Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Crossposted to WP:VPM

I just tagged every single subpage and article in progress within my userspace as {{db-u1}} and if things continue on as they have been I suppose I'll be posting a {{retired}} notice soon as well. Despite repeated AN/I reports regarding the disruptive and tendentious editing behaviours of Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme over the last year and a half, it seems I still cannot edit without these editors wikihounding me while working together as a group.

My main editing focus had been to topics related to computing and online/electronic forms of communication. These were not areas in which these three individuals previously edited (the sole exception being Miami33139's prods/AfDs of multimedia-related software articles).

Even after taking the behaviour issues all the way to ArbCom, where the case was unfortunately delayed and overshadowed by the EEML case (which was in progress at the same time), very little was addressed. [1] [2]

I personally made a huge mistake in allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [3] (where they then also edit warred with others [4]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [5]

Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, [6] (which maybe I really deserved for allowing myself to be baited in the first place) with the behaviours of the three individuals largely still not addressed. [7] The case evidence I presented [8] was not used by the drafting arbitrator and no mention of Theserialcomma's disruptive behaviours were brought up in the proposed decision he drafted. (I suspect this is because I was the only editor who presented evidence of Theserialcomma's behaviours.) The omission in the proposed decision was openly questioned by others but was still not addressed. [9] The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either. [10]

After the ArbCom case was closed, the wikihounding increased and I finally took a break from editing articles. I tried doing Commons work for awhile but I found I still needed to update pages on Wikipedia which used the images. In doing so I found that just making those small noncontroversial edits was enough to trigger the wikihounding so I cut back on my editing even further.

I made another huge mistake when I vented some of my frustrations via email at Sandstein with being wikihounded and harassed off-wiki by Theserialcomma. He responded by blocking me for 18 days. [11] After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting [12] [13] as I had already realised that venting my frustrations at him really wasn't the right thing to do and I felt bad about it. This incident generated an enormous amount of email discussion.

While blocked for 18 days, I spent the better part of it reviewing my own behaviours as well as my interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. While doing so I also began to review their interactions with other editors. [14] I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail [15] and began to do the same for Miami33139 [16] and JBsupreme. [17] Due to time constraints, I stopped work on this and never picked back up on it after I was unblocked.

A civility restriction was later put in place for JBsupreme [18] due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. [19]

I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. [20] In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. [21] Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, [22] including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace. [23] [24]

Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, [25] [26] (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. [27] [28] [29] [30]) Miami33139 then restarted his previous behaviour of going though my contributions and removing/prodding/AfDing things which I had edited many, many months earlier. Miami33139 has done similar things to editors other than myself (such as Beyond My Ken/Ed Fitzgerald and others), but like Theserialcomma and JBsupreme, Miami33139 seems to try to make just enough non-controversial edits or edits to related/similar pages to disguise his other actions.

A number of editors and administrators contacted me via email and let me know of Miami33139's return and subsequent MFDing of subpages within my userspace. Several further suggested I not become involved in those MFDs as the actions by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma appeared to be an attempt at baiting me shortly before my civility restriction expired (see above).

I really have tried to do some good here on Wikipedia and improve coverage of computing topics which have been in dire need of expansion. Due to the wikihounding however, I'm beginning to feel as though my efforts have largely been a waste of time.

As I finish writing this, I also note JBsupreme removed my CSD tag from one of the in-progress subpages within my userspace, moved it to his own userspace, and then blanked it. [31] [32] [33]

Sigh.

I think I'll take another short break from Wikipedia as my workload really hadn't decreased just yet anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• just one preliminary point--moving the material and then blanking with the history intact preserves the content, and I think it's acceptable behavior. At least I hope it is, because I once did something similar myself to preserve content for future use. However, surely he should have notified you he was going to do it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't really tally, though, does it? JBsupreme wants the page deleted because it "borders on abuse of userspace", but will go to all of this effort in order to retain it under xyr own user space, including reverting a deletion request by the person who is, purportedly, "abusing" xyr user space with it in the first place. This just doesn't add up. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something else I noticed after posting the above is that Hm2k did something similar with another draft I had within my userspace. What was odd is after he moved it to his userspace, Miami33139 immediately initiated a MFD for that in-progress article. [34] I know Hm2k has good intentions as far as improving the draft article so if he wants to work on it, he has my support. The immediate MFD by Miami33139 is certainly strange though. (It is probably also worth noting that Theserialcomma wikihounded and baited Hm2k previously as well, eventually leading him to lash out and be blocked for a short while. Theserialcomma is also the one who initiated an AfD for mIRCStats in the first place, when the wikihounding by Theserialcomma first began.)

