Administrator Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has invited six editors, who opposed me in a bitter dispute at "Metrication in the United Kingdom#Proposed removal of the whole Asda story" recently, to participate in an WP:ANI against me, to put forward their views as to whether I should receive a topic ban from that very article (diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]), with, I believe, the intention of influencing the outcome of that discussion in a particular way contrary to the provisions laid out in WP:Canvassing. Note: he did also invite two other token editors to contribute, one who was a mediator in a previous dispute in that article and one who was involved in a previous dispute in that article, but who hasn't been active on Wikipedia for several months (contribs: [7]). He did not however invite any of the editors who have supported my edits or made similar edits to me in the articles in question.

This breech is all the more serious because:

• a) he is an administrator
• b) of the aggravating circumstances; that if he is successful with this, I will lose my freedom to edit.

Note: I did first warn him about this (diff: [8]), but he rejected my concerns (diff: [9]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I notified all the folks at the most recent DRN as well as AQ who moderated a dispute on the same topic related to this user as well as the person identified as aligning with DeFacto. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I wrote; but none of the other editors who have also worked on that, or any of the other articles now also implicated in that action, in the meantime. -- de Facto (talk). 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrongful in Toddst's actions; they complied with policy. As he was not acting as an administrator in this situation, that is not an aggravating factor. Also, Wikipedia does not do due process, so that is not an aggravating factor either. If DeFacto continues this tendentious behavior in his interactions with other editors, I will block him as a separate action apart from the topic ban being discussed above. MBisanz ^talk 17:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. This discussion should be closed already. Calabe1992 17:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing predominantly amongst those known to be likely to support your favoured result is in direct conflict wiyh WP:Canvass. -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now asking another administrator, one involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action, to support him here (diff: [10]). So I warned him about that too (diff: [11]), and he reverted that warning with a snide quip (diff: [12]). -- de Facto (talk). 17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be blunt, but lay off. Calabe1992 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I'd prefer for this thread to be left open, at least for a little while, for review of my action and for discussion of any possible compromise.

  I looked at the above thread yesterday and considered indeffing DF, but decided to see if things would improve if the topic ban was enacted. That total misrepresentation of a situation above (JamesBWatson actually unblocked DF, yet DF calls him an admin involved in the action against me who might sympathise with his action) was, however, the final straw. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

de Facto's responses so far to your block aren't the sort that should lead to anyone unblocking. Dougweller (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I was writing a careful and detailed comment about the problems with DeFacto's editing, but I have just turned to Special:Contributions/DeFacto, and found that HJ Mitchell has indef-blocked the account, so I won't bother. I will say, though, that I think HJ Mitchell was quite right. For some time it has been a matter of when DeFacto would be blocked, not whether, and I agree that the time has come. DeFacto has been given as much AGF and ROPE as anyone could reasonably expect, if not more, and has persisted in his/her disruptive and time-wasting nonsense. Enough is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• JamesBWatson's remark about "when" is on the money. DeFacto had more rope than anyone ever needed to hang themselves. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this not the sort of situation where a topic ban would be helpful? DeFacto has been here a long time with only one previous minor block prior to this mess. I agree that their behaviour has not been acceptable and has been a big timesink recently but would a topic ban on anything to do with metrication (including commenting on talkpages) be a way to keep them on the straight and narrow? Polequant (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC) (eta) I realise this was being discussed above when DeFacto shot themselves in the foot with this thread. I guess what I'm getting at is whether the disruption is limited to metrication issues or if there are other problems as well. Polequant (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge WP:Competence issue. It wasn't limited to metrication. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Their recent responses don't show any evidence that they've spent any time or effort trying to understand why they were blocked—largely I think because the necessity hasn't even occurred to them. Such a lack of perception and self-awareness, wilful or otherwise, is impossible to reconcile with working in a collaborative environment. EyeSerene^talk 12:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just surprised that someone who's been here for 6 years and only been blocked the once before has been indeffed without things like RFC/U or evidence of previous ANI threads etc. If they were as bad as you are saying then I would have at least expected something prior to all this. Either they've slipped under the radar for a long time (which is certainly possible as wikipedia is normally crap at dealing with "civil" disruption) or their behaviour has got worse recently. This seems like they were at least willing to think about what they were doing, and between that and getting indeffed their only action was complaining that there had been some canvassing going on in the topic ban discussion. They clearly aren't correct with the canvassing but I can't see that it was particularly disruptive to start that section.

In general it doesn't work very well expecting people to apologise for their actions. If the block had been for a week then that shows that what they are doing won't be tolerated. It would give the opportunity for them to modify their behaviour when they come back without being forced to make what they might think are humiliating retractions. They shouldn't have to agree with the reasons for blocks and why people are getting frustrated with them so long as their behaviour changes. Polequant (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's mentioned a need for them to prostrate themselves, that would be silly. Rather, the issue is that they've become so fixated on their notion that the block was an "abuse of power" that there seems to be no likelihood of them even acknowledging, never mind addressing, the real reason they were blocked. While that 'it's everyone else that's the problem, it's not me' attitude stands, unblocking would serve no purpose because we'd just see the same problematic behaviour repeated. EyeSerene^talk 14:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People lash out when they feel threatened, which isn't an excuse but a reason at least. A week block together with a broadly construed topic ban from metrication is a pretty severe penalty and has the potential to at least keep someone who has contributed considerably. Unless the majority of their contributions haven't been helpful I don't see why it wouldn't be worth trying. I don't care what someone's attitude is unless it colours their editing and in that case it would be easy enough to block again. Polequant (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this editor is that they seem to be unable to grasp one of the basic concepts here: Wikipedia is a team effort that necessitates consensus building and the acceptance of consensus. That they haven't been blocked earlier is because such disruptive tendencies don't automatically lead to blocks--they are not easily templated, and require a measure of judgment on an administrator's part that can be challenged in ways a block for vandalism can't. I'm glad to see that Todd and others stuck their neck out, and I'm glad to see that for the most part HJ's decision is supported by the community (including me). Drmies (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And to think this all started over some damn strawberries :( --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse block: In case it wasn't clear from my comment above. It's clear that this editor has some serious issues interacting in an unstructured environment and a profound lack of self-awareness that has led to protracted disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block I reviewed the situation by skimming a couple of pages, but just browsing User talk:DeFacto is sufficient to show that the reports above are correct: the user is currently unable to participate in a collaborative project. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine block Nobody Ent 17:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block The more I see of this user's behavior, the more I'm surprised it was tolerated this long. We need to get out of the business of hosting this kind of volunteer on Wikipedia. --Laser brain (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block: Serious WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality here. The proper response to being blocked for violations isn't "Helllp! I'm being opppressed!!!". It's "My apologies, and I won't do it again." Do people lash out when they feel threatened, as Polequant says? Indeed they do ... and we do not condone that behavior on Wikipedia. As far as that table goes, by the way, I don't think it's overly objectionable on the face of it, but it has no business being on a user talk page, which is supposed to be for discussion on how to improve the encyclopedia, not as a forum or a billboard. Ravenswing 05:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DeFacto is requesting on his talk page that an uninvolved admin take a look at the actions of Drmies and Laser Brain on his talk page. He believes he is being threatened for the table he has added to the page. Drmies and LB believe it should be removed because it violates WP:NPA. Any help would be greatly welcomed. 174.252.59.29 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to reviewer(s): the current table on the talk page has had much of what appears to have been the objectionable material redacted. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite having had WP:NOTTHEM pointed out to him, DeFacto still totally fails to understand that any unblock request needs to address his behaviour, and not the behaviour of other editors. The material he keeps adding to his talk page is thus not relevant to any valid unblock request. It seems to me that Drmies and Laser Brain were each perfectly justified in saying that DeFacto's talk page access should be removed if he again added this irrelevant material, but he is continuing to play games and make a point and I therefore see no reason why this removal of talk page access should not now be implemented. - David Biddulph (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A major part of DeFacto's behaviour that continually frustrated other editors was his ubiquitous presence. He was always there. Other editors, either through choice, or probably the pressures of real life, came and went. DeFacto didn't. He was always there. No matter what others said, at any time, if DeFacto disagreed, he would respond with more of his ongoing wall of words, forever insisting that consensus had not been reached, and demanding that other editors go away and find more evidence to disprove what he, and increasingly only he, believed. On his Talk page he has continued this behaviour. He has continued posting, in this case a catalogue of what he saw as evil sins against him. I posted there, suggesting that he give himself a holiday. He politely thanked me, and just kept posting. Sadly, I saw a distinctly different and ironic meaning in his heading "In desperate need of help please" to the one I'm sure he intended. DeFacto sees no problem in his behaviour. I doubt that any of us here can convince him that there is a problem. He must remain blocked because of the damage he has done (and continues to do), but we cannot reasonably expect a sudden acceptance of fault and reversal of direction. He should also be blocked on his Talk page. I strongly doubt that he can stop doing what he is doing voluntarily. A block there (presumably of some limited time - maybe a month or two) will be good for both Wikipedia and Defacto in the long term. HiLo48 (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Action: by both Drmies and LB in the context of this editor's recent history. However as one of its primary subjects, (see above) I didn't find the history matirx very objectionable. We all know that NPA doesn't apply to discussing admins. I also think it's time to close the block review above and put an end to the drama around this editor. I'm sure Defacto will want to have any closing admin's action reviewed as well. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that DeFacto would also like to have the usage block on his/her own talk page reviewd. DaftEco (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure how you would know that, or why you would think that ... except, that based on the timing of the creation of this account, it's similarity in name (DaftEco = DeFacto), and the fact you only are editing related to this issue - with no apparent understanding of any of the policies surrounding it - I have blocked as per WP:DUCK (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EncycloPetey (talk · contribs) had a content dispute with WP Editor 2011 (talk · contribs) on the Book of Habakkuk article over WP:ERA dating. However, EncycloPetey's last edit was to revert WP Editor 2011's "illegal changes" and then to immediately block WP Editor 2011 for edit warring for 48 hours, presumably so that EncycloPetey's edit would not be reverted. 48 hours just seems a bit much when WP Editor 2011 has had no previous block, and has (from what I can tell) never been warned about edit warring in any capacity. The blocking administrator also failed to leave a block template on the blocked user's talk page, so the blocked user likely has no idea how to appeal their block, or even that they can do so.

During the past two days, each of them made two reversions back to their preferred versions, each of them explaining on their talk pages why they made the edits, so I'm at a loss as to why WP Editor 2011 was edit warring, and EncycloPetey was not. Looking at the article's contribs, it looks like somewhere around a third of the edits to that article have been made by EncycloPetey, so the user doesn't appear to be WP:UNINVOLVED by any means.

