the other account if it is the same operator. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen this before, and have even gotten barnstars from such users before. My best guess was always that they thought they were doing something nice, not understanding that a barnstar only has meaning if you know why you got it. I wouldn't be surpsised if the issue were WP:MEAT as opposed to socking. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• To clarify one point, if a user has an alternate account for the purpose of giving barnstars only, then this would probably NOT be a violation of WP:SOCK. Socking requires abuse or avoiding scrutiny. Using an "anonymous" account for random acts of kindness only (yes, one other edit but it was trivial) wouldn't even require linking to your main account. Not sure if that applies, but there are a host of legitimate reasons for having multiple accounts. Ask my friends Farmer Brown or Pharmboy. Linking back to the main account is strongly suggested but isn't actually required for legitimate purposes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:03, 7 July 2012 (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.

Possible editor-impersonation/disruptive 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.

---

User:Androzaniamy-alt has been making disruptive edits like [108], [109], and [110]. I don't believe the account is actually related to User:Androzaniamy. I'll be notifying editors shortly. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the editor has been reported at WP:AIV. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. (Worm That Turned beat me to it by 30 seconds.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Glanced at my watchlist and felt the urge to turn on my computer. I don't believe it's the same person, it's totally against her character. I believe this can be shut. Worm^TT(talk) 20:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this was her either, but there is the issue of who it was. Who ever it was did a poor job impersonating her but there were a few aspects that would necessitate one be familiar with Androzaniamy's past editing style (the leave me alone stuff, etc, was quite a while ago). Unfortunately this may lead us to conclude that this was a regular editor acting disruptively. Can a CU look at this or would that be considered a fishing expedition? SÆdon^talk 20:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I did a bit of looking for an editor with similar behaviors and haven't found one yet. It is hard since there were only 4 editors. Doesn't a check user need a specific other editor to compare this with? Are there any editors she has interacted with who have since been blocked? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No one I can think of. A CU can see both what user names were used by an IP and which IPs are used by a user name. So technically they can make the connection to whomever it is but it may be against policy to do so. May be a case of WP:IAR though I don't know if we can IAR in regards to CU. SÆdon^talk 20:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure checkuser is needed based on this limited incident, though if one of my colleagues ran one I wouldn't criticism him or her, either. If this sort of thing happens again someone will probably run a check at that point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The leave me alone incident may not have been that long ago. There was a thread her talk where Androzaniamy was presenting Civility issues when Worm was absent. I was asked from Worm to step down on her talk page. The thread was blanked not too long ago. Maybe they simply read the talk page or went through her contributions. I would definitely recommend a checkuser look into this. Perhaps one of Amy's relatives was playing a joke on her.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been a talk page watcher of Androzaniamy's since she appeared on ANI some time ago. Ever since Worm took over as her mentor there has been no problems, barring the issue with cyberpower. The one thing that makes it an obvious impostor is the swearing. For those o us who interacted with her previously, Amy is entirely against any form of swearing. There was quite a kerfuffle kicked up when she was linked to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I don't think any CU is necessary and only a simple indef block on the alt account for impersonation is required. Blackmane (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The swearing tipped me off as well and I believe you are correct that a CU isn't necessary. All problems seem to be resolved. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:32, 6 July 2012 (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 talk:Tarc/Editnotice

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.

---

Done: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Tarc/Editnotice. Cracker92 (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

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

When recently a few threads up I was invited to leave a message at User:Tarc's page, I encountered this charming edit notice. Noticing the rank incivility of the image, and the clearly incorrect warning to IP editors, I attempted to remove the items, fully explaining my actions in the edit summaries [111][112]. The response from Tarc was to reinstate them with some hostility [113] (which was apparently going to be a lot worse in the first draft [114]). He seems to think he owns that page, and that his talk page is some kind of civility free zone, or at least hinted above that none of you admins would mind if he acted like it was, so I'd like to test that theory - who here thinks the image is appropriate, and who thinks the IP warning is appropriate, and what if anything are you minded to do about it if you think they're not? Cracker92 (talk) 22:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I find the message kind of funny, who can seriously be offended by a cartoony middle finger? The rest of this is munging a bunch of dissimilar issues together. The "civility-free zone" comment stems from this user complaining that he is unable to get away wit saying things that he perceived Malleus getting away with all the time, so I invited him to post something on my talk page (provided it was posted via his real account and not this new one) and I pledged not to report it for CIV or NPA reasons. Like in the movies where the guy gives the other guy one freebie punch, y'know? That's all that was, then when I come back here a few hours later I find my humorous edit notice (though I am serious about IPs; 99.9% of the ones that take time to contact me are hiding identities and/or vandalizing) edited by this guy. That is rude, and I reacted accordingly.

All in all ,this is a frivolous filing, vindictive behavior on Cracker92's part for opposing his presence in the Mallus Arb discussion, and for asking a clerk (AlexanderDimitri) to look at a recent contrib of his there to see if it was appropriate )it wasn't, and was redacted from the Arb discussion). Over the past several hours this user has been nothing short of disruptive, and should probably at this point take care that a certain flying object doesn't come back at them. Tarc (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2012 (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.

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.

New account solely for vandaslims/hoaxes

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.

---

Cmpunkasaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Only two edits so far plus one page creation request for a hoax. Have not bothered to warn as in my experience it would be fruitless.--Williamsburgland (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

"Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." "To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see administrator intervention against vandalism." --Shirt58 (talk) 03:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I was simply going by the policy on vandalism only accounts, which does not call for warnings in most cases. --Williamsburgland (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be fruitless to open a discussion with a vandalism-only account, but WP:AIV is the better forum for reporting them. —DoRD (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2012 (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:165.155.200.88

_{NOTE: I've transplanted this text after it was dumped on my user page for some reason. S.G.^(GH) ping! 16:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)}

I was reading the "Solar Storm of 1859" - Carrington Event page and noticed that an anonymous editor had removed a section that was soon restored. Curious, I looked a bit further and discovered that the same IPN address had been used for years to vandalize a wide variety of articles. It is 165.155.200.88

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/165.155.200.88

The address is registered to NYC schools. However, the vandalism is rather unique and from the half dozen edits I reviewed, I would guess that they may all have been authored by the same person over a period of years, rather than multiple users accessing the same account. There is a very clear pattern. The frequency and intensity of the edits is also worth noting. There might be none for a six-month period, then many made over the next few days. I would speculate that the person making these entries either only has intermittent access to a computer with this IPN, or that the entries are made during a manic cycle.

If you view the four edits that the USER made to the title of a photograph of a homeless man, in the "Homelessness" article, I think he (or less likely, she) removed the identification of a Parisian homeless person and substituted the names of persons they intended to attack or disparage. I'm also guessing that the USER might be periodically himself.

I am guessing that the edits are being done by a schools' employee with mental problems. Because of their duration and similarity, it would seem rather unlikely that a student or students were making these edits from the same IPN over a period of years. I would hope that the IPN could be blocked permanently.

Not one of the edits I reviewed could remotely be considered to be constructive.

There are many warnings and blocks that have been applied, but none over the last couple of years, though the behavior has persisted. The warnings were essentially ignored. You were the last editor to post a warning on the USER TALK page.

If alternate users of the school computer(s?) want to make constructive edits, they certainly can establish an account with a legitimate USER name, and use a computer with a different IPN to make the edits.

The vandalizing is typically rather bizarre. For instance one edit moved Fidel Castro's birthplace from Cuba to the Bronx. Another contended that the uncle and father of Langston Hughes, for whom he had been named, were homosexual. A third transposed the male and female leads in the film, "The Postman always rings twice."

None of the edits I viewed were constructive.

I found a semi-literate entry on the "Muckraker" page by an anonymous editor last year, that claimed Michael Moore was a pedophile. It had been placed in the article and remained undisturbed for perhaps a year. It expanded on an equally rabid previous comment. I left a talk page note, if memory serves, that it should be undone. I had never made such a deletion before, I think, so wasn't sure of the protocol. However I checked back sometime later and discovered it remained in place. I deleted it.

Here's my entry: 08:11, 24 September 2011 (diff | hist) . . (-75)‎ . . Talk:Muckraker ‎ (→‎Michael Moore: Deleted gratuitous libelous remark by anonymous poster)

Here's what I left, but probably shouldn't have: Michael Moore is in fact a socialist zealot (I deleted this phrase: he had sex with little kids and was one of the most perverted man around ,) who produces extremely biased filth, that he outrageously tries to pass off as "documentaries."

I actually looked to see if anyone had ever made such an allegation in any venue, just in case it was simply Internet flotsam shared by a collection of nutcases. There was no evidence of any, anywhere, including on the sort of right-wing sites and blogs that persistently carry that sort of delusional crap. I concluded that, in many cases, no editor at Wikipedia was "minding the store."

I'm hugely busy, so don't have time to spend sorting it out, but I'd suggest that a Wikipedia volunteer might go through all of the edits made by this person(s?) and delete/restore all those that are unconstructive, yet might remain, to purge any residual Wiki graffiti, if I might possibly coin a term.

You can post a response to this on my Talk page. I'll try to check it regularly until I see a response. Activist (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Recommend range block - A quick review of the 165.155.200.64/26 range shows a large number of individual IPs Schoolblocked off and on over the past several years. The 165.155.200.0/24 range was blocked at one time, but that may be a wide net. The New York City Public Schools owns the /16 that includes this range, so there are probably other difficulty-prone ranges as well. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy making personal attacks and false accusations

False accusations here and here, then after I ask him for evidence at his talk page, he attempts to bully me into submission, here and here, telling me to "[s]tay the fuck off" his talk page. He also accused me of asserting WP:OWNERSHIP at The Beatles with this comment, despite the fact that I have made no substantial edits to the article in quite some time, and have not been a regular at its talk page in going on a year.