      Shortly after JBsupreme moved the above mentioned draft from my userspace, he also removed the majority of the content of Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients [35] just before initiating an AfD. [36] This is actually the second time JBsupreme has attempted an AfD for this page and the MO of blanking the article before nominating it for AfD is one of his regular tactics. Considering how JBsupreme argues against reliable sources and so on in AfDs [37] and considering that even an ArbCom restriction has failed to curb his behaviour, I honestly don't see any point in even trying to participate in that AfD because I feel he would just attack me (as he has done previously) anyway.

      Sigh. What a complex, tangled mess. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Given this edit [38] I moved the page back to my userspace and redirected it for the time being. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing for admin to do here, this has been to Arbcom

This is wrong forum. Arbcom is over here. Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf that everyone is out to get him were not found credible by Arbcom. I went through and suggested deletion for two of his walled garden of previously deleted articles, which were stale from 6 to 15 months. 6 months is normal timeframe at MfD to improve deleted content or have it thrown out. This is normal followup on the deletion process of things I have been keeping track of. Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him. He thinks anyone who edits his toys is hounding him. Enough paranoia.

Thank you to all who previously commented for letting those mentioned in the paranoid ranting know about it, as expected by the header on the noticeboard. Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not meaning to be a prosecutor or some such, but isn't calling the fellow's comments "paranoid ranting" a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? I am sure it can be described with a bit less crass? Basket of Puppies 07:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent unfounded accusations also a violation of NPA and civil. It is not ad hominem to say he is paranoid. It fit pattern. You see above he accuses three editors of persecuting him. What shown in previous dispute resolution was all disagreements result in Tothwolf writing long screeds about being persecuted. For two years when someone edit his articles in a way he don't like he runs to a noticeboard talking about people out to get him. Enough of that! Paranoid is simple adjective succinctly describing situation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then there should be two blocks- one for him and one for you. And how is it not ad hominem to call him paranoid? It's minimally NPA. Just don't do it. Basket of Puppies 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BOP, paranoid can describe a pattern of behaviour as well as a mental illness. It would be better if Miami says "displays paranoid behaviour" but I can't see it as a PA myself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think intent also has a lot to do with whether or not something can be considered a personal attack. Shortly before Jehochman tried to help me with filing an ArbCom case, [39] Miami33139 made this comment [40] in which he also called me "paranoid and delusional". While the term "paranoid" can be used in a way in which it isn't a personal attack, I think the way in which Miami33139 uses the word both above and in previous discussions really does seem to be meant as a personal attack.

I believe this comment made by Miami33139 yesterday could also be considered a personal attack. It is also clearly an attempt at escalation, which is something he been warned for previously. [41]

To refocus this back on the behavioural issues (which as I noted above is why I brought this here), Miami33139's current behaviour seems to fit the very definitions of tendentious and disruptive editing to the "T". I found that the only way Miami33139 and the other two named above would leave me alone was to be completely "absent" from Wikipedia and not edit anything. This doesn't seem right.