I'm not involved in this dispute, but an editor with administrative privileges using their tools during a content dispute to maintain their preferred version and block the other editor concerned me, so I would greatly appreciate it if administrators could take a look at this and review both WP Editor 2011's block and EncycloPetey's actions. I left a message on EncycloPetey's talk page ~15 hours ago asking the editor to clarify why they made this block, but as of posting this message, EncycloPetey has not edited further and their contribs show relatively infrequent editing, so I wanted to bring this here so that this could be reviewed in a more timely manner and the block adjusted if doing so is appropriate. - SudoGhost 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP Editor 2011 and EncycloPetey have both been notified. - SudoGhost 18:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.... I've unblocked WP Editor 2011 as this is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call to unblock. Entirely agree that this was a textbook case of an involved admin. Does the unblock put this report to bed? In my view it would be good to hear from EncycloPetey before we do. I'd want to hear that he accepts this was a breach of WP:UNINVOLVED, and an undertaking to be more careful in future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on Kim - unblock was entirely correct, and it would be beneficial to hear from EncycloPetey on the matter. GiantSnowman 20:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that WP Editor 2011 was simply lying in his edit summary "Undid revision 481432198 by EncycloPetey (talk) since this was the same change made against the rules by this editor on 12 Dec 2011". [This http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Habakkuk] was the condition of the article before EncycloPetey made any edits on 12 December. As you can see that version of the article contained both era styles, which is clearly against the MOS, which calls for one style per article. EP simply made the article consistent throughout. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How was he lying? This was indeed "the same change" that EncycloPetey made on 12 Dec 2011, there's nothing untrue in the edit summary. They were both "making the article consistent", and WP Editor 2011 was making it consistent with the first version of the article. Not saying WP Editor 2011 was correct, but this was not some critical disruption that caused for an immediate block by an involved administrator, it was a content dispute. Nor was it "illegal", which is an odd choice of words for an administrator to make in an edit summary. - SudoGhost 22:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the "against the rules" part. However, I don't think it was a matter of lying so much as a misunderstanding. - SudoGhost 22:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[I've re-opened the discussion, which seems as yet unresolved--if an admin made a wrong and "involved" decision this board can comment. If this gains no more traction, it can be closed in 24 hours, maybe. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Apparently this issue isn't resolved. EncycloPetey apparently doesn't think this is an WP:INVOLVED issue, stating that "all my interaction on this particular issue has been in the capacity of an administrator". I don't see how blocking an editor for having a content dispute with you isn't a violation of WP:INVOLVED, and this statement seems to suggest that this problem will potentially repeat itself in the future. - SudoGhost 05:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did that edit go? But also, the thread was just about the block itself or not? It's not like ANI can make someone listen short of community sanctions. Is it thought that this is serious enough for escalation? - 124.148.170.131 (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He undid it a few minutes later with an edit summary stating "undo my edit - I had not spotted that the issue was closed before I had a chance to respond". --64.85.220.19 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator using their tools in a content dispute to block an editor to win an edit war for an escalated period of time when the user has no previous blocks, without warning the user or so much as placing a block template on their talk page? To top if off, that administrator makes no comment that this will not happen again, quite the opposite, not seeing that it is even an issue by egregiously misinterpreting their actions there as somehow not being WP:INVOLVED? Yes, I do think that this is a serious issue. - SudoGhost 14:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reviewed this, and agree that it was a clear-cut case of an involved admin using his tools in a dispute. Indeed, it would have been a poor block if he hadn't been an involved admin. Whether it should be escalated further depends (a) on whether EncycloPetey takes on board the opinion from multiple people that this was a serious misuse of his admin tools, and agrees not to do it anymore, and (b) on whether this is a one-off, or a pattern of behavior. The first has definitely not happened yet; I don't know about the second. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may, I've known 'Petey for a few years and have never seen him abuse admin tools, so I think the comment about a pattern of behavior is unwarranted. I've only ever known him to be a polite and dedicated editor. I have not reviewed the particulars of the case, so I can't comment on it. I would say, however, that there's clearly no evidence that EncycloPetey is going to go on a rampage abusing the tools, so can we tone down the rhetoric here, give him some time to reflect and respond? From someone uninvolved, the discussion here, on his talk page, and at Talk:Book of Habakkuk#BC/BCE could be perceived as piling on. Just a kind reminder to WP:AGF. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this a general comment, or did you indent this correctly and it's a response to me? If you re-read my comment, I didn't say it was a pattern, I said I didn't know if it was a pattern or not, and that would affect whether it should be escalated or not. I also said we should wait to see his response. You've misused AGF to mean "don't criticize someone who did something they shouldn't have", and the "tone down the rhetoric" comment, if made as a general comment, I find puzzling (I don't see anyone in this thread making any rhetorical excesses), and if directed at me, I find insulting (I probably took that in a way it wasn't intended) (because I guarantee I'm not making any, and I have not made any comments about this anywhere other than here). --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bring it to ANI to WP:ABF, but out of a concern that the block should not have been made, and that this behavior might continue, especially because EncycloPetey's last comment on the matter suggests they don't see anything wrong with their actions. - SudoGhost 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reviewed and would also agree that they were definitely involved. I can see no way that edits like this and this could be considered admin actions, hence they are involved.

Looking at recent blocks there's another that stand out as problematic. User:EncycloPetey blocked User:Drphilharmonic at 04:27 on 17 Jan for edit warring on Brassicaceae despite them apparently being one of the people that Drphilharmonic was in an edit war with - for example this edit by EncycloPetey which he made with the edit summary "Undid revision 471764899 by Drphilharmonic (talk) - incorrect grammar and incorrect hyphenation". This is clearly a content dispute not an admin action and was made at 22:51 on 16 January well before the block.

I am also worried somewhat by the block of User:86.164.252.184 which must have been for edits to Chlorophyll. Unless there's some previous edits with a different IP I don't think edits like this warrant a block for spamming especially as the IP was not warned and EncylcoPetey just used the default undo edit summary so the IP could find out no information in the edit log either as to what they did wrong. Even when EncycloPetey blocked they did not leave a message to explain the problem.

EncycloPetey has only made seven blocks in the last 11 months and I thought it unfair to review further back given the time scales involved. Personally I find 3 of their 7 blocks to be at least debatable and think this is a worrying proportion It would appear that EncycloPetey has a different understanding of involved than the wider community and, at a minimum, I'd like to see them admit this and make an undertaking to not act in the same way in future. Dpmuk (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that this might happen again, and if there's a pattern of this then I certainly think it needs to be addressed. I think the easiest and most satisfactory way to address this is by EncycloPetey acknowledging and understanding that this was an inappropriate use of the administrative tools, and promising not to repeat this. However, as of their last comment on the matter, they apparently don't think that this was an WP:INVOLVED issue, which would seem to suggest that they would have no intention of stopping this behavior, which I think is very problematic. - SudoGhost 03:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EncycloPetey still hasn't edited, but I think some sort of comment by EncycloPetey would be needed before this could be considered resolved. - SudoGhost 02:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/François Sagat's Incubus an editor, User:Trevj relisted the debate despite it shows, as far as I can see, a clear consensus for keeping the article, so I reverted his action with the edit summary "relisting based on what? I see a clear consensus... anyway no objection to a relist-action if made by an administrator" but the AFD creator re-reverted my action as "inappropriate" so, could an administrator assess whether there is or not a consensus in the discussion and eventually relisting with an adequate rationale? Thanks. Cavarrone (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the relisting comment, I think the consensus is clear there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a breakdown of the AfD process; what does one do with a discussion running at 4-0 (The IP is discounted) keep where the 4 keeps have been effectively refuted (werldwayd, cirt), devolve into rote ARS dogma (Schmidt), or dismissed as a WP:VAGUEWAVE (Cavarrone)? Tarc (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note; the relist is restored and I have entered an opinion to delete. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that removing a relist by an uninvolved editor of longstanding is quite unusual, and this departure from usual practice should certainly not have been done by an editor who participated in the AFD. As Tarc argues here, it was certainly quite reasonable and accurate for Trevj to conclude the discussion was unsatisfactory for establishing consensus, and relisting was called for, particularly since none of the keep !voters could provide any reliable sourcing for the article or any explanation for the unavailability of such sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear , if mine was an unusual practice, it is clearly more unusual that a non-administrator user put a relist in a discussion that shows 5 valid keep-votes (the IP is not a spa-account) against 0 and doesn't provide any rationale for that. In my revert-edit (and here, too) I just requested an administrator's action, and if the same thing would be made by an administrator I've had nothing to point out. That's all. Cavarrone (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarc, that's not how I read the discussion. I read Schmidt and Hullaballoo's arguments as being roughly equivalent and the other points as being weaker, that said I considered it pretty damn unlikely to close as anything other than keep or no-consensus (which in this case results in the same thing).

That said now there are additional comments the relist should stay. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only was the resisting appropriate, Schmidt's fillibuster should earn him some community finger-wagging. The bit with linking to his own shortcut is particularly egregious. Is this normal behaviour for this editor? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Psst! Some of us remember the Aaron Brenneman who also used to regularly link to essays in deletion discussions. It's linking to an essay to further explain one's argument, and shouldn't be considered "egregious". We all do it, even you. And at least MichaelQSchmidt is linking to something that xe xyrself wrote, rather than the useless and counterproductive boilerplate block voting using the same pre-prepared wording from somebody else that the schools discussions came to involve, if you remember. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ahh, good times.
  While my opinion is that linking to your own essay is wildly disingenuous, we're a broad church I suppose. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see how MQS did a filibuster: he made a !vote, and when it was challenged explained himself in some detail, as appropriate for an expert in the general subject . That doesn't prolong the process. I consider the relisting appropriate--if the comments seem to inadequately address the issues, a relisting can correct the situation, and give the opportunity for others to make better comments, as Tarc did. And fwiw, MQS has now suggested a merge with the director. A complain here was inappropriate--the better course is to wait for the result, and, if one disagreed, then use deletion review, which is intended for the purpose. (or wait a few months and then renominate, which is considerably easier) DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  As per my response to Uncle G, I'll simply duck my head and say (with respect) that we see it differently, then. My reading of his edits is almost identical to that of Hull, that they are mostly content-free walls of text. If I were closing that, I'd have disregarded almost every word as pure "filler" and having no strong policy-based arguments. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though the consensus seemed clear, I have no problem with the relist, as my careful and reasoned and polite responses are what they are. It was not I who repeatedly insulted others with whom he disagreed, as a lack of civility is never helpful in a discussion. And yes, I am fine with a merge and redirect to the filmmaker... but THIS is not the forum to offer !votes, insult others, nor re-argue the merits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • It's been pointed out to me that Mr. Schmidt's statement that "It was not I who repeatedly insulted others with whom he disagreed" is rather plainly counterfactual, given comments he's made elsewhere like "shouting and insults reminiscent of a bully in a 2nd grade schoolyard. However, when one considers the source of those insults, they may be dismissed as sour grapes", "only to have been rudely filibustered by its nominator", and "pointedly ignore its other parts if doing so serves a personal agenda" are far more accurately characterized as impolite, insulting and uncivil than any of the comments he inchoately alleges (without any specificity) have been directed at him. He plays the spurious victim far too easily, like a schoolyard bully who complains whenever his victim fights back. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a sidenote in not being able to see inside the relister's head to determine his reasoning, I do agree with Cavarrone that the relisting was not per the instructions set for doing so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From that page, relist a debate when "it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy." Spot on relist. Lots of words <> policy argument. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It all stems down to how the relister judged the discussion's policy and guideline supported merits and, in not knowing the relister's mind, it might be that he felt as you do. That others may have felt points were well made and simply offered "agreements per" rather than restate the arguments they supported in their own words, while not as helpful, is certainly allowed and is something a closer will take into consideration. It could just as easily be argued that consensus was reached. That said, and as all we are doing here is discussing the fine points of something done, undone, and redone, I propose we close this ANI as moot and let the AFD conclude as it will. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ongoing repetition of the claim that the relist was somehow unusual or aberrant in policy terms is without foundation. Here, for example, we can see an AFD with a stronger case for consensus being relisted without generating objections [13]. There was something quite odd about the insistence of so many of the !keep voters in disregarding both the copyvio problems and the article's extensive, virtually exclusive, reliance on promotional sources, to say nothing of MQS's peculiar sourcing practices (eg, identifying a press release as a staff-written article in an industry trade magazine ([14], ref5), which at least borders an an outright falsification or his most peculiar argument that an unexamined list of Google search results (not even involving the key term) somehow justifies the article's characterization of the actor as an "iconic" figure, even though the term appears to be parroted the actor's own PR copy. Personalizing disputes rather than dealing with them in terms of the applicable policies and guidelines is neither helpful nor appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Personalizing disputes rather than dealing with them in terms of the applicable policies and guidelines is neither helpful nor appropriate" is a reason why your own response here to re-argue your AFD comments or cast asperisions on me is decidely unhelpful to the issue at hand. The relisting is done, is accepted and is essentially a closed issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to close this ANI as moot and not requiring adinistrative action. 20:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• I just noticed that nobody bothered to clue in Trevj that this relist was causing all this drama. There's not a peep about it on his talk page. I was waiting to hear his rationale for it. I will say this though, any relisting that at first glance doesn't seem to be justified by the numbers should be followed up with a relisting comment to keep the participants from scratching their heads wondering why the AFD was relisted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the notice on my talk page. If it's of some interest, I'm able to offer the following comments:

  1. The discussion as at 11:47, 14 March 2012 was relisted by me because the keep !votes didn't appear to be based on any policies and were countered by follow-on points (although I admit to not reading such arguments in depth - bear in mind this was simply a procedural relist, not a close)
  2. I didn't feel that I had a personal opinion either way on the article content or its discussion (hence was uninvolved) and consensus did not appear to be reached (because of the follow-on points) despite the discussion being >10 days old: further discussion seemed to be the logical way to proceed
  3. The reasons for not providing any rationale in connection with the relisting are that
     • The tool (I guess it must be Mr.Z-man/closeAFD) doesn't require/prompt for one
     • The only mention of additional relist reasoning being required at WP:RELIST is Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation [...] (my emphasis)
  4. The discussion has evolved significantly since its relisting (probably due in part to its being brought here), demonstrating the validity of the relist was greater than that of the keep !votes at the time
  5. {{Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} includes {{Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss}}, which clearly states You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. This was an oversight on the lister's behalf, who would be advised to pay more attention in the future.

  Anything I've missed? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreadstar made a big to-do about disappearing himself from Wikipedia in early February and nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation. He is now trying to tarnish my anonymous editing and that of others with a sockpuppet tag. I think he's on some sort of power-trip. Perhaps a neutral administrator could talk to him?

Thanks.

• Inappropriate creation of a category
• Inappropriate use of rollback and here

76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering if the witchunt [15] idea is misplaced.
  • This is a complete fabrication, "nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation." I am very familiar with that case. This comment alone should lead any editor to investigate the IP.
  • The IP's edits to What the Bleep appear to be in the face of editor agreement.
  • The IP is concurrently posting on the Fringe Theories Notice Board against Dreadstar,
  • Looks to me like the witch hunt is not against the IP at all but against Dreadstar.
  • I also worked on What the Bleep at the time Science Apologist was working there, and whether the IP is a sock of SA or not, his manner is very similar and I believe an SPI to clear the air is/was warranted.

(olive (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Let's just say that Dreadstar's approach to sock tagging absent CU confirmation is highly inconsistent [16]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mathsci has removed the IP's post on the Fringe Theories NB since my original post here.(olive (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
• I have no idea whether the IP is a sockpuppet of SA (the location seems wrong). His editing at the moment seems disruptive and his double posting on WP:FTN was inappropriate, hence the removal. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• With the caveat that I know nothing about SA, * "Disruptive" in this case could easily be someone new who's behaving normally when accused w/o CU, yes? and * The rollback of the sock-puppet tag removal seems inappropiate. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think SA is a banned user, but other than that, it seems Dreadstar and the IP are engaged in a content dispute here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaron, I'd be surprised if the IP is a new editor, given the way he introduced this section (with reference to an old case, but with a misinterpretation of it designed to promote a particular view of Dreadstar). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account 71.174.134.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same editor as the IP, who has been editing with the first IP for over 6 months (on topics related to fringe physics and cold fusion). In the past SA has edited from NY not Boston. However, stylistically these editors seem indistinguishable from SA. Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an account, just another IP. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SA/jps/VanishedUser314159 frequently used hyphenation: good-or-bad, not-so-up-to-date, etc, in talk page comments and that seems also to be true of the IPs. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As for the stylistic similarities, both the IPs and the vanished/banned user seem fond of the word "pandering" in edit summaries [17] [18]. But that correlation alone is too weak for me to draw conclusions. Further investigation is warranted, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word "tenor" metaphorically to describe a lead proponent [19] [20] is a bit more striking. Other similarities include "move up" [21] [22] and an interest in serial comma consistency [23] [24]. Ending with "perhaps?" is also a less-common similariy [25] [26]. Unfortunately, this kind of evidence proves nothing according to Dreadstar, so I'm curious what he'll come up with as evidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the above is intersting enough, true, and I'll eat my hat if Slim's wrong about this person... but... but... I'm always concerned when we (collectivly) get our DUCK hunting caps on. Even if this does turn out to be the SA irritant, shouldn't we be taking the tiny extra effort to be polite and do all the steps properly? Looking at the tag reversion by Dreadstar, particularly with the totally-true "get some CU" edit summary that he reverted over, I find that I'm not comfortable no matter who it is. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last ipsock of SA is here for comparison: 128.59.171.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My first impression here is one of a distinct air of WP:BOOMERANG on both counts.

1. On the content end, it would appear that the talk page discussion shows a consensus which does not favor the 76.IP editor's preferred version. see: WP:CON policy for further information.

2. On the administrative end, I'm not seeing anything actionable in regards to Dreadstar. I suspect that SlimVirgin has been fairly accurate in her observations. I've never been much of a sock hunter, and I do see a distinction between using an IP vs. a registered account - that said, I'd rather see some definitive CU data to the circumstantial "A looks like B" type of diffs that so often fill up these threads; but I do concede the similarities others have noted. — Ched :  ?  08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the ipsock I mentioned, SA used another Columbia IP 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [27]. That was discussed at WP:AE, after which one year blocks were enacted. The timing of edits might rule out SA in this case. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or they might not. There is enough time between then to travel from NY to Boston, never mind electronic ways of appearing to have done so. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also have the impression that SA/VanishedUser314159 is active again using IP socks.

The Columbia IPs he used until they were blocked in Dec 2011 are:

• Special:Contributions/128.59.169.46 - blocked dec 20 2011
• Special:Contributions/128.59.169.48 - blocked dec 21 2011
• Special:Contributions/128.59.171.194 - blocked dec 10 2011
• Special:Contributions/128.59.171.184 - blocked dec 23 2011

And I suspected this one too, but it is currently not in use:

• Special:Contributions/140.252.83.241 used until 30 august 2011

--POVbrigand (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sequence of edits is a bit strange.[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] [37][38] SA here acted in concert with the IP. Also they agreed on the talk page of the article.[39] Similarly in the discussions about Energy Catalyzer on WP:FTN and its fourth AfD. However, I am not sure these show anything conclusive. There does appear to be a considerable overlap of subject matter between the 4 ipsocks of SA and the IP here. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this remarkable similarity between the currently discussed IPs 76.119.90.74 and IP 71.174.134.165, both at the same geolocate.

76.119.90.74 - Talk:Cold fusion - 18:36 12 March 2012 - explanation that "prove" is not the right word [40]

71.174.134.165 - Tom Van Flandern - 18:57 12 March 2012 - "prove is not the right word" [41]

--POVbrigand (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that witch hunting was what Wikipedia was like behind the scenes. This discussion has been very educational. I will not be contributing to Wikipedia anymore. If this is the normal way IP authors are treated who are trying to fix the encyclopedia anybody can edit, maybe it would be a good idea to stop asking readers to edit with those ratings at the bottom of the articles. That's why I started changing things here. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rant Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Sockpuppet_investigations clearly states only blocked accounts should be tagged; editors are directed to file an WP:SPI if they suspect something is amiss. This fad of editors defacing IP editors talk pages without bothering to file an spi should be stopped in its tracks per it's fucking rude. Someone please indef Dreadstar (and any other tag crazy editor) until they agree to knock it off. Wikipedia: The encyclopedia where anyone can get treated like shit. Nobody Ent 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is Template:Ipsock for? This "fad" seems to have a template that's been around for years. Without looking at the merit of Dreadstar's tags, he's just mistagging the IP's.--Atlan (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means that all editors should be treated fairly whether they are admins or IPs. Bringing an editor to ANI and to the Fringe NB in the middle of a content discussion which is why we are here, and mischaracterizing the admin and the content discussion is not appropriate editor behaviour. That's the fundamental issue here. Secondary to that, is the possibility that IP may be a banned user.(olive (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Clearly, an anon IP like 76 who exhibits enough knowledge of wiki to bring an ANI and a noticeboard complaint this fast is a former user with an agenda, particularly when it parallels a previous pattern of a blocked user. This is no newbie getting bitten, it's someone who lacks the integrity to get a user name and work according to the rules. And Dreadstar is an experienced admin with a good nose for trouble. IP disruption of articles and topics does need to be dealt with quickly; there's no need to hide behind anonymity. Montanabw^(talk) 15:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm a long-term IP editor, and I read AN/I pretty regularly for the lulzy drama. I guess I just lack integrity. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that we're supposed to rely on "noses" here rather than any form of clearly presented evidence that others may judge by themselves. Has Dreadstar's nose received any official endorsement? Has he ever been a CU, for example? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a years-long vendetta between Dreadstar and Scienceapologist/jps/etc. I don't think an editor who wrote this (admin-only, see deleted contributions) has any business sleuthing out SA's alleged socks. Skinwalker (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I fail to see how appropriate use of admin tools and then later recognizing a writing style when someone is trying to sneak back equals a "vendetta?" The issue I see here is an unwarranted ANI on Dreadstar by an anon IP who has in fact been engaging in disruptive editing in an area that is a familiar haunt of a user who had his account deleted by Dreadstar. Sometimes someone is in the right and someone is in the wrong. I see from that link (just what I can read, the public bit) that another admin previously also had to address SA's behavior, at least, account deletion would suggest that. As for the rest, we all have bad days and sometimes aren't the perfect diplomat in our phrasing (just today, I had to hit backspace several times to remove some words from a comment elsewhere prior to hitting "save page." I did, fortunately). Montanabw^(talk) 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. The link I gave was to the mainspace article ScienceApologist, not to his user page User:ScienceApologist. Dreadstar did not delete SA's user account. He created a extremely derogatory mainspace article about SA, then deleted it. I see that you are not an admin and therefore can't read the deleted text, but it is quite a bit more than a minor diplomatic failing. Skinwalker (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If he really did that, why hasn't ArbCom desysopped him for "conduct unbecoming of an admin" and all that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask the arbitrators. During the discretionary sanction arbitration I submitted detailed (e.g. TLDR) evidence of Dreadstar's behavior[42] that highlighted this incident. They ignored it completely. Skinwalker (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why SkinWalker thinks the arbs ignored his evidence. They posted a decision on that case after a lot of evidence was presented, SkinWalker's included.
• My concern is that an editor who didn't get a result he wanted out of an AE is trying again, here, which seems a lot like poisoning the well.
• The issue here, to reiterate, is that an IP whose edits were against talk page agreement [43] then brought one of the editors who disagreed with him here, posted about that same editor concurrently on the Fringe Theories Notice Board, while posting patently false information about that editor. This is not about a newbie editor who was attacked as he suggests for his editing. Its about an editor who may have used Notice boards to gain an advantage in a discussion and against an editor he disagreed with. That doesn't sit well, in my opinion.(olive (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