I didn't want to do this, but he's really pushing it. His first accusation was that I was wikihounding him at Alfred Hitchcock and Paul McCartney, and that I had reverted his edits at both of those articles. For the former article, he was correct -- I did indeed revert two edits by him as part of my attempt to bring the article's infobox into compliance with the infobox's documentation and the Manual of Style -- you can see those edits here and here. I never reverted any of his edits at Paul McCartney. He lied about that.

He has yet to provide a single diff in support of his accusations that I've been following him around the project, adding replies to discussions shortly after he does. I don't know what I did to bring this about; this is the first personal dispute I can ever recall having with him, aside from a few good-faith disagreements in the past. Looking into his history now, I see that he does have something of a problem with being civil and editing in compliance with policy. He refactored talk page comments here, and promptly blanked that discussion once he received a warning from User:Ched Davis for doing so. He has also misidentified edits as vandalism by leaving the edit summary blank with these reverts, and refused to address those edits when I and another editor attempted discussing it with him in a respectful and friendly manner.

I don't know what his problem with me is, but I feel strongly that this needs to be addressed before he tries it with other users. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, it does look very clear that Radiopathy is making attacks and false accusations. It seems that he mistook the friendly reminder to leave an edit summary as an attack and things heated up from there. After that, Radiopathy seemed to become a bit drastic. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy also constantly keep removing information on the Alfred Hitchcock page. He continues to edit war. Tinton5 (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A cursory search of the AN/I archives reveals that Radiopathy was previously placed on an indefinite 1RR restriction for edit-warring. I'm not sure whether or not his sockpuppet was involved in that situation. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Make that any of his sockpuppets -- plural. Seriously, why is this guy still editing? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- I have to add that I too have found User:Radiopathy hostile and uncivil as of late. Which is strange because I have always known this user to be helpful and civil. I'm hope this new Radio is just the result of a grumpy spell, and not the way they intend to act going forward. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer

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.

---

Philip Baird Shearer has deleted a page solely populated by a mbox. I worked on it. Undelete it plz? Anna 18:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please ask him first, on his talkpage. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Using tools while involved - great idea. Agathoclea (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No particular question of involvement here -- see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive758#User:In ictu oculi. Iio said "If anyone objects to the shortcut - as it seems PBS does - then delete it." The only differences between Iio's last edit and the version PBS deleted seem to be formatting changes by Anna. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This passes the "any reasonable admin" test from WP:INVOLVED; any reasonable admin would delete a page with just an mbox, especially when requested by the creator. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2012 (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.

Self-promotion and Campaigning

I have received an email from User:Sharrukin josephson via Special:EmailUser stating that this user has reviewed my editing habits (that I edit music related articles) and is requesting that I and any other editors to create an account on his project and help construct his music related project. I looked through their edit history expecting to see many edits to music articles and found that this was not the case. I (still expecting to see more music related editing) asked on their talk page if they have edited under another username. After receiving their reply on my talk, I issued a warning per WP:SOAP and received this reply and posted another warning which begot yet another reply, then my last reply. My purpose for this post is to "get the users attention" about the policy but, of course if other actions are warranted then so be it. Thank you. Mlpearc (powwow) 09:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's spamming, and you can get blocked for that, even if it is offwiki. Hopefully they stop before we have to do that though. Unfortunately, this is difficult to verify, but I know that checkusers can tell if someone is sending email... --Rschen7754 09:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a message to his talk page, hopefully that will be enough. I don't think he is here to build an encyclopedia, and if that is true, it would be better if he just moves on. If he does want to help, all the better, but this "warning" should suffice for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I notice that he replaced his talk page with an invitation to email him and no acknowledgement in the edit summary, so I don't think he is getting the point here. Since that failed, I'm open to other ideas here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Was just looking through here - User has read, ignored, and removed warning - not to mention, from what I see, trolled on Dennis and Mlpearc's talks by asking redundant questions - presumably to just, shall we say, draw things out and away from the original topic at hand, the emails. An "only warning" might be the way to go - warn of a block to, "deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior" - show that the user that, yes, you are not supposed to do this..... I may be rambling here. Ah well. Theopolisme _TALK 21:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A vulgar rant from wikihounder User:Status

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 recently opposed Hahc21 (talk · contribs)'s RfA because of (among other things) his questionable relationship with some editors, one of whom is Status (talk · contribs)[115]. After learning that Hahc21 was upset by my comments[116], I decided to remove them even though I was WP:CIVIL in my approach (because, after all, Wikipedia isn't important enough to upset people with). However, I have since received a foul-mouthed rant from Status, where he admits to WP:WIKIHOUNDING ("You do realize that users often "stalk" other users contribs, and then from there see what they are up to?"), tells me to get over myself as I am "extremely bitter" and asks "what the fuck does this have to do with a RFA?" as well as other things in a ridiculously uncalled for rant[117].

I feel that I deserve to be able to edit Wikipedia without this user "stalking" my contributions and looking for confrontation, as he has done of various AfDs (including some in which he hasn't actually !voted [118][119]) and through reverting my edits by saying they need to be "discussed before doing them", which is in violation of WP:BOLD[120]. If, for some reason, Status is upset that I've nominated some of his articles for AfD, then I suggest he stop and think before creating things like Personal life of Jennifer Lopez and Bennifer. I feel it inappropriate to be bullied by a user whith a chip on his shoulder and who has only just returned from a series of block because of his unorthodox editing style. This isn't about who !voted on which AfD and who nominated which article, but the general conduct displayed by Status towards anyone who disagrees with him (even in situations where I have not been involved [121]). Please can something be done, be it a block, ban or whatever, to stop this outrageous behaviour? SplashScreen (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• People get frustrated here. I had commented on your talk page just above him, thanking you for removing your unnecessarily long and tables vote at RfA [122], he chose a more direct method. I think he is being blunt, but I have to admit, you are the one that looks like they have a chip on their shoulder and that now retracted vote demonstrates the point. Personally, I recommend just dropping it. People are going to upset each other here from time to time, and I wouldn't call this a vulgar rant just because he used the word "fuck" in a rather common expression. Status might be a little more intense than he needs to be here, but I don't see a policy violation, just a reaction to your 10k sized vote at an RfA, where you were basically accusing him and others of being meatpuppets. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• So that makes it all OK, does it? The violations of WP:PERSONAL and WP:WIKIHOUNDING and everything else? Point me to a policy that I've actually violated, because "posting a long rationale at RfA" doesn't appear to be one. Can I please remind more institutionalised users that there is a WP:REALLIFE outside this website, in which following someone around the internet and acting aggressively towards them in deemed unacceptable, whereas accusing people of being "meatpuppets" (a word with which, until now, I was not familiar) is water off a ducks back. SplashScreen (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Wikihounding is unacceptable. However, your filing was about a rude post, not Wikihounding. That's something you'd need to prove with an WP:RFC/U - and remember that Wikihounding has the intent to drive you off the project - right now it appears to be more Wikipoodling, and I hate to suggest it but you might have helped be the genesis of some of this. Accusations of meatpuppetry will raise anger - not water off a duck's back. You're welcome to make reasonable comments at RFA, but don't make accusations that are unfounded, or else you can expect some flashback (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Determining the exact coordinates of "OK" is sometimes a moving target, depending on the windspeed and whether you're intent on purchasing an African or European swallow, and perhaps how content you are with the Pope, the value in a 'value meal' and the meaning of life in general. I think the point that Dennis is trying to make is that while you might be right, there's a lot more to the context of the situation. People are upset, tempers are flaring, and so its easy to lay all the blame of the foot of this guy, Status, but maybe it would be easier to figure out a way to change the whole tone of things. Sometimes we just need time, sometimes we need to be the better person and just accept it for a bit with a stiff upper lip, like a Brit might say. Whatever the case, it looks like a very limited 'stalking' if anything, and maybe if you can let it be, it will die away on its own. Not discounting what you've brought here, just trying to look at all the options. -- Avanu (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• You should stop bringing nonsense to ANI everytime somebody upsets you and just WP:DROPIT. This isn't a place to vent your feelings. It really does look quite pathetic to be honest. Till I Go Home 11:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a very non-helpful comment (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. I think they are mistaken but there is no need to ratchet up the drama when it is already being dealt with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• You can read about meatpuppetry here WP:SOCK. It can get someone blocked, so it is considered a serious charge. I don't think you were intentionally trying to be offensive or rude when you made the claim, but I do think you are mistaken. I don't see evidence of wikistalking here based on this one event. If someone notices that you have a couple of very problematic AFD noms, then decides to go through your contribs a bit closer, that isn't wikistalking. I check out friends contribs all the time to see what they are up to, maybe something interesting I would like to check out. If a person goes and revert all your edits good or bad, or comments in every discussion page you participate in and takes an opposing view, that is wikistalking and is unacceptable, but that doesn't apply here from what I can see. This is a community, and like any other community, you will find people you like and people you don't like. We can't police perfect civility, it is a rough and tumble place sometimes. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and that means heated disagreements at time. Since it isn't the real world, I wouldn't let it bug you too bad. If it was actual abuse or harassment, I would have warned him or taken whatever action was needed, but we have to tolerate other people's opinions as well, as long as they aren't disruptive in how they present them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 11:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• "but we have to tolerate other people's opinions" - I don't believe that Wikipedia is a website that tolerates people who can rant, rave, eff and blind to anyone with which they disagree. SplashScreen (talk) 12:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Careful when you say that: your original post at RFA was a "rant, rave...blind to [some]one with which [you] disagree" ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Posting an "Oppose" rationale on an RfA is miles apart from posting random attacks on someone's talk page. And if you'd check again, you'd note that I did not swear or use any out-of-line language - Status did. It's like saying that giving evidence against someone in court is the same as turning up on someone's front door to scream and shout. To compare the two is bizarre and untenable. SplashScreen (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Bwilkins. I noticed it early on, tolerated it while trying to come up with a way to ask SplashScreen about is since it really was excessive, I then saw them withdraw, which is why I went to their talk page and thanked them, as a away to encourage self-correction. We don't want to turn a blind eye to abuse, but we don't want to shut off discussion just because someone is more blunt than average either. And SplashScreen, keep in mind, tolerate doesn't mean condone or endorse, it only means "put up with". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