Disruptive editors who engage in tendentious editing, wikihounding, bullying, etc have a history of being restricted and eventually blocked if restrictions fail to curb such behaviour. Unfortunately, it seems like many times such disruptive editors end up doing a lot of damage to the community (often including the morale of other editors) before the community notices and finally decides to take action. It seems like the random page blank/junk text/explicit image type vandals, etc (which in general really seem to do far less overall long-term damage to the encyclopedia) are dealt with much faster than those who take steps to attempts to evade detection and scrutiny of their actions. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF applies here. From what I can tell you have a prior history with Tothwolf, so your objective judgement is questionable. Simply express your concern and don't make asumptions about other users behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elen, calling someone paranoid is a violation of NPA any way you look at it. It's not appropriate at all for this project. I'll have a look at the NPA policy, but I doubt there is an exemption for calling someone paranoid. Basket of Puppies 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this. In the circumstances, its also baiting. I would be somewhat reluctant to block on the basis of what's said at this intrinsically contentious page, but I think it's way over the line. Tothwolf is certainly entitled to come here and say that disruption has continued even after an arb com decision which should have put an end to it. The question is whether we can do anything about it without a second arb com. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is and combined with the tl;dr comment above, I'd say a block is in order. It's very obvious that he's come here to try and inflame the situation, troll and harass the other user.--Crossmr (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't use NPA as a bludgeon. The whole statement above was basically baiting (as DGG says) and shouldn't have been said, but we are getting really parsimonious in referring to words describing actions (paranoid ramblings) to mean words describing actors. when accusing someone of making personal attacks, a semantic discussion shouldn't be necessary. If you find yourself in a good faith semantic discussion after leveling an accusation that someone is making a personal attack, they likely haven't violated NPA. Remember, NPA is a big stick in policing discourse, don't use it unless it is abundantly clear that it is necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misread DGG's comments. DGG says that calling Tothwolf paranoid is baiting and that he is entitled to make his statement. Stop calling other people paranoid. As far as I can see, there is a concerted effort by at least JBsupreme and Miami33139 to hound Tothwolf off Wikipedia, so I wouldn't say Tothwolf is at all paranoid in suggesting this. Miami's comments to "Call the Waaaambulance"[42] are crossing the line into mocking. Fences&Windows 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tothwolf is not being paranoid in suggesting there is an attempt to hound him off Wikipedia, it's a reasonable perception of what is going on. See the comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Arbitrator views and discussion. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intent to "bait" so I have removed my statement and will restate it. This accusation that I am hounding him is false. I work on deleting a lot of articles and it is not a personal crusade against him. Arbcom listened to him bring this argument months ago, maybe even a year. They found it baseless. I am tired of hearing this accusation. Making persistent unfounded accusations is against NPA, That Tothwolf violates NPA by making persistent unfounded accusations is part of Arbcom finding of fact. Miami33139 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was your intent with the "tl;dr" comment? Did you think that was a helpful comment to make towards someone you're engaged in a dispute with? Do you honestly think that could be reasonably seen as anything but?--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, Miami33139 removed that statement you are referring to along w/ his strikeout of the above remarks. So it might be right to assume it to be retracted. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider his statement "It was not my intent to "bait"" to be a bald-faced lie. Taken in conjunction with the previous tl;dr post, his nomination of articles in Tothwolf's userspace and his canvassing of cohorts JBSupreme and Theserialcomma with blatantly taunting language (whaaambulance, whine one one) , there should be no other interpretation of his behavior. Redacting a comment days later in an effort to avoid being blocked is not a real redaction. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placing {{[[wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:ANI-notice|ANI-notice]]}} on their talk page not canvassing when they are mentioned here by the original poster who did not follow instruction do it himself. I use joking language with people who have been through this accusation before on their page, because it would be inappropriate here. I am obvious frustrated after ArbCom say Tothwolf should stop making these accusation, and here he is still making accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes perhaps canvassing isn't the proper legal word for it. Though there must be a wikipedia policy out there which discourages contacting your cohorts so they may participate in a pile-on against your rival. WP:TAGTEAM, perhaps? (I am of course aware that citing WP:TAGTEAM may itself be considered incivil; I feel that there is adequate evidence of malicious collusion between Miami and JBSupreme targeting Tothwolf to justify the citation)

But more obfuscation from you - you didn't use Template:ANI-notice, did you? No, you accused Tothwolf of "dialing whine one one" for the "waahmbulance".