This IP editor has admitted to being the "home address" of one of the year-blocked edu IP socks of SA [44]. The 69 editor has edited as recently as Feb this year, despite the block on the edu address. Based on the use of the word "flapdoodle" [45] [46], I think it probable that the 69 IP was SA as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Congratulations, officer, turns out that house you serached w/o a warrent did have drugs in it!" Forgive the hyperbole, but can I please just say "!!" and have it jog our collective memories? Am I alone in thinking that voracious DUCK hunting does more harm than the (actual) socks? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, there's no warrant needed to look at someone's contributions on Wikipedia. They're all public to begin with. On the other hand, you might want to protest against "banned means banned" instead, but this is not the venue for it. (And if you still doubt the self-admitted socking, the 69 and 128 IPs participated in the same AfD, although they had the integrity of not double !voting [47] [48].) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - A trout to any that think this is a "newbie". Close this joke of a thread already: Dreadstar is not on trial here. What a shame this is. Doc talk 08:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, this is not a newbie, and the thread is only stoking drama. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is pretty low-volume "drama" really, and "stoke" implies "fire" which I'm not seeing. Just some people stating their opinions. But, yeah, close away. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Dreadstar is not on trial, the thread boomeranged to the submitting IP and therefore I think it is legitimate to discuss whether or not the IPs are used by a banned user. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• based on my comments above, I don't see anything more to be done here and would support a close.(olive (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• 69 has also tag teamed with 128 in a revert war [49] [50] [51] [52] [53]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is all pointing to a continued ban evasion with different IP socks, can we start a CU for IP 69 ? I would then add another IP with the same geolocate as 69 to that case. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been gone a lone time now. I thought I would check in at some places to see if my break made a difference, then I see this. If you think SA is editing against his ban, do an SPI and check. Quit all the guesses and defending a friend and let the checkusers do what they know how to do. This is past silliness already. I'm sorry, but after reading all of the above about this, I felt the need to say, give it to the checkusers to see who it is. It's not rocket science here, it's the rules, remember! The IP was upset and said things not liked, not true maybe, don't know. But IP's are allowed to edit here and this doesn't make anyone want to edit when they can be accused of being someone else without a reasonable doubt. Just wanted to say what I thought before I leave. I sure hope you all decide though to get this checked out and stop the duck hunt at this point. Have a good day! --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

propose to close the topic here --POVbrigand (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent copyeditor, I often see potential anachronisms of the form "X is currently . . .", and have commented on one here. Is it not high time WP barred such constructions, which have potential to be a serious blight on the project? Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Precise language; note that Wikipedia:Time-resistant grammatical forms redirects there. Dru of Id (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks. So there is the option of tagging offending statements with the template {{as of}}, which generates a patrollable list that is capable of regular review. I will make use of this in places where the problem can't be edited away. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bjenks, as right as you are, the MOS is not enforceable via blocks or bans, at least not currently. I personally think that anyone using the phrase "going forward" or "having said that" should be banned from the community of mankind. You could propose an edit filter that blocks the word... Drmies (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, an edit filter might be appropriate? grins, ducks, runs... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish more people used {{as of}}; it can make it much easier for us to ensure the encyclopædia is up to date. bobrayner (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worthwhile to have a bot run through articles looking for certain phrases that lack the {{asof}} template, weed out the false positives, and then have the bot run through the appropriate articles and add the template? I dunno. --64.85.214.132 (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly, before I get blocked, Fastily has to be one of the worst admins I've ever seen. He'[s going around tagging images that were uploaded by the copyright holder (or files sourced to the US Govemrnent) and released either into public domain or under multilicense GFDL and creative commons as "missing permission". [54], [55], [56], and according to his deletion log, he's deleted as many as 88 pages/images in a span of about 5 minutes [57]. There's no way in hell any human being reviewed all of these appropriately. Fastily should be desysopped and blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment too much here, since I was a dick to Fastily the only time we've spoken, but - an edit summary of "p" is not acceptable, everything else aside. And holy cats, that's a lot of very fast deletions. Can someone who's not pissed in Fastily's wheaties like I have ask him if he's using a script? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not me then, because I keep seeing instances of clearly inappropriate deletions by him. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen at Night Ranger's talk page, Fastily recently made two pretty bad deletions of cat pages NR created, so yes, NR has a personal gripe here. But more to the point, it seems like Fastily's consistently brought to ANI in regards to bad/questionable deletions and/or overall deletion practices. The biggest concern is simply that he doesn't seem to respond to them at all—his response usually amounts to a one-liner and nothing more. Swarm ^X 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working too fast, making too many errors, and not communicating well with others is exactly what got Betacommand/Delta blocked by ArbCom after many years of that exact behavior. I would hate to see Fastily go down that road, but this pattern of behavior is sadly close to what Betacommand used to do right up until the most recent ArbCom case. It would be nice if Fastily instead modified his own behavior and worked better on improving his accuracy in deleting files and on his ability to communicate with other editors regarding his deletions, as well as his ability to admit and correct for his own mistakes in this area. If that doesn't happen, this will not end well. --Jayron32 04:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the above:

• I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them.
• I have restored the two categories in question as a result of [58]. I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama.
• The tags on File:History of New England.pdf and File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg were indeed mistakes. I do, however, stand by the tag on File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg (it is a derivative work with no obvious copyright information on it's sources). I would also like to note that I transferred over 500 files to commons over the last two days while screening them all for potential copyright problems. Being human, I do, and will make mistakes regardless of how careful I am. However, I'm sad that NightRanger didn't first mention these tagging errors on my talk page (in which case they would have been promptly corrected and we wouldn't be having this discussion), choosing instead, to come to ANI seeking vengeance.

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not this again. I raised a similar issue with him here and it even caused me to seek clarification of the CSD criteria and so indirectly led to change in the CSD criteria (after discussion). After all the whole point of the source tag is to help prove that the file is usable here. If this can be done another way then it is not necessary to have a source but I'm not sure Fastily agrees with / gets that idea. I've reverted the tagging of the PDF as it clearly has an appropriate release on the last page so what it's source was is irrelevant for determining copyright status.

What I found more disturbing however is their seeming lack of willingness to discuss people's concerns. Most queries are responded to with a very short link to a sub page. I was lucky enough to get a whole sentence in reply, but that was it, which is hardly in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopaedia. Disturbingly I've not seen any replies or changes in edit habits despite a multitude of recent ANI threads. I'm sure they do lots of good work, and they may even be correct in most cases but this lack of discussion is very worrying. It suggests rightly or wrongly that they are unwilling to listen to others or to change their ways if that is what consensus suggests they should do. I really do think this is at the point where an RfC/U may be appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Fastily's post which I edit conflicted with. If this was a one of then it may be wikidrama but it's not. Concerns have been raised several times both here and on your talk page. I'm unsure what better things you have to be doing than discussing your edits with editors that have genuine concerns and certainly aren't trolling - discussion is an essential part of a collaborative encyclopaedia and failure to discuss is a serious problem. Your reply also suggests that you didn't even bother to read this thread properly. You mention restoring two categories yet the original complaint was about your tagging of pages. Dpmuk (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, funny you should say that, I haven't linked anyone to User:Fastily/E in weeks. Furthermore, if you'll look at my recent talk page archives, you'll see that I actually make an effort to discuss with users. Believe it or not, unlike Betacommand here, I am of the belief that I serve the community, and am therefore not deaf to its complaints. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to expand on what I'd posted based on your reply above. To be honest I have no real opinion on whether you're "deaf to complaints" or not but it does seem obvious to me that you often come across, possibly inadvertently, as being that way. Even if you had taken the concerns raised here on board a comment like "I have better things to do with my time on Wikipedia than engage in drama" does not suggest you had - it suggests (to me at least) that you'd restored the categories as the easiest way out rather than because you'd taken the concerns on board. Personally I'd have been happier to see you leave them deleted and explain why then simply restore and leave such a short statement. This was also how I felt when you replied to my comments I reference above - I was left with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you hadn't taken on board what I'd said and you'd just replied in the manner which you thought would give you the easiest way out.