However, you have already been advised that swearing is not out-of-line language on Wikipedia. Please remove that from your thoughts, and don't refer to it further. RFA's are angry places, and raise hackles. Your comment - although you claim to be "courtroom" (which it isn't) still created ugly responses elsewhere. What's said in a courtroom CAN be raised in a newspaper, which leads to letters to the Editor, etc ... so the comparison is fine. In short, be HONEST and POLITE yet don't make unproven points in an RFA - and fewer angry rants will be forthcoming. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please, in quotes, show me the erroneous point(s) I made in the RfA and how the are "unproven". I never said that anybody was a meatpuppet of anybody else, but did note strange patterns of editing. As someone who is relatively new to Wikipedia, I'm shocked and disheartened that I am not allowed to contribute to discussions without receiving rude and threatening messages, whilst the user who has done so hasn't received as much as a warning or a message from an admin asking them not to do so again. SplashScreen (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You accused multiple editors of collusion/meatpuppetry - which is WP:UNCIVIL. You brought it up in the middle of someone's attempt to become an admin, which is very much like the prosecution suggesting that someone might have been drunk while driving 15 years ago in the middle of a murder trial in order to paint the person in a bad light. At what point were you threatened? Making unfounded/uncivil/inflammatory commentary can lead to Wikiquette filings, and obviously ANI discussions. You ARE encouraged to contribute - but you certainly did not contribute fairly to the discussion, and now you're mad that YOUR comments pissed someone off. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So you can not actually provide me with a quote in which I did all those things? Right. If you read Status' comments on my talk page, you will see his threats to get me blocked if I continue to bring light to questionable edits made by his friends. And this is not - "suggesting that someone might have been drunk while driving 15 years ago in the middle of a murder trial". Said problems had all occurred within the past week and showed that Hahc21 had difficulty with the AfD procedure and the inclusion requirements - this has been brought up by many editors. "now you're mad that YOUR comments pissed someone off" - no, I'm upset that I was attacked in such a manner. All I requested is that WP:CIVIL be followed. Status could have handled this on a scale of 1 to 100. I reccomend about 20, whereas he surpassed common sense and went for 139 with his personal attacks, uncivil language and threats. I ask you; if you were in Status' position, would you have posted that message word-for-word on my talk page?SplashScreen (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, he did NOT make any personal attack. He addressed the concerns, explained why you were wrong, and let you know that if you make claims like this against editors, it can result in sanctions. You would be wise to go have a tea and try to come back and look at this more objectively later. Let me be a little more blunt: You are wrong here. Your RFA edit was wrong, both in style and content. I accept that you are new and may not understand why you were wrong, but trust me, you were and are. I suggest after that tea, asking questions in a better venue so you can learn what you did wrong, so it isn't repeated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you stop being so childish. I am not going to respond to such patronizing drivel and will wait for comments from others, who will probably be a bit more tactful than yelling "You are wrong, so there". The "This user believes in civility and assuming good faith" box on your userpage is hilariously ironic. SplashScreen (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Telling Dennis he's being childish and is "yelling" isn't very fair. He's offered you some good advice. Status reacted strongly, but so would anyone with complaints like the ones you made against them. Look, you don't seem to get on with this certain "group" of editors (and by "group" I do not mean a clique, cabal, or bunch of meatpuppets, I just mean that they seem to work in the same areas and get along well together). You'll find that groups of editors in different areas are quite common. Some of them you'll get along with. Others you might not. Status got angry, but so might you if someone suggested that you were deliberately working in tandem with other editors in a dishonest or sneaky manner. The civility policy doesn't mean people can't get angry or use the word "fuck". If it did mean that, then you too would be crossing the line by calling Dennis's advice "patronising drivel" etc. I'm sorry but no one is going to punish Status for their reaction. OohBunnies! (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"Not very fair"--OohBunnies, you're being nice. This ANI thread seems to be over: no action will be taken, and SplashScreen is urged to settle down and not resort to uncivil language if they don't get their way. "Settle down" applies to Status as well, of course. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

*sigh* Splash, let me try and make this simple:

• you posted on RFA some uncivil/unfounded comments. Posting there is your right, but unsubstantiated claims are not, nor are inflammatory comments.
• the editor got mad at your comments, and went of on a rant where they swore (swearing is NOT forbidden)
• you took offense to to swearing and their anger

So, in short, you were wrong, they were wrong ... what more is there? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• LOL. Just for the record guys "You do realize that users often "stalk" other users contribs, and then from there see what they are up to?" was referring to the users he was claiming were out to get him. We often look at each other's contribs and see the AFD comments. Statυs (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just wanted to note that SplashScreen didn't noticed me of this ANI report in which i was clearly involved. Next time, ask him first if he noticed to the users. Cheers! —Hahc21 20:12, 8 July 2012 (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.

KC9TV

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.

---

99801155KC9TV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This person has decided to start spamming several editors, myself included, with 3RR warning templates (adding and then removing them multiple times) over single reverts, some from several months ago. Their whole approach here is perhaps best described as idiosyncratic, with edits primarily consisting of adding "apparently" or "claims" to qualify perfectly decent and presumably uncontroversial text eg here, editing old arbcom pages, eg here, and starting huge debates on people's talk pages and noticeboards (latest one here, I've just noticed). They've done nothing out-and-out bad as far as I can tell but they're not doing much else besides winding people up. Not sure what to do but could someone ask them to stop using this place as a playground? N-HH talk/edits 13:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've fixed the formatting and notified KC9TV. Please note that the top of the page, it says you are required to notify the party being reported here, and please do so in the future. Thanks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, I see I just barely beat you to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was just doing both, and you beat me to the former .. don't people even get two minutes to sort such things out? N-HH talk/edits 14:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 because they continued after the notice and seeing this. I invited them to leave an explanation and should they make what seems to be a valid one then feel free to unblock them. No need to notify me first. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2012 (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.

Probable Duplication Detector False Positive on Botnet

There is a notice on Botnet that states that material might have been copied and pasted from http://www.dslreports.com/faq/14158 , but my examination makes me believe that the contributor to the Broadband Reports page is at fault for the copyright violation by copying and pasting the Wikipedia page as of the time of its contribution without crediting Wikipedia and licensing the content under the same terms. What should we do to ask Broadband Reports to comply with our licenses if in fact it was the one who copied our content and not the other way around? Also, what do we do with the Duplication Detector template on Botnet? Jesse Viviano (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This old revision of Botnet appears to be the match, based on typos in previous and subsequent versions around the same timeframe as the last modified date of the dslReports faq. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
• To resolve this, first see backward copying. That section describes where to report, how to tag the talkpage, etc. Before removing the {{Copypaste}} tag, you should contact the editor who placed the tag. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the copypaste template after investigating; see explanation. Nyttend (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article is listed at WP:Copyright problems/2012 June 28, which I have annotated. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Fry1989

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.

---

Fry1989 (talk · contribs) was put under 1RR per week and strict civility parole by User:Toddst1 in April 2012.[123] Since then he has:

• edit-warred at Coat of arms of Iceland [124]
• edit warred at File:OUTtv logo.png [125]
• edit-warred at File:MD-XX proposal.jpg [126] and File:Proposed MD-XX.jpg [127] (both since deleted -- links accessible by admins only)
• edit-warred at Constantine I of Greece [128]
• broken civility guidelines [129][130][131].

Fry is refusing to accept that he has done anything wrong [132], even though he has clearly performed more than one revert per week on an article. For example, at Coat of arms of Iceland:

• Edit on 21 June
• 1st revert 29 June 04:34
• 2nd revert 29 June 19:26
• 3rd revert 30 June 18:22