Let us read WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, section 1d. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts

Would you care to explain how your tl;dr post and your posts to JBSupreme and Theserialcomma's talk pages were not gross violations of civility? Seth Kellerman (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the part that I did use ANI-NOTICE template and it was Tothwolf responsibility, not mine, to apply that notice. The pile-on here, is on me, even after Arbcom found six months ago I was not hounding him. What is your part here, Seth, to inflame against me? Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was 6 months ago. That isn't a carte blanche to do whatever you want for the rest of your wikicareer with impunity. Just because you weren't hounding him 6 months ago doesn't mean you aren't now.--Crossmr (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted or otherwise, it goes to his claim that he wasn't trying to bait. There is no other way to see it. Using joking language with a user that you're that embroiled with is just inappropriate. It can do little beyond inflame the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not use joking language with a user I am embroiled with. I used it with users who were similarly accused without being notified of the accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tothwolf seems to have taken great issue with you and you replied to his comment with "tl;dr" I asked you specifically how that could be seen any other way. If it isn't joking language, and it wasn't baiting and it wasn't hounding, what was it?--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the appropriate public/admin response to a comment like that after it has been retracted? Protonk (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how and why it was retracted. The retraction seems just as bad as the comment as his reasoning is quite poor and comes across as disingenuous. The appropriate response is to determine whether the user actually acknowledges the problem and if there is a likelihood the behaviour will continue. So far he seems to be attempting to excuse it away and deflect blame and not genuinely own up to it which is an indication that the behaviour may continue at a future date to me.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice the section header Miami33139 used in this edit until Seth Kellerman linked to it: "==W<span style="background:white; color:white; ;">h</span>ine suggestion==" [43] This renders as "Whine suggestion" with the 'h' in white text on a white background. It seems to fit the same pattern of the other edit. [44] --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for transparency I want to mention here that someone posted this strange message on my talk page today: [45] --Tothwolf (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About 2% of my editing since June overlaps with Tothwolf. I am tired of his accusations. I wish to ignore him. I'm sorry you think 5 characters an exasperated comment is capital crime on Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 characters, your reference to him as paranoid, your inappropriate comment here[46], here [47] and then your disingenuous attempt to cover it all up. If you are saying you made all of those edits unintentionally then I think you should be blocked because it is quite apparent you are not in control of your actions.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested Amendment from Arbcom Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on - to block Miami33139?

There seems to be a fair amount of consensus among administrators and regular editors that Miami's actions warranted a block. As such, I would prefer this discussion not die with no action being taken.

Since one of Miami's collaborators, Theserialcomma, was blocked 5 days for baiting, I propose that Miami also be blocked for 5 days. Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, Beyond My Ken made a statement on July 16th regarding Miami33139's wikihounding behaviours which I think will be of interest to the rest of the community. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an interaction ban including a ban on nominating articles or user pages for deletion that were created or significantly edited by Tothwolf would be a good idea, but events may be moving on regardless of the decision here, as Miami33139 may have chucked a WP:BOOMERANG: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf. Fences&Windows 23:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I noted my concerns with a simple interaction ban in my reply to Carcharoth [48] on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: "Jehochman and I discussed just such a potential solution before the original ArbCom case was filed [in November 2009]. I have a strong feeling that if a simple interaction-type restriction were put in place, these editors would still follow my edits in order to remove content from or nominate articles and pages for deletion, or attempt to superficially involve themselves in related topic areas such as technology and computing where they did not edit previously (as they've already been doing) in order to block or restrict my edits while claiming they were already editing articles in those topic areas."

One example I noted in my statement [49] is {{IRC footer}}, which the edit history will probably explain far better than I could here. There were also events like these diffs document which I'm not sure a simple interaction ban as proposed would prevent: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] There are also other examples such as Category:Internet Relay Chat games (CFD) and others which I did not note in my statement. I had been in the process of populating them when the wikihounding began and Miami33139 attempted to depopulate them in order to have them deleted via CFD. Sigh.