Given the amount of actions you undertake I honestly don't think your error rate seems too high and I will also admit that in many of the areas you work we don't have enough admins and so it probably can be hard to prioritize replying fully to all queries versus dealing with backlogs. Bearing all that in mind I do honestly think what we have here is a communication issue rather than and significant problem with your actions (and this is why I suggested an RfC/U to try to get you communicating). If you honestly do take note of every error you make and take on board the concerns raised then it would appear that if you could give that impression as well as acting that way we may avoid many of these issues. Hope you don't take any of this the wrong way. Dpmuk (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that so many nasty people play 'no talkies' and when someone who is rather busy is brief then it looks bad, whether it is or not. The speed of editing and error rate doesn't matter. If people want to avoid mistakes the best way to do that is to do nothing at all. He seems to have a page to tell people what they want to know, and it seems more helpful to refer someone to G10 or whatever on that page than say nothing at all when deleting a page. Shrug. Unfortunately no talkies seems allowed by policy in many circumstances, but Fastily doesn't seem to adhere to the no talkies idea as much as some other editors. He seems chatty but busy. Penyulap _talk 05:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. We had a very lengthy and on-going discussion on AN that you basically made a couple of comments on and walked away while people continued to discuss you for days without any further input from you at all over several raised issues. You even went so far, in early february, to claim a complaint about you from December was "extremely old" You then further went on to self-impose a restriction that didn't remotely begin to address the concerns being raised (in that they were from entirely different areas of admin work) and called all further complaints moot. I'm not really sure how that makes you not deaf to the community's complaints.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links for the lazy, please? The archives are huge. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You took part in the discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily. The last comment he makes to that thread is, as far as I'm considered, a lie. He walks away at that point, and people continued to discuss him for 3 weeks before it got archived with no further input from him. Look for the part where you asked me for diffs, I provided them, and Fastily's response was "all of these are extremely old", despite one of them barely being 2 months old. He then says "I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P" with a cute little emoticon no less. Despite the concerns being raised not only being about his closes, but his deletions he declares all concerns done because he's going to self-impose a restriction that he no longer does closes. Not sure how that addresses the bad deletions at all, but as far as he was concerned they were a done deal because of that. So again, not really sure how this is an indication that he's listening to the community's complaints. It looks like quite the opposite.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which it appears he's now done again. Despite on-going discussion and direct statements being made to him, he's continued to edit without returning to this discussion. I don't really see any evidence that Fastily is listening to the community's concern and instead appears to be saying whatever he feels is necessary at the time to appease the community and then walking away. As I mentioned before, the Deja Vu is very strong.--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just my take on the three files cited above: File:History of New England.pdf was a useless PDF ("wikibooks") compilation of existing Wikipedia articles, falsely tagged as uploader's "own work" and public domain. Could have been speedy deleted on sight as a copyvio (done so now). File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg is legit copyright-wise (obviously user-created), but has no foreseeable encyclopedic use; nominated at FFD now. File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg seems legit to me; it's a user-created, synthesized computer rendering of a song that itself is obviously PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the speedy of File:History of New England.pdf as it's nowhere close to being an "unambiguous copyright violation". I've just checked again and all the appropriate attribution and licensing information is in the pdf so this is simply a case of wrong tagging rather than a copyright infringement and we don't speedy for getting the tags wrong. I'd agree that their seems little point in hosting it given that it's just a copy of our articles but I'd suggest restoration if the user asks for it (e.g. if they want to use it as a historical snapshot). Dpmuk (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if the copyright had been fixed (and I agree it would have been fixable in principle), it would still fall under WP:CSD#F10, "files that are neither image, sound, nor video files, are not used in any article, and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use", so it's rather moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well true, they'd have to come up with a good reason for keeping it, and I think that's unlikely to occur, which is why I didn't restore it. Given that most of the work do is in copyrights I pointed it out as I didn't want people to think I'd missed something when I commented above. Dpmuk (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion regarding the deletion rationales of the images or the speed at which they were deleted, but I do have concerns about Fastily's deletion log entry for the two sockpuppet categories as "Attack Pages". It looks to me (at least from the comments on Night Ranger's talk page and in the block log) like Kumioko was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, the socks were tagged and the populated categories were created. I agree that they could constitute attack pages of the accounts tagged were not Kumioko's socks, or if the category pages had personal attack language in them (did they?), but otherwise a sockpuppet category doesn't seem to be anything like an attack page. I'm also a little concerned by Fastily's responses when Night Ranger requested an explanation: basically providing non answers, answering questions with questions and then deleting the thread with the edit summary "troll". NR's subsequent response to that was not appropriate, but at least a little understandable. I'd be angry too. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: In Wikipedia, socks are sock unless they have admin friends. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which admin are you talking about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet categories are not "attack pages" if the socks are correctly tagged. If they were, deleting them under G10 is a no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

correctly tagged being the key phrase here. :-) — Ched :  ?  12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So here's the background. I blocked Kumioko for a week (archived thread here) for abusing multiple accounts. Night Ranger (talk · contribs) decided to put sock tags on all Kumioko's accounts and related IPs. Some of these tags were wrong (claiming incorrectly that there were checkuser blocks) but all of them were unhelpful, IMO. Floquenbeam removed the tags, but Night Ranger edit warred to restore them. I left Night Ranger a note asking that he stop doing that, and he responded by putting a "retired" banner with "FUCK WIKIPEDIA" on his talk page, and bunch of "BLOCK ME"s on his user page.

OK, fine, just someone getting frustrated.

So then he returns from "retirement" to put an image of a penis on his userpage. I leave him another note telling him I understand he's frustrated, but to please not do that.

He responds by putting another penis image on his userpage (animated, this time) and announcing plans to remove all the "banned" templates from all banned editors' userpages since apparently they're "unhelpful", and indeed starts doing this. I happen to think that some of those banned templates probably are unhelpful, but Night Ranger obviously disagrees and was clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

I understand he was frustrated about the G10s (and he was right to be, sockpuppet categories are not attack pages, especially in the case of sockpuppet categories for editors who were actually sockpuppeting) but this disruption is absolutely not the way to deal with that frustration, and since he's ignored repeated requests from me and other admins to please just behave maturely about this, I believe a block (1 week in this case) is quite reasonable under the circumstances. 28bytes (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and he's just sockpuppetted to evade the block. I've indef-blocked the sock but I'll leave Night Ranger's at a week in hopes that he'll stop digging. 28bytes (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a discussion going on at AN...or maybe Village Pump? Anyways, a discussion about not using the banned user templates or, if they are used, not to delete the rest of the userpages/user talk pages as well? I seem to remember this happening, but I didn't stick around to see what the outcome was. Silverseren^C 07:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a couple of related discussions at WT:BAN. 28bytes (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 24.132.2.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Misternumber1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (per the duck test)

Would someone like to apply the banhammer to this IP/account please? Despite multiple warnings their appalling edits are continuing. Yesterday's examples include this addition about crime in Amsterdam blaming it on foreigners and "loverboys" (I kid you not!), similarlly more about foreigners and crime here, this addition to a film article ranting on about an area used for filming blaming crime on foreigners again and even using Stormfront as a source. Then to cap it all off we've got this addition they've been trying to make at Maryam Hassouni's article for over a month. "Although critical acclaim she had won the Emmy Award. Many Dutch citizens did find the timelife of her acting career and getting the Emmy award too fast. Hassouni barely played then in Dutch Movies & already gained international famous without stepping into Hollywood USA. For winning the Emmy Award she was a guest on Dit was het nieuws, but could barely underbuild her questions threw her career randomly" - really???? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Tangentially; I'm not at all defending these horrid edits) The term "loverboy" is much more sinister than its light-hearted name might suggest - see De Wallen for some details. 87.113.82.247 (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I still don't understand what, if any, difference there is between a loverboy and a pimp though. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Loverboys typically are younger men who get girls to fall in love with them and then put them to work. At that moment they are pimps, but it's the stage that precedes it that makes the loverboys. It's a pretty serious issue--so serious that I don't understand why Loverboy links to some hair band. Drmies (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(shudder) Actually, they really weren't bad at all. Doc talk 13:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the initial subject, since the IP is still adding unsourced xenophobia to Amsterdam, would anyone like to do the necessary please? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it isn't really our place, perhaps explaining to the editor that an Emmy Award for Best Performance by an Actress isn't actually a lifetime achievement award will help? Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I had totally missed this--I just ran into the IP's xenophobia in Amsterdam-Noord (which isn't a Garden of Eden, but I wouldn't blame it on immigrants from Ghana). The IP is blocked, and I'll re-read this thread again to see what else needs to be done. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The account is indefinitely blocked: a talk page full of warnings about uploading unlicensed content and BLP violations, coupled with an edit history full of soapboxing and xenophobia--this user is not here to improve the project. I had blocked the IP, which appears to be static for 72 hours. As you know I'm no geek, so I don't know if there's an autoblock that would apply to the IP as well, if that's where the editor was editing from. If the IP needs to be blocked longer (or again, after the block runs out), please take appropriate measures, and feel free to drop me a line. Hackney, I think you've been all over this, for which I thank you; do keep me posted. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do a mass rollback of everything an editor did? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You get the mass rollback tool - its in my monobook - importScript('User:John254/mass rollback.js') - Ask User:HJ Mitchell as I have seen him use it with a degree of regularity. Youreallycan 15:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I borrowed a mass rollback line from that script but can't find added functionality. I'll ask HJ. Thanks You, Drmies (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It shows up at the top right on an edit page/diff - I will do it for you if you like - whose edits are they? Youreallycan 15:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think mass rollback works with Firefox browsers since the wiki software upgrade a few weeks ago, in case that's the issue. I used to have it, but not since the upgrade. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've used mass rollback with Firefox in the last few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass rollback works with my Firefox. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the correction. Maybe it's something in my configuration then. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And mine. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just be careful with the amount of available RAM on your computer as initiating mass rollback quickly shoots up RAM usage and loads every single rollback action on new tabs. It gets kind of annoying especially when doing 500 rollbacks at a time.—cyberpower ^Talk_Online 22:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mass rollback will only rollback the number of edits showing on the current contributions page. In my case I only show 50 contribs at a time, so it's not too much of a load. Rollback last 50 edits, open next 50 edits, rollback...and so on. This is also a nice check for me to make sure that all of the edits are problematic and I'm not reverting too far back in the history. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've only used it once so far. What I do, and find very easy is I drag the open Wikipedia tab out to a new window, have my list show as many contributions that need to be reverted and then hit rollback all. I then drag the open Wikipedia tab back to the Firefox browser which leaves all of the action complete tabs open in a separate window allowing me to easily close them all at once. The drawback of such a mass rollback of over a 100 rollbacks is it slows the computer and hogs RAM as it tries to load those pages at the same time.—cyberpower ^Babble_Online 00:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually three different mass rollback scripts; User:Splarka/ajaxmassrollback.js, User:John254/mass rollback.js, and meta:User:Hoo man/smart rollback.js. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do they do differently?—cyberpower ^Soliloquize_Online 00:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the John254 script performs a mass rollback of all edits on a contributions page. The Splarka allows you to rollback all edits made by a user in a given amount of time (default 7 days). It has an option to selectively rollback edits. The Hoo man script works similarly to the John254 script, only it allows you to mark rollback actions as bot edits (requires sysop flag) and it also permits custom rollback edit summaries. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use Hoo's script fairly often and it's very well done and works fine in FF 3.6.x Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 20:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone(s) who has more time than me take a look into a brewing problem on a number of different user talk pages. I happened to make a comment on User Talk:Guy Macon (a user I tried to assist in the past) to User: Hengistmate about distinctions (or the lack thereof) between admins and non-admins, and ended up finding out that there's a whole mass of less than pleasant interactions between at least 5 editors here. I see 2 very experienced users (User:Andy Dingley and User: Biscuittin unhappy with each other (note, specifically, User Talk:Andy Dingley#Undiscussed deletions). I see User:Hengistmate using that discussion as a claim that Andy Dingley is incivil (at least), at User Talk:Borealdreams#Don't let it get you down. (which looked like this before Borealdreams removed part of it on the advice of Guy Macon). Hengistmate is partly upset and Andy Dingley because of a less than civil conversation that occurred at Talk:Tank#Country of Origin. and lead to this discussion on Andy Dingley's user talk; later, he became more upset because Guy Macon warned Hegistmate but not Andy Dingley (see [this since deleted discussion on Guy Macon's talk page, and the followups on my talk page at User Talk:Qwyrxian#Your recent message. and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I was wrong.. Guy Macon also made claims of bad behavior against Hengistmate at User Talk:Borealdreams#March, 2012.

I have no idea what's really going on here. I don't know if everybody's acting badly, and all need to go to their separate corners. Or if just some people are acting badly, and they need to be warned more strongly and/or sanctioned. Or maybe just these people have different interaction styles and aren't dealing well with others. I'm not even sure if all of the above discussions are actually "really" connected.