I believe it is now necessary to replace the former restrictions imposed by an individual administrator with a clear and unambiguous community restriction that he must not revert or undo the actions of any editor more than once per week on any page anywhere on wikipedia, and is not to use any language that in any way demeans or attacks any other editor or that could be perceived to do so. DrKiernan (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Since Toddst already imposed restrictions it probably would have been best to ask him to enforce them. Restrictions are restrictions; asking on ANI to impose what Toddst already imposed is a bit bureaucratic imo. Sædon^talk 22:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Question: Would you suggest that this user be blocked at all, or just that the community reinforce Toddst1's restrictions? I admit that I don't have much confidence in the latter's ability to do anything. A 24-hour "get your attention" block to add emphasis to the restrictions might be in order. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I felt that community endorsement and explanation of these specific restrictions would prevent any potential dispute or misunderstanding over them in the future. DrKiernan (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been very careful to make sure I don't use the revert button more than once a week. That was my restriction set by Toddst1. I only used the revert button ONCE a week on that article, my other edits did NOT use the revert button. You can say I did all you want, but the fact is I DID NOT break my restriction of using the revert button more than once a week. I also haven't attacked anybody, hypocrite is a perfectly accurate and mild term for someone with a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. This is just a further attempt by DrKiernan to bring up my restrictions which are irrelevant to the Dispute Resolution I started about him to get a leg up. My restriction was not broken, and it does not have any relevance to the inclusion or exclusion of sourced material on articles that DrKiernan has consistently chosen to remove over minor differences that can easily be changed, rather to be proactive and correct the problems. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose giving this user a second chance. He only had good intentions, and it would be good to assume good faith here and not block him/her. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverting is reverting; it doesn't matter whether you use the revert button or the undo button or even if you do it manually. Sædon^talk 23:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Ah, I see the problem. Perhaps you weren't aware that, per WP:REVERT, reverting doesn't just mean using the "undo" button. I suggest you read that page carefully. Unless someone gives a reason why we shouldn't WP:AGF that you didn't know that, I say we let you off with a warning, and now you know. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflist) I've been very calm (or atleast attempted to) regarding this. This issue about the monograms has gone on for over a year! I've tried so many times, and then when I bring it to dispute resolution because of DrKiernan's refusal to budge an inch, he turns around and makes it about me! I implore all of you to read the dispute resolution I created about this monograms issue. You will see that DrKiernan has avoided the real issue and instead tried to make this about me, using my edit restriction (which I didn't break!) as an excuse to avoid his constant removal of SOURCED content from articles with false edit summaries saying they aren't sourced. Just because he's an admin doesn'tmake him perfect, and he shouldn't get a free pass on a serious concern by raising another user's restrictions to distract people. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should just end this now and warn Fry1989 that if he violates his 1RR again, he will get blocked. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Could you provide a link to that dispute resolution? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It is here Fry1989 ^eh? 23:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. While I read that over, can I ask you to check out WP:REVERT, as I suggested above, if you haven't already done so? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I will do so. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Without wading into the diffs and prior discussion about 1RR... Fry, could you acknowledge that reverting another editor means more than simply clicking the "revert" button? If you could, please indicate that you've read WP:Revert, and after you've done so, indicate whether you now think these three edits would constitute more than 1 revert. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It may also be worth noting, per this edit at DRN, that Fry does not believe his 1RR restriction applies to files he has personally uploaded. Fry, I think that, unless you and Toddst explicitly discussed that exception to your restriction, then it probably applies to every aspect of wikipedia, including your "own contributions". Does that make sense to you now?   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Having read that, yes I will admit that those three edits can be considered as breaking my 1-revert per week restriction. I still resent DrKiernan bringing this up in an attempt to get a leg up in the D.R. I started earlier today. The Icelandic article is completely unconnected to the monograms issue, OR DrKiernan's constant removal of such content. He did this to skew that debate, nothing more, and it's disgusting (especially for an admin) Fry1989 ^eh? 23:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, I've read the DRN case over now. First of all, in addition to WP:REVERT, which Fry1989 was unaware of, both of you need to read (or re-read) WP:BRD. Because you have failed to discuss effectively, you both have engaged in a slower-moving WP:EDITWAR, complete with tendentious editing. You needed outside opinions. Badly. Did either of you go seek them out before going to DRN? Second, both of you need to disengage. I'm not saying an interaction ban, since a) they rarely work, and b) you both care too much about these things to actually follow one. But cool off, both of you, please. You're each in WP:BATTLEGROUND mode with regards to the other, so you need to stop that. Beyond that, once you've cooled down, go back to DRN and actually try to resolve the dispute, please. Both of you get fish, plus Fry1989 gets a warning not to further violate that 1RR now that you're aware of WP:REVERT. I think that's all that this needs. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated in the dispute resolution, he and I have talked about this dozens of times on multiple talk pages, and he wont budge. It's very nasty, and I was sick of it. His behaviour has been unbecoming for an admin. He's stalked my edits just incase they may be useful to him in future disputes, that much was clear when he brought up my problem in the Icelandic coat of arms' article, because before today he and I haven't interacted with eachother anywhere in months upon months. Also the fact that he would try and use another person's restrictions to skew a debate away from the real issue and make it about the other user I find reprehensible. Did I break my revert restriction? Yes I will admit to that, but atleast I have more principles when it comes to disputes than DrKiernan, and can stick to the real issue. Fry1989 ^eh? 23:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Fry, having superficially examined the history, I have to warn you that you seem to be on the very cusp of being blocked indefinitely. In fact, I really can't imagine any way for you to be closer. If you don't want that to happen, you need to understand 3 things: 1) Undoing another editors work at all, in any way, for any reason, is considered a revert. You seem to be aware of that now. 2) Even if you are right about the dispute, that doesn't mean you can edit war. If an edit is not blatant vandalism, then do not revert it more than once. If there is any doubt in your mind, then ask another editor or report it instead of reverting. Read WP:NOTTHEM; this applies equally to your situation. 3) Per your discussion with Toddst here, this applies to your own contributions too. That means files you have uploaded yourself, and every other aspect of wikipedia. If you wind up back here at ANI in the future, it's very likely the discussion will result in sanctions, so please do your very best to stay out of this kind of trouble (or any trouble for that matter). It would be best to read WP:BRD, and use the talk page to discuss issues immediately, without resorting to reverting at all.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I would like to propose a one week block. This has nothing to do with the 1RR violation; I can understand that and he has a valid excuse for it. However, I cannot understand the 3 uncivil diffs above. Uncivility is not tolerated here and I think that a 1 week block for incivility would be in order. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose a one-week block, but given the extreme civility parole that's also part of Fry1989's restrictions, I think I must support a shorter block. Perhaps 48 hours? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see DrKiernan hasn't acted as an admin in this dispute, rather as a regular editor, so there's no conduct unbecoming an admin (and nor do I see diffs of DrKiernan crossing any lines). Secondly, it seems to me that you're personalizing this dispute and it would be best if you simply started using the talk page in a civil manner. I don't think there's much to do here now that you're aware of what "revert" means so I recommend moving on because right now you're digging a bit of a hole. Sædon^talk 23:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's unbecoming because as an admin he should know better, not because he mis-used any admin powers. And I'd like for those proposing I be blocked for uncivility to prove that calling someone a hypocrite was inaccurate and worthy of a (week's) block. Ssolbergj absolutely is approaching this article with a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude, he told me to respect the talk page but would not do it himself when there's more users against his SVG file that for it. That makes the term completely accurate. And as for "practice what you preach", if we blocked people for statements like that there would be alot more blocked users on here. I was planing on moving on, (infact in the process of doing so) but if you're gonna talk about blocking me for using an accurate descriptive term for another user who won't do as he tells other to, than I'm gonna defend myself. Fry1989 ^eh? 00:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fry is right. He only called someone a hypocrite, and did not make personal attacks. I would like this to end with a warning about a potential block if he violates the validly -imposed 1RR again. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if you think so. I was just saying that the civility restriction was "the most severe WP:CIVIL restriction imaginable", so anything even borderline, we have to consider a block. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fry acknowledges what he did wrong and feels bad about this. I am confident that he will not repeat his actions again and I see no reason why this needs to drag out further. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2012 (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.

Need some help

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.

---

Admins: I am not sure if this is the correct forum for getting attention to my request. I created a page, Worlds Largest Round Barn and there is a replica of the page at central wisconsin state fair ground round barn. The link might not be correct, but it's close. I think the best course of action should be a redirect, however my concern is that the article I wrote about the barn concentrates on the fact of the barn being the worlds largest, while the other article focuses on the history side of the barn. Any suggestions? Thanks!Keystoneridin (speak) 17:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI, the correct links are Central Wisconsin State Fair Round Barn and Worlds Largest Round Barn. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• THANK YOU!Keystoneridin (speak) 18:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn. The other author decided to merge their article into the one I created. Looks quite a bit better. Sorry for the wasted space. Keystoneridin (speak) 18:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reopened this due to a disturbing pattern of misrepresented sources in the article in question. I have already left a very stern warning on Keystoneridin's talkpage, but I have neither the time nor the interest to comb through their other contribs. Misrepresented sources are a major problem here, and from my review of the article it doesn't look like a mistake or a little bit of fudging; statements in the article were cited to other webpages which simply did not say at all what the cited statement here did. This is a major concern. → ROUX ₪ 19:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please feel free to block of you believe it is warranted. However I made an error on my citations. When I create the page I did so in a word document to avoid a speedy being put on the page as I created the article. However something didn't copy correctly to the main page and as a result I ended up with the wrong links on the page. Additionally, after looking through the page, the complaintant removed all of the content which was introduced on the page. The links that I provided, although not the correct ones, did cite some of the information correctly. The user who left a home made warning template on my wall decided to delete everything and not take the due care to put the correct links on the page. I can assure you that I made these edits in good faith. I did not mean to list false links. But as I said in the beginning, if a block is warranted than by all means you have a job to do. Good day to you!Keystoneridin (speak) 20:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Let's take that one by one:

1. "When I create the page I did so in a word document to avoid a speedy being put on the page as I created the article." -- mode of creation is irrelevant; it is your responsibility to ensure that it is correct
2. "Additionally, after looking through the page, the complaintant removed all of the content which was introduced on the page." - Yes, I removed everything that was either uncited or where the citation did not say what was asserted
3. "The links that I provided, although not the correct ones, did cite some of the information correctly." - the information which was cited without misrepresentation was left in the article.
4. "The user who left a home made warning template on my wall decided to delete everything and not take the due care to put the correct links on the page." - It's hardly my responsibility to look up the information you should have looked up
5. "I can assure you that I made these edits in good faith. I did not mean to list false links." - pull the other one, it's got bells on. You used citations to support statements which were absolutely and unequivocally not supported by said citations. → ROUX ₪ 20:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• The user above appears to be certain that there is no way possible that I made these contributions except out of bad faith and or a scheme to vandalize Wikipedia. This may be due to a past dealing with similar issues, but I understand the users concern with citation violations. At this point, I can only say that I honestly made these in good faith and any admin will need to take all of this into account when issuing a block or a banishment. Good day to you.Keystoneridin (speak) 21:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In addition the user Roax has taken it upon themselves to turn my talk page into a battle ground of belittling myself and those who I am trying to better. You can clearly see this from [2 Here], and [2 Here], and [2 Here]. User Roax gives me no assumption of good faith. This is gone on far long enough.Keystoneridin (speak) 22:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I also put forth the idea that you are merely incompetent to edit, no maliciousness required. But since you're getting all annoyed that I'm pointing out your shortcomings and have effectively banned me from your talkpage, I wish to make a few things clearer.