I really do wish Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme would stop the personal attacks though (calling me "paranoid", "delusional", etc and claiming WP:OWN, WP:COI, etc). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the reviewing arbitrator is apparently waiting for further comments. [57] DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and at the same time they seem to think his conduct was inappropriate and personal attacks. Unless he's indicated that they're going to stop and we're buying it, then he should be blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, but arb com is actively considering sanctions, and if they want to do so, they have priority. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They can carry on independently. If there is an open threat of disruption its an administrator's job to prevent that. A note can be made at the arbcom case, and they can visit his talk page or he can go through the appropriate steps to be unblocked if he wants to contribute further.--Crossmr (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JBsupreme's current behaviour is also troubling. Comments such as "so non-notable its just laughable, but in a sad way" [58] as a prod reason are clearly inappropriate, even more so with this being a prod of a BLP article. Isn't this and a number of other similar actions [59] [60] a direct violation of his edit restrictions? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd suggest an admin take a long hard look at his editing restriction and those two edits.--Crossmr (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Maunus for incivility, unblock declined by Kingpin13. I don't know if either were aware of this ANI discussion but one of the difs Maunus cited as reason for blocking was the "Learn how to spell then cite a source" dif that Tothwolf noted. The other in which he wished, in ALLCAPS, for "all vandals to die a slow painful fiery death" (perhaps not verbatim but something along those lines). I was going to request arbitration enforcement but as his block seems to have stuck I don't believe it's necessary. Seth Kellerman (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the block that has been applied appropriate, and suggest we continue in the usual manner with increasing blocks if the behavior recurs (myself, I am too much involved with the parties for it to be appropriate for me to take admin action here, but I can still give my opinion.) More generally, it is becoming increasingly apparent that arb com are becoming unwilling or unable to solve disputes referred to them in a timely manner. I mention the

Blablaaa arbitration request [61] where again we took appropriate action here which made the matter moot while they were still discussing whether or not they should do anything. This section is still open, as we (or they) have yet to decide how to deal with the other parties. DGG ( talk ) 09:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sopher99 is removing {{New unreviewed article}} templates from new articles without actually doing the reviews properly, and is also repeatedly making the same CSD tagging errors. Judging by their Talk page, this appears to be a long-standing problem, but it looks like they're taking no notice of all the messages. Could an admin try to gain their attention somehow? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They also removed a copyvio template from an article with text that was clearly copied from the source. See User_talk:Sopher99#Huh.3F. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's a serious problem with this user; disclosure: I've contested some of their speedy nomination. My hope would be that they accept some kind of mentorship... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed another ineligible speedy to a prod. Needs a cluebat or a ban from dealing with new pages for a while. —fetch·comms 20:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have finally got some sort of response on the Talk page, even if it is only deleting a warning (for yet another incorrect CSD:A2 tagging). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one weak CSD tagging since the above, and that wasn't a bad one - went for A3 when it should really have been a G7. Despite the lack of actual replies, the editor might just be taking some notice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after another warning, there's finally an actual reply on the user's Talk page (and there's a now-deleted acknowledgment that the user has read this incident report - the deletion of which seems strange). But the user's behaviour has not changed much, and they're still removing "Unreviewed" templates without properly reviewing articles. I've made a suggestion, and have suggested mentorship, but I'm really not convinced this user is actually listening - perhaps a follow-up by an admin might help? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:Gimmetoo#Asinine actions
  (I section I did not start;)

Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), who claims to be Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has been disruptively reverting edits related to the reflinks tool, and citation templates. See Halle Berry, Sean Combs, and Jennifer Lopez, and likely moar. Contrary to some of their edits summaries, most of what I did was done manually, not directly with tools. The referencing edits I and others have been reverted on are all good and progressive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User Jack Merridew is 1) edit warring, 2) with automated tools (reflinks), 3) to impose a change of style to an article, 4) to impose cite templates and 5) to impose some "list-defined" referencing scheme. User Jack Merridew is acting in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. If User Jack Merridew wishes to "clean up" refs on a fairly well-developed article (a GA even), then User Jack Merridew should do that while respecting the existing style of the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is appropriate clean-up and you've gotten push-back from others about this from others. What's your point? You want poor referencing and untagged dead links? Bare URLs? I don't respect that, sorry. Hope you enjoyed teh fish ;) Jack Merridew 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you wanted to fill in some "bare URLs", you could have done that without changing the article to a different style. But you decided to change the entire article in multiple ways, which is inherently disruptive and also obstructive to other editors of the article. You not only added list-defined refs (which some editors find confusing), but actually renamed a number of named references. You also accused an editor of "vandalism" for undoing your undiscussed changes. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're improvements. This is all-good. Folks will look at our versions and agree. You cut good stuff, not just the cite templates, removed {{dead link}}s, restored bare URLs. If that's not vandalism, it sure is pointy. And others have been objecting to your stance re cite templates and reflinks. Consensus is against you on this, and you know it. Better referencing is a core goal of this project. Jack Merridew 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then restore the established style of the article and incorporate that part of your edits which were "improvements", and not arbitrary style changes, and do not obstruct other editors from making those improvements in the established style of the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is *all* improvement. Jack Merridew 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to hear two things from Gimmetoo:

1. Can you explain why you would revert these changes? It's not like they were incomplete and made the article inconsistent or anything: the reference cleanup was done consistently throughout, and brought the articles up to current practices.
2. Can you please log on as Gimmetrow and confirm that you and he are the same editor? The question of your identity has been asked a few times, and I would like to see confirmation. Behaviourally, it appears that you are the same person (see this for example), but I would like to see explicit confirmation.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Halle Berry I count exactly 3 reverts from both of you. I'm guessing that the both of you can count and stopped right before the bright line and I'm glad you're talking about this but consider this a reminder and a warning. Otherwise I'm waiting for answers to Kww's questions. -- Atama頭 21:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, now, that this kicked-up more than three months ago: [62] vs [63]; w/Pablo, a few days later: [64]/[65] vs [66]. I didn't notice I'd been reverted, at the time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gimmetoo blocked indef until he can prove that hu is actually an alt account of Gimmetrow. If it's the latter, I do apologize, but the edit warring and disruptive behavior combined with the lack of confirmation makes me suspicious. NW (Talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll leave the articles be, 'til tomorrow. If Gimmetrow claims this account, we'll continue this; if not, I think a CU is in order. FWIW, I don't know Gimmetrow at all and have no idea why they've not edited in months. Someone familiar with them might drop an email. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I dug lightly into the dual identity before, and came to the conclusion that the accounts are the same editor. Note that the resistance by Gimmetoo was begun by Gimmetrow, for example. The articles of interest overlap, as well. Another user got tangled in an autoblock when Gimmetoo was blocked on July 30, though, and that means a CU wouldn't hurt if Gimmetrow doesn't reclaim the account.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I saw that the rvs began with 'trow. Also saw that 'too responded to NW's block within a minute. Yet, 'trow has not edited. This could easily be moar mimicry. We'll see... Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have come to this process as an interested observer, I am not fully informed on these actions as this is my first such interaction. Let me preface by saying it was I, who created the thread here. I was taken aback at the undoing of a WP:REFLINKS fix. User Gimmetoo has the distinction of receiving my first and only trout slap to date, as I felt compelled to at least comment. I have been watching Gimmetoos' talkpage and this is where I learned of these developments. I commend Jack Merridew for his resolve to accommodate such an unusual notion as to require and editor to perform a reference fix manually. And then to defend against an unjustifable edit war simply to improve an article. I concur with the administrative actions I have observed in conjunction with these discussions. I would like to articulate that I believe the block against gimmetoo is proper, it is, however, for reasons not explicitly related to this ANI. I hope to see clarification as to consensus that Gimmetoos' actions were inappropriate in reverting the contributions shown. Further more, expressed, as such where this incident can serve as a reference itself that WP:REFLINKS or other citation styles are acceptable, if not preferred, opposed to raw urls'. Thanks for considering these as well. My76Strat 02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme has a very valid complaint. The new method of including all the references in one section, rather than interspersing the actual references throughout the article, is controversial. Many, many editors (including a large proportion of those who deal with FAs), dislike this method. Long-standing consensus has been that if a referencing system is in place on an article, the system should not change. Jack Merridew acted incorrectly in converting articles to list-style references when they were already using a different method. Although individual references improvements are, of course, welcome, the referencing style should not be changed for an article without prior consensus on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs is correct here. WP:CITE explictly says "You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected.". That language is intended to discourage converting articles from one formatting method to another; it's the same principle as WP:ENGVAR. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is one thing to follow one style only, but it's something completely different if you start blanking references only because a different style was used. See this edit, for example. Note the references under "Early life." That's called disruptive editing. Nymf _hideliho! 14:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any <ref> tag removed there, just citation templates. I agree that the more detailed information is nice, but presumably Jack Merridew could have re-inserted the citation information without the templates. As soon as someone pointed out to Jack that templates were opposed, he should have stopped adding them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to blank as in plain <ref>the url with no other information here</ref> rather than detailed ones. Nymf _hideliho! 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the reference was like that back on July 27 (cumulative diff), so the article is really just back to where it was before reflinks tool. Adding reference details is great, but editors who do so need to follow the style established by the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of improving the page, it was reverted to an inferior version with even less information. "Do not remove information just because it is poorly presented." It is why I reacted when seeing the reverts in the first place. "Reword rather than revert." Nymf _hideliho! 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the change to list-style references had been undone, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. Undoing a change from manual reference citations to properly templated ones is extremely counterproductive. The "changing of citation style" is intended to prevent mixing Harvard citations with other citations, or similar mish-mashing. Here the citation style is consistent, it's just the method of getting there that changed.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Kww. I hadn't even looked at it from that angle. That means there is nothing wrong with Jack's edits at all. Nymf _hideliho! 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:CITE was clarified a few moths ago to be more clear that the "citation style" refers both to the displayed appearance and the underlying wikicode. But the principle "do not convert to or from templates once a style is set" has been established for a very long time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there's a precedent not to convert from templates, but not to convert to templates? That seems extremely strange. What are the arguments against converting from a manual citation format that cannot be easily adapted to MOS changes to a templated one that enables rapid sitewide changes? What would be the motivation for resisting that?—Kww(talk) 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been following WP:CITE long enough to give a summary (it's not my personal opinion, but I think it's faithful to those who hold it). (1) Templates make the wiki source hard to read and edit, particularly if there are many footnotes. (2) Templates have their own idiosyncratic formatting which may not be the same as the formatting already used and doesn't agree with any fixed style guide. (3) It's easier and faster to type citations by hand without having to look up parameter names for the template. (4) If there are a lot of footnotes (say over 100), citation templates can significantly increase page loading time.