Of course, the inevitable question is "what admin action are you requesting"? I am not in any way recommending sanctions against anyone. I'm simply seeing a bunch of tinder that looks set to explode, and I'd rather stop it now if there's some way to do so, since, at a first glance, all of the participants seem to have something positive to contribute to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination right now to figure it out myself; thus, I throw it open to this board to see if anybody (including the principles) can make sense of what's going on and find a way to diffuse it. I'll go notify the lot of them now...give me a minute though.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scorecard of the players:

I have chosen to not have any further interactions with Hengistmate. His actions have not risen to the level of stalking, but he has inserted himself into several discussions where I am trying to resolve a content dispute, all critical of me and none of which he had any previous involvement with. My opinion is that he just wants to pick a fight.

Borealdreams is an editor with a self-admitted COI (he sells a product that is marketed as an alternative to lightning rods) who went into full attack mode when I questioned his COI editing. He offered an "olive branch" and expressed a desire to make a fresh start. which is why we both self-deleted several comments about each other. My opinion is that he means well and has the potential to create a good article on lightning protection, and I would like to assist him with this if he is willing to let me do so. He has misbehaved, but appears to have a genuine interest in improving.

User:Wtshymanski‎ (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) was the first editor Borealdreams went into full attack mode on. Wtshymanski‎'s sarcastic style greatly contributed to that conflict. Wtshymanski is an experienced engineer and he is correct both on the technical issues and on Wikipedia policy issues in this matter.

Andy Dingley is another experienced engineer who is correct both on the technical issues and on Wikipedia policy issues on the matter of lightning rods. I don't know anything about his conflict with Hengistmate on the topic of military tanks.

User:OlYeller21 (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) is an uninvolved editor who worked with me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Lightning rod in a previous attempt to resolve this mess.

I don't know anything about Biscuittin. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one note about the above, Guy Macon: you cannot choose to "not have any further interactions with Hengistmate", and then bring up complainsts against him to another editor as you did in this edit (which is after you told me you were ceasing interaction on my talk page). If the issue is too stressful or unpleasant for you to deal with, you've got to leave him alone entirely; otherwise, you're essentially creating a situation where you can complain about him but he can't raise complaints about you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I participate at WP:COIN regularly and came across this issue when Guy Macon reported the COI here. I dealt mostly with Guy Macon and Borealdreams as the other involved party (Wtshymanski) only left one message on in the discussion and did not respond to a request from me. I reviewed the situation lightly and in my opinion, Guy Macon has attempted to be neutral with both parties. Please note that I haven't read every single edit from all three editors. It would take several hours to understand as the format of most discussion is dismal to say the least. As Guy Macon said, Wtshymanski has been sarcastic and condescending in his responses which seems to have offended Borealdreams who then responds very negatively with clear incivility. I can provide diffs if needed but I didn't plan on writing a report at the moment.

At COIN, I attempted to mediate for both all involved editors, as an uninvolved editor. Borealdreams seemed very interested, Wtshymanski never responded, and after the controversy quickly reignited, I bowed out. Borealdreams and Guy Macon, from what I understand, then came to an agreement and redacted several of their comments at COIN to attempt to get a discussion going. I saw that as a good sign and was/am hopefully that their discussion prove productive.

After that, I have had no interaction with Borealdreams, Wtshymanski, or Guy Macon. The only interaction I've had with any party listed in this ANI report, is here with Hengistmate. When I was looking over the case at COIN, I noticed this edit by Hengistmate which was very confusing, to say the least. I then asked who Hengistmate was at the COIN report, to see what the involved parties thought of his involvement, and Guy Macon replied that "Hengistmate appears to be an editor who is still upset over an unrelated issue. Otherwise uninvolved." After reviewing Hengistmate's edit history, he appeared to have no involvement so I moved on. I won't venture to guess what his involvement is because realistically, I haven't the slightest idea.

That's a summary of all the information I have. I'll watch this conversation and respond if necessary but as far as my interaction with Guy Macon goes and from what I've seen of his interaction with others, it looks to me like he's just attempted to neutrally participate in some inflamed debates. I've had no problems with him at all. OlYeller21^Talktome 03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon is not an admin, but he has more capabilities than the run of the mill editor. Guy Macon righteously presents himself as neutral, incapable of breaking any rules. Rather, he frequently conducts himself on these pages in a passive-aggressive manner, violating the assumption of good faith required of and deserved by all editors, and decides who deserves 'lessons' and what those lessons should be. He chooses which rules apply to himself on a case by case basis. Although he regularly deletes criticisms from his talk page, Guy Macon is often involved in confrontations similar to this. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do try to stay neutral, but my attitude is the exact opposite of believing that I am incapable of breaking any rules. I have mild Asperger's syndrome with many of the behavioral and cognitive traits that are typical of Asperger's, and because of this I welcome corrections to my behavior. Qwyrxian in particular has shown himself to be a trusted guide, and when he offers a correction (as he did above) I embrace it and do my absolute best to follow his advice, which I am very thankful for. I would like to invite anyone else who is reading this to examine my behavior and to offer corrections where needed. Positive reinforcement - telling me when I did something right - helps too. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@76.190.228.162, can you please sign into whatever account you use that has dealt with Guy Macon, please? Your 3 edits on that IP don't show any interaction with him. OlYeller21^Talktome 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The message is what is important. The messenger is not. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying message is also important. That message is "I wish to make unsubstantiated assertions about another editor's behavior without anyone being able to check my history to see whether those claims are true." Also see: Wikipedia:IP edits are not anonymous. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@76.190.228.162 - Given that your message isn't substantiated with any evidence, I would say the messenger is all that matters in your case. OlYeller21^Talktome 23:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was thinking someone was having trouble making beer... Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hehe! Yes, that was my first thought, too! Pesky (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Im having trouble getting the boiling time of the hops just right. Any suggestions?--Racerx11 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't I who started a topic titled "Brewing Problem" on the Wikipedia Administrator's noticeboard/incidents page. I've provided well intentioned input on what I believe is a cause of the "Brewing Problem". Any editor interested in understanding the issues here can select and read Guy Macon's diffs. Or they can choose to do otherwise. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, not a problem! Sometimes we let our sense of humour out for a little run. Anyhow, to address your concerns (hopefully) Guy Macon has a perma-invite over to my talk page. If you imagine a room full of people, a third of whom are red-green colour-blind, a third of whom are blue-yellow colour-blind, and the remaining third can see only in monochrome, none of whom realise that there are things the others can't see, and getting annoyed and frustrated at the apparent arrogant and stubborn and obstructive stupidity of most of the rest ... there you have a close parallel. Autism-spectrum (including Asberger's people) people can miss things which are blindingly obvious to a load of other people; non-autism spectrum completely lack the ability to see (with immense speed) non-obvious details which are overwhelmingly clear to the autism group, and the remaining third lag behind both groups and can't see what any of them are going on about, which means they must all be crazy ... I think the whole world is a bit like that. It's one of the biggest reasons why one shouldn't think of high-functioning autism as any kind of disability, it's just a huge difference in thought-processing. We can't help it, and the non-auties can't help not seeing what we can see so clearly, either. That's just the way we are. Pesky (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Both feuders blocked 2 days; I suggest blocks escalate rapidly if this problem resumes upon expiration. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This time, things have gone out of hand again. I didn't know that under an interaction ban, you weren't allowed to revert another editors edit's if there's an interaction ban between the both of you. I'm now getting tired of this. This issue between me and Dave1185 will never seem to stop. First this editor threatens me to report me to ANI [65], then proceeds with an outburst over something incorrect I've done and at the same time accusing me of violating numerous things.[66] Please note that I only recently contacted an interest in Aircraft, hence my edit to the Northrop F-5 Article, and not knowing that you weren't allowed to revert someone else's edits when you are with an interaction ban with them. Point taken, and I don't need to say sorry, since we are all on the learning curve, just like I am with some other editors and some admins. As a result of this, I hereby propose of an indefinite interaction ban between me and Dave 1185 if our differences continue to clash and us hurling vulgarity and throwing silly arguments worth no value. If there's another issue, please note it. Thank you. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a positive reading of things: Abhijay acquires an interest in a big and mean fighter plane, reverts Dave's edits while his mind was elsewhere. Dave responds, to which Abhijay responds, etc. etc. I propose that Abhijay accidentally reverted Dave, that Dave hastily warned Abhijay, that the escalating responses were typed overzealously on both sides, and that apologies from both sides, in as few words as possible, here in this ANI thread, will settle the thing. And we can all move along, and no one will get blocked, and etc etc. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (e/c) There's already an interaction ban; it doesn't need to be extended, it needs to be followed. It appears you're clear on reverting now. That said, if Dave1185 continues with this ridiculous, over-the-top, almost cartoon-like aggression, I'll block him from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  p.s. I've notified Dave1185. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Floquenbeam, I think you should just proceed with a block/indefinite block. Given the ongoing problems with Dave's maturity, he's just here to screw around, just like what happened with Spongefrog. Why should we trust an editor such as Dave who with such insolence attacks anyone for making a gentle and small error. I would have to be a complete idiot to not realize if I couldn't see I did something wrong, and yet Dave1185 feigns innocence while at the same proceeding with threats and other things. His comic-like attitude is very disturbing and has even over-reacted to other editors such as Kober when Kober spoke in Georgian. But lets put that to one side. I think a block is suitable for Dave because he's just screwing around, his maturity is a major issue and behaves the same way with other editors (including myself). Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Smell blood, huh Abhijay? Your thoughtless edit started this latest round of The Dumbest Feud In The World^(TM), so now's not a good time to try your luck at Admin Roulette. That's the last time you get to suggest a block of Dave1185, is that understood? I wish I had a dollar for every minute of other people's time you two have wasted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, absolutely, Floquenbeam is right: were I to have made an obvious blunder such as revert an edit of an editor with whom I was under an interaction ban (what exactly would that encompass aside from a ban on all interaction?), I figure my best bet would be a meek and 'umble apology, followed by slinking off for a week until the dust settled. It would not be to follow up with an exhortation to block the guy. Think of this as an analogous situation to WP:AUTO - if his current behavior is egregious enough to warrant a block, no doubt some admin will notice without your assistance. Ravenswing 05:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In the mean time, I'll go and mind with my own business elsewhere. I will stay away from Dave1185 at the moment, and I guess it's now an admin business to take look into the uncivility he's been hurling. Floquenbeam, you carry on with whatever is it you need to do with Dave1185. Now that this matter is now in admin hands, I will not want my entire day to be ruined just because of an editor. Thank you Ravenswing, and other admins present here for your points presented, I hope this will be dealt without my points. In the mean time, I would like to retierate that it was only one gentle error made and it's been realised and dealt with. I want to say sorry for ruining your 'meals' today because of this, and I don't want to upset you guys over this, and neither do I want to ruin mine because of Dave1185. Have a nice day. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 07:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  On another note of Dave1185's cartoon-like behavior, take a look at this: [67]. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijay (talk • contribs)