As posted on your talkpage:

• Your text: The barn was built in 1916 to hold cattle for farmers traveling to the Mid-Wisconsin farmers market.

• Source text: says not even one of those things.

• Your text: In 1970, the Central Wisconsin state fair relocated from Wisconsin Rapids to Marshfield Wisconsin. During this time the barn received major renovations and became a carnival site holding cattle for sale and auction at the fair.

• Source: says not even one of those things. In fact, the link is to the top page, and I had to dig around the site to find this, which only supports the year the barn was built, and not any of the statements you attributed to that site

Keystoneridin has claimed s/he will provide the actual sources they intended to use later. I asked for clarification that these sources will actually support the statements made, some of which I have outlined above.

In addition, Keystoneridin has apparently taken it upon him- or herself to 'educate' new users. In one paragraph on his/her own talkpage, I identified multiple problems and blatant factual inaccuracies in what s/he was telling a new user, only to be told it was harassment for me to do so.

There's a problem here, and it needs to be sorted out. → ROUX ₪ 22:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have updated the exact "education" summary. It's exactly what I talked about in class. The point of the presentation was not to necessarily "teach" anybody what I know, but rather help them along the way to making established edits rather than the standard I.P. edits.Keystoneridin (speak) 22:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Blocks are not executed for one-off mistakes. Keystoneridin has stated that their misapplication of sources was an error. Without some evidence of an ongoing pattern and an indication that Keystoneridin is refusing to address the issue, I don't see the need for admin action. Tiderolls 22:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I also tried to explain the citations on Raux wall, but it must have been too big. The citations I used were from research articles which are free to my university, but apparently not free to everyone. They are not free then to the Wiki community so I will not be able to use them on here. Until I can come up with these sources from a free version, I will not be able to update the article.Keystoneridin (speak) 22:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• That's an... interesting explanation. And you can still use paywalled sources; other people based in academia can review them. But that does not explain how you ended up using sources which did not say what you claimed they did. Explain this, please. Oh, and get my name right. → ROUX ₪ 22:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Your name definitely raux, but hopefully he'll rue mispelling it, Roux. Your name makes me wish I had a roux-based sauce to go with some nice fish or beef. -- Avanu (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

TBH I almost never thicken sauces with a roux (except when making e.g. macaroni & cheese, as the gluten helps prevent the Mornay from separating); I much prefer thickening by reduction or use of various hydrocolloids. When I'm feeling really bolshy, I'll use a liaison, but almost never on the line at work as one second of inattention and you have scrambled eggs. → ROUX ₪ 23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Harrasment

Hello. Earlier today and probably about one or two sections up (Note: I've merged the sections. Black Kite) I needed some help when I created "World's Largest Round Barn". I attempted to create the page off of word as I had explained [in this edit]. Since then I have been harassed by This user even with a warning of this user [Having me blocked]. I just want it to stop. I made a mistake and I am sorry. I just want to get back to editing Wikipedia and not dealing with a lunatic edit stalker. Please help! Keystoneridin (speak) 23:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Then go back to editing and stop responding to any editor that you find is not helping you. Tiderolls 23:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• I tried to [Bury the hatchet], but that still did not workKeystoneridin (speak) 23:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, um, no. Your first explanation for misrepresenting the sources was that they didn't copy over correctly. Now you're trying to say the sources you used aren't available outside a paywall.. which is it?

Re: 'burying the hatchet,' it seems blindingly clear to me that you don't so much want to bury the hatchet as you want to not be criticized for everything you are doing wrong.

As for 'lunatic edit stalker,' that is yet another false accusation. Time for you to be blocked. → ROUX ₪ 23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Roux problematic edits

To the edits mentioned above, I'd like to add the following:

You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances. The history of your attitude towards me is far too long for anyone with more than one braincell to believe you are unbiased.

Is that clear? Do not, ever, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it. Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.

I trust we understand each other.

I don't think history bears out that I'm the one with the attitude problem here -- especially since the edit Roux's referring to is a simple, polite, non-templated warning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Butter just wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it? Let me be even more clear, and I'm going to use grownup words:

SarekOfVulcan, leave me the fuck alone, forever. Your history of persecution against me is long and fucking annoying, and I have told you more than once to stay away from me.

Is that more clear? I prevented you from continuing your years-long harassment on my talkpage, so now you're bringing it here. Stop. → ROUX ₪ 23:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You cannot stop an admin from doing admin work, where needed. It may behoove SoV to have someone else involved instead, but if they feel they're protecting the project, they have the authority to act on it, period. Maybe they shouldn't drop by to chat, but any valid admin-type work will and can continue, and ArbComm will hold that up. If you have an RFC/A to submit, or an actual ArbComm case to file, fill your boots ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

His bias is clear. He stays away from me or ArbCom gets involved, period. → ROUX ₪ 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, Keystoneridin decided to take a break. Can't say I blame him.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You say break, I say avoiding scrutiny. Ksr's first explanation was that Word didn't copy the sources over properly. Now the explanation is that we cannot access the sources, being outside academia. These are mutually exclusive, and fail to explain why Ksr used sources which catergorically did not say what s/he claimed they did. → ROUX ₪ 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how taking a break avoids scrutiny. It's more like he's not here to defend himself. As far as I can tell, you're here to make sure he doesn't avoid scrutiny.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Has anybody thought of making a melodrama from these Wiki story lines? Acoma Magic (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions for Resolution

First, if any editor asks another to not interact with them, to the extent possible, this should be honored. As BWilkins says, there are obvious exceptions.

Second, I think that Roux and Keystoneridin ought to give each other a little space for a few days, an informal 'gentlemen's agreement' interaction ban would probably be best at this point. Can the Round Barn article wait a few days to get sorted out? Maybe userfy it for a bit and let this be readdressed when heads have had time to consider things further.

Just my 2 cents. -- Avanu (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has been resolved; I removed all of the misrepresentations from it. Keystoneridin's behaviour, and the shifting and contradictory explanations for same, has not been resolved. It needs to. Resolution is also needed for Keystoneridin's self-appointment as an expert, when his grasp of various things is flimsy at best. → ROUX ₪ 00:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

RESULTS First, I want to publicly apologize for my poor choice in words in describing Roax. I should have been more sensible in my word choices and not have allowed my emotions to get in the way. Second, now that this user is inactive I would think the best policy would be to Close this as resolved. I tried to show Roax my support for what I was doing. And just to be clear, I never called myself an expert. However that is neither here nor there. Good day to you all. Keystoneridin (speak) 04:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Harassment from User:SarekOfVulcan

I do not know what part of this:

You are not permitted to post to my talkpage under any circumstances. The history of your attitude towards me is far too long for anyone with more than one braincell to believe you are unbiased.

Is that clear? Do not, ever, post to my talkpage again. If I have done something so egregious that I need talking to, someone else will do it.

Not you. Ever. As an editor or as an admin, you are permanently unwelcome at my talkpage. I will not be watching your page, and should you ever post to my talkpage again it will be construed as harassment and I will take it to ArbCom if necessary.

...was unclear to Sarek, but he has elected to post to my talkpage again after being told unequivocally he is not welcome under any circumstances. This quite neatly proves his bias against me, is absolutely nothing more than poking the bear because he knows he can get away with it, and is conduct unbecoming an admin anyway.

Since telling him repeated times over the years to stay away from me has been fruitless, I would like an interaction ban please.

To wit:

• User:SarekOfVulcan is prohibited from commenting to or about User:Roux anywhere on enwiki, with reasonable exceptions provided for administrative processes which are both a) started by other people, and b) involving both of us. That this interaction ban would also forbid any admin action goes without saying. To be fair, I will accept the exact same restrictions on me.

→ ROUX ₪ 01:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm so happy you're willing to accept being banned from using admin tools against me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. → ROUX ₪ 01:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, why did you post a question on their talk page after they asked you to stay away? I'm confused. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Because Roux claimed to be ready to take me to Arbcom, and then proceeded to treat my "nonsense with the contempt it deserves", implied I was an admin zombie, while insulting BWilkins' intelligence, repeated the threat to take me to Arbcom, and continued insulting Keystoneridin. I can be reasonable, but I have my limits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please show me where I called you an admin zombie, or even alluded to you? You won't be able to, because I didn't. I was referring to the lockstep nature of admins closing ranks. Nor did I insult Bwilkin's intelligence; quite the opposite. nor was I 'insulting' ksr by saying his grasp was flimsy; his grasp is flimsy, which you would know if you bothered reading anything he wrote.