In any case, there are enough editors who dislike citation templates that we treat them somewhat like ENGVAR. It's a perennial issue that is unlikely to be resolved one way or another. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First-off, I had not noticed that these pages had no cite templates at all in them. Look around; most pages do, and this is good. WP:CITE#List-defined references are good, and are fairly common, too. I will have to go read whatever talk presumably occurred on WT:CITE, but it got it *wrong*. We have 3,377,334 articles, as I write this.^{count grew by 42, while typing} We're supposed to cite sources and do so in ways that are verifiable. Links rot, any ref-style can have information omitted at the time of initial entry. Templates are *appropriate*, automated tools are *helpful*. References belong in the *references* section; click [edit] to edit and maintain them. When I edit pages, I look for recent missed-vandalism; I also look for stuff done poorly, or that can be improved. I am, as Dave Shea cleverly put it, a structurist. I fix stuff under the hood.

I will not add references or tidy them in an inappropriate style, using regressive mechanisms that date from years ago. It's wrong. We can, and do, do better. Locking an article into an old style is against the notions of anyone editing, of consensus can change, and being bold. It's ownership, it's disruptive. This issue has come up with multiple editors seeking to appropriately improve these pages and the reverts were unhelpful, disruptive and, I feel, edging into vandalism. The 'too account may be some troll, or it may be an alt of 'trow; tbd, at what's turning into quite the SPI mess.

I'm familiar with the concerns Carl has summarized above, and have rebuttals: (1) list-defined references make the prose clearer by removing the cites from inline; some day wp:template folding/usability:Citron Designs#Templates will help here, too (See code folding for the core idea). List defined references also serve to structure the references as a block where they can be considered as a discrete aspect of an article. (2) The cite templates strive to implement, in a consistent manner, the appropriate styling of each field. Used appropriately, they will get this right far more often than editors will and they encapsulate the styling where a changed consensus can tweak vast numbers of pages. They can even get right what an MOS page has wrong: Template talk:Cite web#"Work" vs "Publisher" parameters. (3) Sloth; use automated tools to help; let someone get it right, at least. (4) I've spent years in places with extremely poor internet connections, and page load time is not much of an issue with articles, really. It's pages like ANI or AC/Workshop pages from hell that get balky.