  I've blocked Dave1185 for 2 days for that gem. Gloating will result in a symmetrical block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  ...aaaand I've blocked Abhijay for 2 days for gloating on Dave's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know the backstory between Dave and Abhijay (I've only had positive interactions with Dave in the past), but in my experience Abhijay has a knack of escalating minor issues into major grudges — see [68] and Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Over-nominating.3F. He claims to 'learn from it' when his mistakes are pointed out, but never seems to. I seriously believe we are dealing with a competence issue and I think we need to consider mentorship for Abhijay. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[69] Dave has published a fullsome apology, like the commentator above I've only ever had positive interactions with Dave and can only see his outburst as out of character. WP:NPA doesn't require suspension of disbelief and from what I see of Abhijay's interactions with Dave eg [70] as trolling. In contrast, Dave started out with a more than polite message [71]. Whilst the admin who declined the block gives a good reason, cooling off, Dave already appears to have done so - hence the apology. Concerned that the block is now punitive rather than preventative. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the block is now moot, as Abhijay has indicated on his talk page he has retired. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is quite as one-sided as that, as both were being childish and insulting with each other despite being under an interaction ban - and I've seen Abhijay generally being very positive too. Also, I didn't actually decline their two unblock requests for "cooling off". I thought the two of them needed their full time on the naughty step to properly feel what it is like to be forced away from each other, and so minimize the possibility of their breaking their interaction ban again once their blocks were lifted (and it was in keeping with the blocking admin's suggestion on Abhijay's Talk page). But there's only a couple of hours to go now, and if anyone wishes to unblock early, that would be fine with me - I'd just ask they they unblock both editors at the same time (saying "retired" doesn't necessarily mean anything - teenagers get angry like that all the time). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I would like to apologise to Boing! as I failed to give him notice on his talk page that I was posting here. I was about to correct that when I noticed he'd replied here. Secondly, whilst Dave has apologised and is thinking of taking a break, Abhijay hasn't responded in anywhere near as mature a manner eg [72] fuck this, i'm now going to retire forever.. Lets not forget Abhijay violated the 1 month interaction ban the second it expired. The reason for Dave's block is no longer valid and so I'd ask his block be lifted. I'm not 100% sure about the other party but happy to leave it to others judgement. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - since I reviewed their unblock requests, I've had this page watchlisted :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Any admin who thinks we're better off unblocking now can do so without my approval, and without needing lots of discussion here first; I'm not precious about blocks I make, and my judgement certainly isn't perfect. FWIW, my opinion is that we might be better off having both blocks remain in force until they expire, mostly for the reason BsZ gives above. I don't interpret Dave's unblock request as optimistically as WCM.

  Regardless of whether the blocks are undone, or expire, I suppose if neither editor is going to see the light, then a full-blown, strictly-interpreted, zero-tolerance interaction ban should remain in place forever. But I note both editors have had similar problems with other editors (just not nearly to this magnitude), and allowing the blocks to expire might send a message that we're serious about further similar behavior with other editors not being tolerated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  p.s. note that the blocks were for 48 hours, so we're not a couple of hours away from expiration, we're one day away, in case that makes a difference. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an optimist, I'm a stubborn, curmudgeonly old cynic. The one thing I do know about Dave is he keeps his word, if he's apologised he meant it. He's not the type to weasel out of anything with a faked apology. The interaction ban is a good idea, however, you miss the point that the first thing Abhijay did when the last one expired was to violate it. I don't think continuing with the block is serving the community and if its violated again the blocks will be longer next time. Hence, I don't see the current block as anything other than punitive at this point; if anything the message is that a sincere apology is a waste of time. Do we really want to send that message? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh yes, there's another day to go - I had it in my mind that it was the 19th today -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

[73] One would think that while blocked for an interaction ban violation, he wouldn't even dare to mention the person he's under an interaction ban with. But apparently not... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Abhijay's ability to edit his talk page for the duration of the block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief. Concur. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that kinda validate my point that Dave didn't appear to be the principle aggressor here and given he's apologised and made an undertaking not to repeat, doesn't his block now appear punitive? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconclusive checkuser findings aside, I'm overpowered by the smell of duck in this SPI. I'd block "Encyclopedist J" myself, if it weren't for the fact that I'm sleepy and might be misjudging something. (But I really doubt it.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is awfully an abuse of the Power of Priviledge, Hoary and though I give you credit for letting me know of this matter beforehand. Encyclopedist J (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible technically means quite a few things. But it surely cannot be the reason for a block. Wait for future behavioral evidence. Till then, nothing can be done. Wifione ^Message 14:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by "Encyclopedist J" above -- or, if it has been rewritten by the time you read it, the comment as it was originally made -- wonderfully exemplifies an observation that Equazcion and I make in the relevant SPI. ¶ Being the edit-warring sockpuppet of a blocked user can be the reason for a block. ¶ (And good night.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That video made my day, thanks! The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:DUCK is an excellent reason to do something. There's already plenty of behavioral evidence. Equazcion ^(talk) 14:44, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)

*Comment IMO the user would qualify for a block for edit warring based on nothing more than his recent activity at Occupy Wall Street. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Encyclopedist J is definately CentristFiasco. Compare with this edit by another sock. Check out "Causes," "Methods," and "Sides." It's all identical. Also, the username. One of CentristFiasco's other socks was Mr. J. Lane. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:DUCK says block. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm blocking now; despite him shouting "It's rabbit season!" I rather think it's duck season. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would second Amalthea's findings. My view = technically possible and behaviourally likely. Good block. WilliamH (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, a good "nutshell" statement on the whole WP:DUCK concept might be "you did what he did so you got what he got". This makes the question of whether or not X is Y a little less important. It's the "quacking" that gets someone blocked more so then the issue of whether or not he's a "duck". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Radiopathy (talk · contribs)
• Red Hot Chili Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is locus of dispute.

Radiopathy's behavior recently has been quite bothersome. The following problems need to be addressed. I first tried to handle this without bringing it to others, but he didn't wish to engage constructively, so I am seeking advise on how to handle this. The following problems are happening:

• personal attacks: Calls me "ignorant" [84] and an "idiot" [85].

• Refuses to use sources to back up his preferred version of an article, ignores sources when he is provided with them: (see discussion at links above)

• Changes comments of other people to give them new meaning: [86]

What is most problematic is the refusal of this user to abide by both established policy like WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS and refusal to provide any evidence or sources that his preffered use of language in an article is correct. When faced with source material to back up something, he insults me and then refuses to provide his own. I am fully willing to consider sources provided by him, but his stance appears be that he doesn't have to provide any. I am concerned with how to handle his beligerant and uncooperative behavior here. I am looking for opinions on what needs to happen here. --Jayron32 17:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 3+ years experience and over 12,000 edits = this editor should know better. I left a link to WP:NPA on his talk to review. Hopefully it was just a matter of him having a bad day; but we'll see. — Ched :  ?  18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input, but the insults are of minor concern. The real concern here is his refusal to provide sources for his position, and his dismissal of sources others have provided. The issue is that he states his position on the matter is correct merely and only because he states that it is, and that sources others provide are irrelevent, because he says they are. This position is not compatible with Wikipedia's core values, for refusal to collaborate and for refusal to engage with source material in any way. Wikipedia articles are not written a certain way merely because Radiopathy states that they should be written that way. What I am looking for is outside input as to what should be done to handle his obstinancy in this matter. Calling me an idiot is of no great consequence. Refusal to accept Wikipedia's basic principles of how to solve disputes by using source texts is. --Jayron32 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The insults are symptomatic of the attitude, which is a tired "I've discussed this to death, and don't want to waste my time explaining this all over again to each successive new person that comes along.". I can understand such frustration. I can even understand the notion of using a singular verb for a proper noun that denotes one corporate entity. (It's a non-trivial linguistic point, that is subtler than the explanations that we are taught in primary school.) I can also sympathize with how badly such brush-offs are received, however. It's not good to be on the receiving end, and you have my sympathy. Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Radiopathy has engaged in similar uncooperative, beligerent behavior over the same subject at Eagles (band), disregarding sources provided to him and offering none to support his argument (see User talk:Piriczki#The Eagles). By the way, he was placed under an indefinite 0RR restriction here and I see no indication it was ever lifted. Piriczki (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And continues to insist he's right over and over at Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bzbzbzbzbzb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANotes&action=history

Someone please block this vandal and clean up the history of that redirect; it's fixed positioning vandalism re Jews and 9/11 and it click-hijacks all pages using the redirect. Alarbus (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solipsism-blocked by 28bytes; that edit he made will likely be revdel'd soon. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and history deleted, but that should really get fixed in the edit filter. Thanks for letting us know about this Alarbus. 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought this was fixed in the edit filter a few weeks back by Anomie. CU the account and your prior blockee. Alarbus (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Handling this with edit filters seems like a crappy and unreliable stopgap measure. It really needs a server side fix. Is there a bugzilla ticket open? I sort of half remember one. Could someone either please find and add a note to it, or open a new one? 67.117.144.57 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked for 12 hours. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A largish portion of User:VenomousConcept's edits are dedicated to changing varieties of English to to "proper English" without "stupid Americanisms"[92].

Explanations have included that a disease "was discovered by an Englishman" so "it's only right that proper English should be used" and that a "European battle" should be written in "correct English".

Previously claiming to understand our policy, and having been warned several times, maybe it's all a mistake. "The word is spelt incorrectly. How am I supposed to know that some particular misspelling is used by a bunch of retards in another part of the world who are incapable of using the English language correctly?" After all, can we expect editors to "sit down and learn all the misspellings, mispronunciations and misuses of grammar that are employed in another country just to keep you happy? I think not." There's more, of course.

As a silly bitch/cow (I'm a dog-cow! Crazy scientists these days) who has been invited to fuck off I have nothing more to do here. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Moof!", said Clarus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12 hours is quite generous as those diffs show that he fits in here about as well as pork at a passover seder. This is one of the reasons why I don't use the block tool. I would not trust myself to be too aggressive with it when it comes to crap like this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer, it might amuse you to know that we have an article about the Dogcow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, "Moof!", said Clarus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to the scientists of the world. I should have said, "I'm a dog-cow! Crazy Apple people circa 1983." - SummerPhD (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe where Concept is from "Fuck off" is perfectly acceptable. Where I live, it means "fuck off". I've perused the Concept's edits a bit, and it's clear this is a long-term issue, and twelve hours is quite lenient, esp. given that they chose SummerPhD as a target for their venom. But here's what will happen: Concept will play nice after their block, and we can all live happily ever after. Or they don't (they again change spelling against guidelines or convention, call someone names, etc), in which case they'll be blocked for two weeks or more, possibly indefinitely. I'm sure Concept can understand my broken English. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5 years ago, I had someone point out to me that I was doing what VenomousConcept was doing. I responded by installing the Firefox dictionary switcher. I would then cycle through all the dictionaries (us, uk, au etc) to see which spelling convention was used in the article. If it was all mixed up I would use whichever variant came first. Example, if "color" was the first variant I encountered then "labour" would be changed to "labor" if it appeared later in the article. (unless it was the British political party) Had no problems after that. If I instead responded by saying "fuck off" then things would have gone a lot different for me. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No doubt, Ron, and I'm in complete agreement with you about the lenience of a 12 hour block. IMHO, someone who responds with "fuck off," in addition to his other hostile comments, is not just another Someone Who Doesn't Quite Get What Wikipedia Is About. That person is a jerk, plain and simple, because there's nowhere in the civilized world where such language or deportment is considered the proper way to handle disputes. Ravenswing 04:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This mysterious world where "fuck off" is a neutral comment is somewhere this bitchcow doesn't need to visit anytime soon. Anyway, hopefuly this thred/block is enuff of a wakeup call for VenimousConsept and well all walk off, hand-and-hand intwo the sunset toogether. ETA: Rats! I should have said something about behavior. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come across this from the discussion of Stygiophobia (AfD discussion). Consider this your wakeup call, SummerPhD. From this edit and this edit it's pretty clear to me that you're now more interested in playing revert war with VenomousConcept than you are in the contents of the encyclopaedia. You didn't pay any attention to what your reversions made the encyclopaedia actually say. Focus! Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything wrong with those diffs. As Favonian later said, the primary title used in the article should generally follow the article title and I'm AGF that SummerPhD claims that both are used in sources is accurate. Were you perhaps mislead by VenomousConcept's edit summary that said "so you think it should read 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra, also translated as Thus Spoke Zarathustra"? If so look carefully as the article never said that, at least not that SummerPhD reverted recently. In fact, it said and says (emphasis added)

  Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (also translated as "Thus Spoke Tharathustra" ....