You were told to stay away from my talkpage. You didn't. I brought it here, hoping that you would get a fucking clue. Do I have to go to ArbCom or will you stay the fuck away from me? → ROUX ₪ 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom, please. I really want to see what they tell you about reporting someone who politely reminded you not to edit war on other people's talkpages.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So you're really going to be that much of an asshole about this? Fuck you. → ROUX ₪ 02:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, but I guess you knew that posting to their talk page would not diffuse the situation, rather the opposite. Although I can understand that it must be very, very difficult not comment on a thread talking about you. I think, in future, if a person is going to request that someone stay off their talk page, they shouldn't begin talking about said person on said talk page if they want that request to be honoured. OohBunnies! (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to oppose; however, Sarek of Vulcan should be able to seek attention from an uninvolved admin if he feels admin action is necessary. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Because that simply gives him the opportunity to harass by proxy. There are more than enough admins with eyes on me that if I do something egregious, someone will say something. There is no need for Sarek to be involved at any stage. None whatsoever. → ROUX ₪ 01:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You do have to make the case for why you feel this is necessary. Count Iblis (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Sarek posted to my talkpage after being told unequivocally that he was not welcome (and I have told him before that I am sick of his attitude towards me and that I am uninterested in anything he has to say) more than makes my case for me. He was told to stay away; he didn't. That is harassment. → ROUX ₪ 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Roux, you attacked SarekOfVulcan and he defended himself. If you are upset that he defended himself, your best course of action would have been to not attack him, and your best future course of action would be to not attack him further. See? All sorted. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I told him to stay off my talkpage. He didn't = harassment → ROUX ₪ 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

*applause* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would oppose on the grounds that no diffs have been provided demonstrating that SoV has "persecuted" you nor that he has a bias (as he asked on your talk: what is this bias of which you speak?). Some sort of action may be needed but there is nothing for anyone here to go on at the moment. Sædon^talk 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How about NO exceptions? If something needs admin attention an email be sent into arbcom. Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - This has gone too far, too long, and in too many places. WP:Civility is a policy and a pillar, if any two editors cannot adhere to it then there are other places to spend their time. If an admin is not adhering to it, then there would be steps to take. Without any commentary on the editors involved in this instance, or their (in)actions to this point, this needs to stop. Either take it to RFC/U (RFC/ADMIN) (which cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures") or to ARBCOM and be done with it. --Tgeairn (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

While I wouldn't oppose an interaction ban, it definitely needs to include commenting on either user (except in specific places where allowed like if bringing an arbcom case or asking for admin action). As CalendarWatcher has said, Roux commented on SarekOfVulcan and it's generally considered unfair for you to be able to comment on others but them to not be able to reply. In other words, if Roux had wanted SarekOfVulcan to stay away from their talk page, they shouldn't have commented on SarekOfVulcan on their talk page. While they weren't the one who started the thread, a simply reply like 'sorry but since I have forbidden SarekOfVulcan from my talk page I cannot comment' or moving it to Bwilkins page where SarekOfVulcan was entitled to reply without violating Roux's request to stay away from their talk page would have been the best options. Also as with Count Iblis I think we need more evidence if the interaction ban is to include preventing SarekOfVulcan asking for admin action. Since the only 'harass'ment here was a reply to a comment on SarekOfVulcan. It sounds like this has been here and elsewhere before, links to those threads may be an option. Nil Einne (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable Request - rather than a formal ban, can both of you just simply agree to leave each other alone, at least for 2 weeks? I don't see where that would be unreasonable, and given the situation, it seems like a very practical and modest step? -- Avanu (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No. Because I do not harass Sarek. In fact, apart from I think one comment maybe two weeks ago? I cannot remember the last time I spoke to or about Sarek regarding anything. I stay away from him. I want him to stay away from me. The fact that he refuses to is proof of his harassment and it must fucking stop. → ROUX ₪ 02:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)OK, so another way to interpret what you just said is 'Yes', because it sounds like that is what you are already taking steps to do. Can we expect a similar type of affirmation from Sarek now? -- Avanu (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Right -- so you're not looking for a two-sided interaction ban, you're looking to be able to swear at and belittle other editors without me complaining. As we say in Maine, "It don't work 'ike 'at, de-ah." (BTW, when was the last time I interacted with you before today?)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong on all fucking counts, but you're too much of an arrogant asshole to stay the fuck away when someone has repeatedly told you to. Go fuck yourself with a chainsaw, you pathetic excuse for a human being. {[subst:User:Roux/sig}}

Sarek, you are an Administrator here. It would help us if you could maintain your cool and bring a solution to the discussion through your leadership at this moment. I realize that this is a divisive and unpleasant situation, but let's stay focused on the goal. -- Avanu (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Since both users seem to be intent on poking each other here, could I ask an uninvolved admin to implement a formal interaction ban for 2 weeks, and if either of them violates it, they will be subject to a 2 week block or voluntary suspension of editing privileges. -- Avanu (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: "admin zombie"! what a delicious topic for an essay – Lionel ^(talk) 02:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Why not just say that from now on, SarekOfVulcan is considered WP:INVOLVED in matters pertaining to Roux? (Sarek, even if you're not, it's more helpful for anything that hits Roux to not come from you). In that case, Sarek can only interact with Roux editor-to-editor except in an emergency. Then, for editor-to-editor business, we do a limited disengage. Sarek stays off of Roux's talkpage except in the aforementioned admin-needed-emergency. Roux stays off of Sarek's talkpage. Each agrees not to discuss the other one on their own talkpages either. And Roux, you're cautioned about making any future accusations about someone else without providing diffs. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a much better idea, Jorgath -- why don't you provide evidence dating from before my second post to Roux's talkpage today that says I'm INVOLVED in matters pertaining to Roux, and then suggest that I be considered involved?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't get it. Sarek, in those diffs you gave above I don't see any urgent reason for you to post on Roux's talk page. The rest is predictable, of course, FUs and all. Sarek, please don't post on his talk page again. Roux, revert that user page of yours please--it is way too cool to abbreviate. Can we all cool it down now please? Drmies (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Seriously. He asked Sarek to stay off his talk page. Sarek's diff was something another admin could have easily handled and it certainly wasn't time sensitive. Had he no inkling that posting on his talk page would set him off? Fasttimes68 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with Drmies and Fasttimes68. Roux has now stormed out, which is really not surprising. I was too slow, as I often am, but I have belatedly posted an appeal, which I wrote last night, on Roux' talkpage. It's to Roux, Sarek, and somewhat Bwilkins. I hope they will read and consider it. Bishonen | talk 09:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Ok, it may be 5:42AM and I'm two sips into my first cup of coffee, but Bish, your post there seems to suggest I was commenting on Roux's page on behalf of or at the bequest of SoV ... not sure where that comes from. I approached Roux out of common familiarity, and was attempting to de-escalate and pointing out some flaws in their logic (and logic is typically a dish Roux prefers). (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't intend to suggest such a thing, but I can see how it could be read like that. I meant that you "pulled rank" on behalf on Sarek as an admin in this post, note especially the edit summary. Not that you posted on his behalf or at his behest. Bishonen | talk 10:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Timeline

Drmies, and others, here's the timeline for you:

• 17:47: This noticeboard section started.
• 19:53 – 22:46: Roux and Keystoneridin have an edit war on User talk:Keystoneridin
• 21:47: "Enough is enough. I realize you are angry about the article, fine. But posting to intervene on other communications which do not concern you IS harassment. Please do stop. This is getting ridiculous." — Keystoneridin to Roux
• 22:00: "Your communication on my talk page has become grossly inappropriate." — Keystoneridin to Roux
• 22:01: Blanking by Keystoneridin
• 22:09: reversion by Roux
• 22:15: "You are not understanding that I know this person one on one in real life […] Please allow me to handle my conversations as I see fit. If I need your help, I will ask for it." — Keystoneridin
• 22:38: Blanking by Keystoneridin
• 22:42: "Until then? This stays." reversion by Roux using Twinkle's rollback
• 22:50: "Can we just put this behind us? I want this warring to stop. Good day to you!" — Keystoneridin (section entitled "Bury the Hatchet")
• 22:57: "You'll have to do a few things first. […]" — Roux
• 23:11: "Don't edit war on other people's talk pages, please." — SarekOfVulcan
• 23:13: "Re: 'burying the hatchet,' it seems blindingly clear to me that you don't so much want to bury the hatchet as you want to not be criticized for everything you are doing wrong. As for 'lunatic edit stalker,' that is yet another false accusation. Time for you to be blocked." — Roux
• 23:17: "Way too late as usual, Sarek;" — by Roux using Twinkle's rollback

The rest is above. I issue a general request to others to read the contributions histories and find out what's actually going on before participating at this noticeboard. Going off half cocked is a perennial problem here. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2012 (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.

2 Week Civility Block on User:Roux

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.

---

This has gone far enough. Given what I have seen here, User:Roux is way out of line and needs to cool down. This user has belittled an editor who tried to write an article, attacked an editor on their own talkpage and expected that editor to stay away because he was commanded to, and requests a 1 sided interaction ban. This user is being rude, ignorant, arrogant, and plainly put, uncivil. This user has requested, to put it mildly, for an editor to stay away from his talk page. This user has then made attacking statements against this editor and expects them to keep away instead of defending themselves. This user as a result complains loudly in an uncivil manner. I say this needs to be put to a stop and therefore:

Proposal by Cyberpower678

Proposal: Given that this user has severe civility issues. As an uninvolved editor, I am proposing a 2 week civility block be enforced on User:Roux. To allow them to cool off.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Cool-down blocks are not permitted by policy, and two weeks would be a Hell of a long "cool-down" block anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 02:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• A) We don't do cool down blocks, and B) You're too late. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

  Yes we do. Civility blocks have been enforced before.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:37, 8 July 2012 (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.

Hoax article W7H Syndrome

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.

---

Resolved

 – by RHaworth, via CSD#G3. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I want to mention that I have just marked the new article W7H Syndrome as db-hoax. I'm leaving a note here because the hoax is pretty fancy and the hoaxishness might not be obvious to admins without any medical knowledge, but in fact the whole article is nonsense, and it is full of sly jokes. The level of sophistication makes this something worth taking notice of. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• The image is clearly a copyvio as well, I've tagged it as such over at Commons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:27, 8 July 2012 (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.

Personal attacks by Earthquakes925

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.

---

In chronological order:

1. This edit is name calling. I pointed it out and that resulted in
2. this edit where there is no attempt at apology or explanation.
3. This edit is outing me and I am now feeling threatened.

I am not amused to say the least. This is all over the other editor's insistence that a soccer rivalry is the biggest when no such claim can be found to support it. The discussion where the name-calling occurred and appeared to be resolved more than a month ago and then restarted a few days ago. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And now breach of copyright and another attack with the first edit at User:Earthquakes925. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this account is vandalism-only and should be blocked indef. Second of all, the third diff is stalking and needs to be deleted by an Overisghter. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Electric. However, it seems like the user never received a block warning - am I missing something here? Theopolisme _TALK 00:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)Exactly what I was going to say. Add complete lack of WP:COMPETENCE to the reasons for block, too. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Been observing this. No block yet? Also - User:RealEarthquake...possibly related? Already been warned for their crummy conduct at any rate. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

RealEarthquake is likely the puppeteer and Earthquakes925 is the sock, based on duck. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have indeffed User:Earthquakes925 and blocked User:RealEarthquake for a week. If the disruption resumes (either from another sock, or after the expiration of the block) let me know and I'll take care of it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Oversighted the edits, and  Confirmed that User:Earthquakes925 and User:RealEarthquake are the same person. - Mailer Diablo 12:26, 9 July 2012 (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.

Edits like this should lead to longer timeouts. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

xkcd #1079 "Colorado" Vandals

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've seen a few anonymous users editing Colorado to match xkcd's joke article. The edits are being rolled back, but IP bans are probably in order. 68.80.18.61 has been seen rolling back a rollback of previous vandals' edits. IPs include:

• 68.80.18.61
• 71.196.165.102
• 24.231.221.65

The page has been semi-protected. --11rcombs (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need to play "Dynamic IP whack-a-mole" with blocks if the article has been semi-protected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough; archiving. --11rcombs (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2012 (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.

Obvious sock is obvious

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.

---

Shaiatsu (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

First edit is revert in WP:ARBPIA area [133] second edit adding some obscure userbox [134],on the next day adding some large chunks of wikitext [135].--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 09:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Context, please? Whose obvious sock is it? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

One of problems of WP:ARBPIA area that it have many banned editors and it full of socks , such behavior that this user shows is not typical for new users but typical for socks.So this user is abusing multiple accounts.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

But which user do you think specifically is socking? Theopolisme _TALK 13:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue have been discussed here [136]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Most likely it's NoCal100 (I blocked one of his socks a couple days ago, and this one bears striking resemblance), so I'll go take care of it now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:44, 9 July 2012 (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.

Stalking

Stalking is being hit by one or more editors intent on getting a reference to "gang stalking" in against consensus. A checkuser last year on Commons revealed that Elizabeth Blandra (talk · contribs) and PeaceFrog71 (talk · contribs) are the same: [137], and both are here, along with an IP that's doing the same thing. None of them apart from Elizabeth Blandra (a presumed good-hand account) are even pretending to avoid 3RR. Since I've reverted their edits, might someone else do the honors? Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked the frog and the IP. I've warned Elizabeth that any editing by her while the frog is blocked will be construed as block evasion and lead to an indef. Nyttend (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think an SPI is really necessary in this case, as it easily passes the frog test. Acroterion (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

:-) Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If Elizabeth Blandra (talk · contribs) is not allowed to edit, why is she not blocked as well? Bobby Tables (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that I didn't say "don't edit again"; I said "don't edit until the end of the block". Think of it like a ban. We don't block someone with problematic histories when they're not misbehaving, and in the same way I won't block Elizabeth because she's not made any edits that I've considered disruptive. Since the frog and the IP were edit warring, I blocked them, but I see no evidence of the Elizabeth account being misused locally: she only edited once (to start things off) and in a way that isn't by itself sanctionable. This isn't to say that I would actively oppose another admin who blocked the account, but I don't personally think that a block is needed. A single step over the line and I'll levy an indef, but until/unless then I don't see the point. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Please restore stable precision wording at WP:AT

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.

---

Over the last day or two there has been considerable editing to the WP:AT policy page. Some of it is improvement, but an area of disagreement is the wording of the precision criterion under WP:CRITERIA. Because I've been asked[138] by an involved administrator to not restore it myself (since when is restoring stable wording "edit warring"?), I request that an uninvolved administrator review the situation and restore the version of that wording which was stable for many years, through July 7, 2012.

The stable version of that wording is:

• Precision – Titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously.

The key part of this is the but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously clause, the stability of which is proven by its existence in the wording going back at least as far as November 13, 2009, and included in all versions since through this one on July 7, 2012.

There has not been sufficient discussion to even begin to show that consensus no longer supports this important wording, though a few active editors seem to believe that to be the case.

Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware that warning an editor that he was edit warring constituted involvement. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Your involvement is established not by the warning you gave me today, but by your editorial comment yesterday which accompanied an undo of wording that in meaning matches the stable wording: "does not match current or historical practices on WP" [139]. And telling an editor who is restoring stable wording that he is edit warning is also an indication of biased involvement, when no similar wording is given to anyone else involved. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As I stated at the relevant AN3 thread, I'm an uninvolved admin and about to block you for 24 hours; I have to handle something IRL that will keep me away for about a half hour, and unless there are objections I'll do it then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Without actually looking at the substance of the dispute, wouldn't a promise not to do any further reversions obviate any cause for a block? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC) following is after an edit conflict with the below: Actually, I just did look at the substance of the dispute, and my head hurts. Incidentally, this edit[140] is what makes Sarek ostensibly involved - he reverted to the new wording as an editor participating in the content policy discussion, not as an administrator keeping order. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with a block here. B2C is being civil and not overreacting, he has immediately stopped reverting when he was warned, and the fact that he started this thread makes me believe that he will not continue to revert. Therefore, a block would be not be preventative at this point. In addition, he appears to have a valid point. His preferred wording has been stable for several years. Unless there is a discussion that I've missed, I believe that the stable version should be reinstated until a discussion shows a consensus for an alternate wording. Someone made a bold change, B2C reverted, now it's time to discuss. -Scottywong| prattle _ 19:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I so promise. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Scotty, note that there was indeed discussion, in which B2C participated -- but then he decided to keep reverting anyway, despite 4 editors disagreeing with him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2012 (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.

Single-Purpose Account: Jamesmadison2012

Looking at the WP:DIFFs from user Jamesmadison2012's contributions—soon after the account was created—points to a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account as the edits are disruptive, drawing attention to Business Capital Corporation (B.C.C.) and UA Banc or (www.uabanc.com).

The WP:DIFFs:

• Binary options trading platform
• Binary option
• Financial betting
• Betting exchange
• Electronic trading
• Investing online

—JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Obvious SPA is obvious, but I don't see a need to block just yet. If he continues now that he's received a harsh warning, then he can be indeffed. And if he comes back, we can blacklist the site, which I see is currently not linked anywhere on Wikipedia. But you do need to let him know that you started this thread. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

User pages redirecting into article space RfC

there is sufficient confusion over the issue to warrant a RfC here, there is also a small amount of related comment at AN Penyulap ☏ 19:53, 9 Jul 2012 (UTC)

user:Koavf : POV edits on Western Sahara related articles

Hello,

I would like to report a series of POV edits by Koavf on Western Sahara related articles. For reminder, this user was previously blocked 20+ times for the same behavior.

The facts:

• WikiProject Western Sahara [141] : persisting (+ edit warring) on adding SADR's flag (example) despite the fact that this issue was previously discussed on Wikipedia:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote and that the decision was to avoid putting any flag to keep the page neutral (June 2012) ;
• Western Sahara conflict : persisting on adding a POV/Propaganda/non-sourced photo montage to the article : File:Moroccan police brutality with Sahrawis.jpg (June 2012) ;
• Western Sahara : persisting on adding a photo of the "Army museum of the SADR" as related to the culture of the territory [142] (as POV as adding a photo of the Army museum of Morocco) (June 2012) ;
• Sahrawi refugee camps : removal of -not in favor of Polisario's claims- sourced content [143] (January 2012) ;
• Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement : adding a section [144] despite the fact that there is a clear controverse upon these facts and that he got no consensus through discussion (January 2012) ;

This behavior is clearly nonconstructive and this user doesn't seem to be able to contribute neutrally. I ask admins to take a measure (1RR or topic ban on Western Sahara related articles) for Koavf ; this seems to be the only solution, unfortunately.

Regards,
Omar-Toons (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My two cents These allegations are petty and ANI is not really the appropriate venue for them, since Omar-Toons refuses to post to talk pages for some reason.

He is under the impression that Wikipedia:Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote is somehow germane to WikiProject:Western Sahara's page. I have no idea why.

Why he would want to remove photographic evidence of human rights violations (File:Moroccan police brutality with Sahrawis.jpg) from Western Sahara conflict is beyond me, but his allegation that it's "POV/Propaganda/non-sourced" is easily solved with FFD. If he thinks it should be deleted, nominate it for deletion. If it shouldn't be deleted, then it's obviously appropriate. Removing it from the article is POV.

The claim that "persisting on adding a photo of the 'Army museum of the SADR' as related to the culture of the territory [145] (as POV as adding a photo of the Army museum of Morocco)" is obviously untrue as the museum is a cultural center of a part of Sahrawi culture and the Polisario Front are the legitimate representatives of the Sahrawi people according to the UN. He refuses to use the talk page to discuss this and in reality, he is edit-warring against Dzlinker, Sean.hoyland, and myself who have all restored the picture (note that he may be 197.247.3.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), but I don't know.) Several users keep on reinserting this and he refuses to address their concerns.

As I pointed out in my edit summary to Sahrawi refugee camps (which Omar-Toons didn't link), this figure was simply mentioned by one person at one meeting 15 years ago. I don't see why this is supposed to be accurate polling data for today. Again, he refuses to use talk.

I didn't add a section to Morocco–United States Free Trade Agreement, I simply restored deleted content (which is--funnily enough--exactly what he accused me of doing in the above accusation.) If there is controversy, then please add to that perspective: that's kind of the whole point behind NPOV.