• and there's nothing wrong with that. If Spoke is also translated as Spake, then it seems to me the article should reflect this, but VenomousConcept's method of trying to add it clearly wasn't the right way.

  Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should pay more attention, too, Nil Einne. VenemousConcept wasn't the person who added the alternative translation, and the words that you've boldfaced aren't the very clear — from the diffs — subject of the revert war. No, the revert war was very obviously SummerPhD seeing an edit by VenomousConcept, and reverting it solely because it was by VenomousConcept, not because it corrected the article in any way. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)

  Just some observations:

  • The AfD seems sound on its face - it is a stub that is more of a definition than an article - just really, really bad timing.
    • VenomousConcept's rebuttal to it makes a blatant statement of assuming bad faith on SummerPhD's part. Frankly, as pointed to above, it looks odd, but the definition is valid at this point for PRODing and AfD making the shot uncalled for.
    • Thus Spoke Zarathustra should be at the discussion point after VenomousConcept's bold change was contested. Not a continuation of trying to get the lead and the first paragraph to not match the article's title. IMO SummerPhD's actions are more in line with maintaining the integrity of the article as it currently stands. If VenomousConcept wants "Thus Spake Zarathustra" in the text, the either a list of alternate translations needs to be included - that's a 1 time thing - or the article needs to be moves.
  • - J Greb (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't read the lead, either. That makes three of you. Good grief! You make it fairly apparent why editors become frustrated to the point that they do what VenemousConcept did. You aren't paying attention, and your analysis is patently flawed to anyone who has actually bothered to look at the edit history. Open your eyes and actually read what was being written in the lead by SummerPhD, and at least make the effort to find out who actually wrote the material in the lead in the first place. It's no wonder that VenomousConcept thinks to call people names who act like this. You're not thinking or even reading. Stop demonstrating such foolishness, and editors won't get so annoyed with your ineptitude to the point that they swear at you. You're an administrator. You're supposed to be capable of reading diffs and following an edit history. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • VC and Summer seem to be cooperating at Talk:Bank of England. Maybe if we go away now and not try to highlight who did what to who here it would help? I don't think anyone is asking for an Administrator to use their tools, so this should be continued elsewhereDougweller (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't think that anyone is asking for administrators to use administrator tools? I remind you that I arrived here from an on-going AFD discussion initiated by one of these editors against an article written by the other. That's asking for use of administrator tools, right there. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – IP reblocked for spamming. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please have words with User:24.130.195.97? He or she has been spamming my Talk page with "warnings" after I reverted his or her link spam, edits for which he or she has been previously warned and blocked by other editors. I removed his or her edits several times but he or she persists in harassing me with them. I would warn him or her myself but that would almost certainly exacerbate the situation instead of calming it. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that user ElKevbo has inappropriately targeted university sites (to an extreme), I posted a warning message on his TALK site because I wasn't sure of another way to communicate with him/her. Posting a message to reconsider his behavior is not harassment. Please take a look at what I posted on his TALK site and you will see. If someone can please get a message to ElKevbo to stop his practices or at least reconsider his actions that would be wonderful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.195.97 (talk) 05:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's see if I have this straight, 24.130. You were blocked for a month for adding these spam links to various articles, after you were repeatedly warned not to do so. Pretty much as soon as the block expired, you went right back to adding them. ElKevbo hasn't "inappropriately targeted university sites;" he's appropriately targeted your spam, and sending him a warning template for doing so does you no good. I strongly suggest you read WP:EL and comply with its provisions - at least once you return from your next block. Ravenswing 08:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my notification regarding the spoiling-like edit of Thomas Jouannet (diffs:[93]), made by Bgwhite, Drmies, TenPoundHammer and other editors, notorious for their deletion activity.

They demonstratively deleted most of filmography related material and biographical details, also all the references, including the French ones, in obvious contradiction with other actors' pages. These "improvements", including deletion requests, were "firmly within policy".

The w-donors-IRS controversy will be debated externally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 10:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, 3 long-time editors want something out, and 1 shorter-term one wants it in ... besides the fact that this is a content dispute that should follow WP:DR, have you read WP:CONSENSUS yet? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good that they did so. The page was originally a cornucopia of BLP violations. Less importantly, it was an ugly, cluttered mess containing very poor English and even contained a Flash GIF, which made the entire article unreadable on iOS devices. This actor is not notable enough to have scurrilous gossip about his private life - and especially not his income!!! - bandered about on Wikipedia, even if said scurrilous gossip were sourced to reliable third parties, which this was NOT. Strongly suggest that User:Coagulans read WP:BLP and WP:MOS before editing again, because none of that was "firmly within policy". None of it. None. --NellieBly (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not for fanpages: I have a very, very hard time believing that this would be an acceptable page on Wikipedia. --MuZemike 15:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord. If I knew the proper procedure for speedy deletion of templates, the one on that page would be up for nuking already as completely unnecessary and non-notable. Do we need a huge navbox template where there's only ONE bluelink in the entire box? rdfox 76 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The real loss is this, File:Dunantanimation.gif, removed by some deletionist admin who had no feeling. The image received various interpretations on my talk page, which is indicative of the polyvalence of the work of art in question. BTW, I am perfectly happy to have the IRS monitor my activities and reprimand me for it, if that's in accordance with Wikipedia's laws and federal guidelines, or the other way around. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

203.212.134.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to have his talk page access revoked. Klilidiplomus+Talk 12:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block was already done - I have hidden the offensive material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago, User:Chiton magnificus misunderstood a comment I made to another editor and issued a misplaced warning [94]. This included a comment that I was being talked about in other forums as being a "hardcore falklander" or "British agent". I have asked him to explain his comments twice [95] and [96] but he has declined. Whilst the misplaced warning is a stale issue, I remain rather creeped out that my editing is being discussed on these forums and editors here are participating. My editing does seem to have been targeted by sock and meat puppets of late eg User:Abenyosef and User:Gaba p. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm suprised that you are suprised. My own experience of you is that supplying references that disagree with your view can be a pretty unpleasant experience. Tom Pippens (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't recall any interaction with you and had to resort to Google to find it. Is this it? Please could you identify why you thought I was unpleasant to you? As to be honest I'm mystified why you thought I was unpleasant to you, or for that matter what point you were making. Do you think this justifies what is going on? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same thing happens to me. I forget about some users who, for whatever reason, remember me for a long time. Back on topic, I have a similar experience with users from a certain nationality. I doubt anything can be done here to actually help you out, but I'd recommend you to avoid placing your exact location, date of birth, etc., with your real name and your account name (Don't use the name "wee curry monster" for anything outside Wikipedia). I've known Chiton for some time, and could probably vouch for him as a generally well-intentioned person and good contributor. However, given the existence of a forum, for all we know the other people could actually be dangerous. I did a research once on this topic (internet stalking), and found a series of sad cases where people seriously got hurt (needless to say, some ended up dead). The main problem was that people did not take it seriously; one feels protected by the computer screen. However, the internet nowadays is a dangerous tool for stalkers and people with bad intentions (anyone can see whatever you post on the internet; even the best of security programs can't stop the best hackers). So, just watch what you write about yourself in the internet. Hope this helps. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know this may be a subject of dislike for most of the people. But I presume that someone may have some technical help for me.

I added some information regarding "Human's similarity to herbivores". Apparently, all my sources (mostly MD or PhD) amounted to a "vegan propaganda". I am not a Vegan. I'm really in support of truth. But simply claiming that my whole contribution is a "propaganda" is not likely an adequate reason for removal of the whole section.

My question is a fairly simple one, Is calling/labelling my edits as "propaganda" a sufficient ground for undoing all my changes(~16,503 bytes diff)? Visit this history page and the talk page.

Please do something soon. They are repeatedly deleting my additions. Without actually discussing it with me or providing any reliable source that claims anything contradictory regarding human anatomy. --DrYouMe ^(Talk?) 15:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem here seems to be compound, but I suspect that the major part of it is the undue weight which your additions gave to that subject within the article on herbivores. Pesky (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

There are also no reliable sources for the contribution, just a webpage for a vegetarian organisation, earthsave.ca. User also engaged in a edit war, already violating the 3RR rule, and deleted my last comment in the talk page with a link to a debunk of Mr. Mills article (by a vegan even) http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-humans-omnivores.html--Mihaiam (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pop-up shows only 396 edits, though, so some unfamiliarity with the way we do things here is to be expected. A bit of kind mentoring is probably the best way to go. Pesky (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did post a message on User:Mrt3366 talk page. Looks like it was deleted as "removing needless messages" without self-reverting.--Mihaiam (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the welcome-with-huge-links-list there; hopefully this editor ca\n get something useful out of it. Also a link to adoption for consideration. Pesky (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... aaaand it's all just been summarily deleted! So much for trying to help! Mind you, the editor opens their talk page with "Try not to write anything on this page unless you're absolutely sure that bringing your thoughts to my knowledge is a necessity for me. I am trying to keep it empty (mostly)," so maybe we shouldn't be surprised. Not very open to communication. Pesky (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it highly ironic that they refer to articles they edit as "my articles" and then goes on to link to WP:OWN. Blackmane (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their user page creeped me out a little too. At the bottom is says something like "This editor has been informed of your visit". I left with the strange feeling as if I had entered a place where I was not welcome, and that there may be consequences if I do it again. Overall the atmosphere at his user page and talk page do not appear to be conducive to working productively within a collaborative project. Racerx11 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed the irony of "my articles" in such close conjunction with WP:OWN. And the generally unwelcoming atmosphere. BUT' ... the editor is still a relative newbie, and obviously isn't very comfortable with social / sociable interactions. This may change; I don't think we can just write them off. Mrt3366/DrYouMe, if you're reading, you're more than welcome to wander over to my talk page and just lurk if you like, or join in if you like. We're a slightly unusual bunch over my way (I'm a HFA myself), but we're not a bad lot, and between us we have years of experience and a huge range of skills and interests. Pesky (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure--but Pesky, you're a crumpet. You could get away with murder. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Pesky subjects Drmies to forcibly-applied granny-hugz and skips off, cackling merrily ...] Pesky (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he got a sockpuppet, User:Topy1991, to reinstate his change to Herbivore page, without even bothering to comment on the talk page. I cannot reverse it due to 3RR. Some administrative action may be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]