I don't know what he's hoping to accomplish here, but he's never posted to talk about any of these issues nor written me directly in spite of the fact that the top of the page says "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." The fact that this is all he can come up with over six months' time is paltry and ridiculous. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I was about to comment that while there was consensus to remove the flag from your project page's infobox, it appears that its mixed with various uses of it around the project, including your userbox Template:User WikiProject Western Sahara. I checked the history and it was Koavf who added the image saying to editors that you can use a different userbox if you disagree. That was dated back into 2011, so there appears to be an issue if there is repeated content restored in one particular favor. — Moe ε 08:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true This page has nothing to do with the WikiProject. It was about Western Sahara's infobox. You are mistaken. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Also Userboxes don't have to be NPOV... I don't understand your point. Have you seen WP:UBX and all of the stumping that userboxes do? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reason this had to do with the project at all, was because the first link Omar-Toons posted was a WikiProject page you changed. I was commenting that not every page on the project exactly conformed to flag over map or vice versa but that was before I noticed you were changing several of the maps in exchange for the flag, including things like the userbox. Of course not all userboxes are uncontroversial, but a project userbox is about as benign as one could get. Obviously there was a discussion and/or consensus prior to you making changes like using the flag, as apparent by several editors reverting you. You were reverted before on the same page by a different editor a year ago because it wasn't neutral. Why not discuss this change like this rather than forcibly edit it in, or take another vote if the other one is stale? — Moe ε 08:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Userbox Because {{WSWP-Member2}}, {{WSWP-Member3}}, and {{User WikiProject Western Sahara 2}} exist. Anyone can create a userbox—if you don't like the one I made, make one you like. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is more of a talk page issue, I suggest taking it to Koavf's talk page. ⇒TAP 09:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the whole basis of my comment seems to have been missed that this is a content dispute which isn't being discussed but rather revert warred. — Moe ε 09:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

These are content disputes that need to be resolved through discussion. I have some of the Western Sahara articles watchlisted so I see the usual nationalist back and forth slow burn edit warring and drive by IP POV pushing that goes on. The topic area seems somewhat similar to the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area (although with a lot less stupidity, bigotry and dishonesty via sockpuppetry). The 1RR restrictions that have been placed on all articles in the I-P conflict topic area have helped to reduce edit warring somewhat (see Template:Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement). Perhaps they would help here. Maybe discretionary sanctions are required to deal with nationalist editors who have difficulty following policy too. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but : These are content dispute I agree, but the fact is that Koavf is well known for being a POV-pusher on these articles and that he refuses to pursue what was previously agreed on, thus it becomes WP:DISRUPT. --Omar-Toons (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The outcome was that Western Sahara article infobox shouldn't have flags. Has Koavf complied with that outcome, yes or no ? If not please provide evidence of the disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

wait, should I understand that edit-warring and refusing a consensual decision that was taken for the "article X territory" doesn't count for the "portal X territory"? Should I understand that the NPOV should be discussed for each article?

Otherwise: should I consider that, since the NPOV decision wasn't made for each Palestine/Israel article, I am free to add any POV content for articles that weren't explicitly discussed?

Sorry, but the only fact is that Koavf refuses any decision and pushes his POV as long as article's content doesn't match his own opinion. Letting him doing so is absolutely not a decision that will keep WP as neutral as it has to be.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You should learn how to use talk pages help here: Help:Using talk pages— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzlinker (talk • contribs) 06:20, 1 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Sorry Omar, I'm easily distracted. You said "refuses to pursue what was previously agreed on" but didn't provide evidence that supports the statement. Given the scope of the agreement and looking at the article history I think that statement is inaccurate although I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Those kind of statements undermine your case even if you have a valid point (e.g. messing with flags anywhere causes problems). Yes, I think a consensual decision that was taken for the "article X territory" doesn't count for the "portal X territory". If you think the scope of the decision should be changed wouldn't it be better to work to get it changed through the normal process rather than trying to impose your interpretation ? Regarding edit warring, obviously an editor can't edit war on their own and none of these issues are going to be resolved through edit warring no matter which side of the 3RR bright line the rate of reverting places it. All of these edits may look highly problematic to you but they don't to me. They look more like the normal back and forth that goes on when articles deal with controversial topics and people don't use the talk pages or dispute resolution. If you want the edit warring to stop, why not stop reverting, open discussions and try to get consensus as the WP:CONSENSUS policy says ? If editors ignore the talk page and/or continue to make edits without having made genuine policy based arguments that contributed towards an actual consensus (i.e. they don't follow the policy) or they are making unambiguously disruptive policy violations, your complaints will have far more weight and you can take it to the edit warring noticeboard. I probably sound unsympathetic but despite Western Sahara having one of the largest minefields in the world, which will be a lot of fun when the Vibroseis trucks finally get to those areas any decade now, the topic area here isn't really a mine field at least for me, compared to the I-P conflict topic area. It's not too bad, there isn't that much edit warring or POV pushing. There's probably policy based common ground but no one will know until the talking starts. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

Are you telling me that a discussion about neutrality is only related to a single article? Then, for each article related to Western Sahara we will repeat X times the same discussion : is adding the flag of one side of the conflict but not the other "neutral"? Or should we first look to previous discussions on which the consensus is that it is not neutral?

In fact, here, Koavf deliberately makes POV edits, since he participated to the previous discussions and then is aware about the fact that adding such flag is POV. I would assume good faith if it was an editor who isn't well known for making POV edits on WS related articles since 7 years, but it is not the case.

n.b. the diffs are given on main request msg.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you made a statement that is verifiably inconsistent with the facts. How you deal with that is up to you but the outcome of the discussion doesn't support your interpretation in my view.

• Scope = "This is a poll that would decide whether the infobox in the Western Sahara article should include the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), or Morocco's flag, or none of them. The survey is being carried out under Wikipedia's Dispute Resolution guidelines."
• Wikipedia_talk:Western_Sahara_Infobox/Vote#Results - "I think it is clear Option 3 is the least controversial one, so should be retained."
• Option 3 = Option include no flags. "This option would include in the infobox information about the territory without information about the concerned parties of the conflict (Morocco and SADR). Benefit will be no false information will be provided according to all readers, drawback will be that all involved parties may consider information is missing."

There have been similiar discussions in the I-P conflict topic area that generated important guidelines for things that had been argued and edited warred over repeatedly for years and years e.g. WP:WESTBANK & WP:Legality of Israeli settlements. The scope is clear and they apply to hundreds of articles. The guidelines are implemented to the letter with no wiggle-room and compliance is monitored (by me for example). Editors who don't comply can and have been sanctioned but only on the basis of what the guidelines actual say. Perhaps you should initiate similar discussions so that the outcomes can be implemented right across the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is not WP:DISRUPT, it is WP:POV... You choose! --Omar-Toons (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

And now, Koavf refuses to discuss the NPOV and removes the POV template, claiming that Wikiprojects aren't subjected to the NPOV policy (he implicitly recognizes then that the project (and his edits) doesn't respect the NPOV. This is clearly a WP:OWN case. --Omar-Toons (talk) 02:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Right The template explicitly says that it's for articles. Note POV symbols on (e.g.) Wikipedia:WikiProject Abkhazia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Anarchism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism, etc. etc. WikiProjects are not obliged to display neutrality in all of the symbols represented on them. This is ridiculous badgering. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

And it goes on... against the RfC! --Omar-Toons (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus So you're going to ignore this then and tacitly admit that I'm right? I frankly don't think that you understand the consensus process here: what exactly is "against the RFC"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The RfC was on what we say about the flag of western sahara, because the status is disputed. The result of the RfC required balanced treatment rather than plastering pages with the SADR flag (and no other) even though, in reality, a different flag actually flies over Western Sahara. Your edits have been incompatible with that RfC. I'm particularly disappointed by the notion that you're allowed to do that because "This namespace doesn't have to adhere to NPOV". bobrayner (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well Did you read what I wrote above? What is your response? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read much of the preceding, but at the very least the OP is the pot calling the kettle black; please tread carefully, this is a very old dispute. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

A "very old dispute"? Please, the aim of the RfC is to find a solution and some users don't seem to be able to accept that their POV wasn't adopted... It is not a "very old dispute" anymore, it is a deliberate POV-pushing acting against the RfC. --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a very old dispute. Did you really think you were the first Moroccan to get the idea into his head that he was right and every last other person outside of your country was wrong? This noticeboard discussion over here, for example, predates the very existence of your account by almost three years, and even that discussion was woefully tardy. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

And of course, Koavf doesn't care about the fact that the version he opposes is sourced by 3 references, he just reverts other user's edits and removes the POV tag, putting his preferred version despite that. --Omar-Toons (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to the slow edit warring on the article I have fully protected Western Sahara for a week. Please continue discussing issues at Talk:Western_Sahara#Lack_of_neutrality rather than edit warring. SmartSE (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to be around in a week (or however long it takes) to properly deal with this mess, then? …or is it going to be once again some different admin doing the very least he can for this matter? ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm an admin not a dispute resolver. Often admins do resolve disputes, but there is no obligation for us to do so. WS is on my watchlist and so I noticed the edit warring. I decided to protect it even before I knew about this discussion. Unfortunately I don't have the time to look into the issues, but I hope my actions have minimised disruption and encouraged discussion. SmartSE (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously there's no obligation, because nothing has ever been done about it. :p Protecting a page for a week won't do anything at all for this issue, you're just wasting your own time and ours. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

For the case of the article Flag of Western Sahara, there's no "dispute to resolve", the only thing there is that Koavf [146] and Reisio [147] don't accept the fact that their PoV isn't the one adopted by the RfC and that they persist on modifying the article by deleting what can be considered as a "weigthing" : the official position of the Moroccan side.

On the other hand, note that they removed the PoV tag while it shall not be removed until the dispute is resolved (written on it).
--Omar-Toons (talk) 01:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputes If you don't write on talk at all or for several days, then there is no dispute. If your m.o. is simply to revert, you're just edit-warring and there's no template for that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)