This view towards excluding citation templates and tools like Reflinks simply does not fit with widespread practice; it's absurd to edit a ref section and get a mere <references /> or {{reflist}}. Surely this has resulted in many WTF-moments for n00bz. If view this needs challenging, fine. Let's get to it, RfC it. Or we could be wise, and just get on with properly referencing the sea of content on this site. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to bring up the issue at WT:CITE. But our present (and well-established) policy is that you should not change the referencing style of an article once it has been established. So your argument misses the point, because like ENGVAR the goal here is to avoid the argument by simply leaving the established style.

Like everyone else, you need to follow our community norms in this regard. If you prefer not to add reference information because you cannot change the style, that's up to you; it's a volunteer project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good response. Bare urls are not a style choice, they are a part of the article which is incomplete, as all our articles are. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. WP:CITE is not a policy, it is a guideline, and a flawed one at that. WP:IAR *is* fuckin' policy, and I improved the article. I would prefer that guidance be correct and will support efforts to correct it. I will also seek to improve most any article I happen upon. We have an article on kick the can? Yup, although it's not quite what I was thinkin'. That's my approach to a lot of things; nudge things in the right direction. Incremental improvement; progressive enhancement. Get in my way in an unreasonable manner, and I'll kick you in the... shins... every time. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a checkuser request on Gimmetoo at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiecocopops.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Kww(talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existing style of most Wikipedia articles is to use accepted correct spelling. When a contributor introduces useful information to an article, sometimes misspelled, we don't revert the content, we correct the spelling. If I introduce information to a reference, but otherwise metaphorically misspell it, applying the same courtesy should be intuitive. To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, as previously stated, is asinine. My76Strat 04:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest problem with Gimmetoo's revert was that it reverted everything, not just the change in citations that was supposedly the thing being objected to. I realize what I'm about to say belongs at WP:Cite, but it seems counterproductive to me that an attempt to improve an article - whether correct or incorrect - can be reverted with nothing more than "this is how we always do it", "I don't like it" or just a plain "no". It also means that an editor can make changes to as many articles as they like as long as nobody notices or nobody objects, but one editor can stop them from from changing the citation style on one article, even while ignoring every edit to any article that doesn't interest them. Doesn't this empower one editor to decide they "own" the citation style for an article such as Halle Berry based only on the fact that a style (any style) is already in place? If the argument was to use a style that is most accessible, most easily used or is standard to the project, I'd be happy with whatever it was, but the citation style seems to be determined by the personal preference of whichever editor got there first, regardless of merit. I also don't understand how this can be beneficial to editors who may wish to edit across a range of articles which use different styles. It means that they have to either learn and understand how to use all of them, or they stumble along and do their best in the hope that eventually someone will fix whatever they've done. Then if they use something like reflinks to update citations, they run the risk of someone telling them not to rock the boat. It seems to me that of all the reasons for using a particular style, "because it's there" is the weakest. Rossrs (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthur; I've not looked, but I'm betting that Halle Berry's article is years old, not a recent one. She's a WP:HOTTIE and is quite notable ;) So, someone set a style years ago, before much changed. So what? We can do better; I pushed it along, and got kicked in the teeth for my efforts. I think I've been quite restrained the last day or so, because I could have fixed another dozen refs to nice, modern cite templates had this shite not kicked-up. I'm pausing for a user who is currently indef'd, in case anyone is not following that detail. Someone who is not responding appropriately to reasonable inquiries. Mebbe I should be looking at what has gone on in the last few hours; I've been watching Billy Budd (film), which I recommend, although s:Billy Budd, it teh source. Anysways, my last revert, calling 'too a vandal has stood for much of two days. Terima kasih; someone go furthur, so I can pitch-in tomorrow? We fix things one article at a time and my last effort was disrupted. Jack Merridew 05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2002 ;) The first reference was added to the article in 2006. By Gimmetrow. It's quite the non-standard ref, containing no less than seven external links. This ref has survived to this day, although it's down to five links, with one tagged as dead (and two more are, too). And what's it about? A WP:SYN regarding her date of birth. Is this the standard we're to be held to? Jack Merridew 08:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (and ya, I saw Risker; 'too is 'trow)[reply]

Wiki guideline is that you do not change styles in articles. Previous editors have explained the reasons. Rossrs seem to be concerned that this guideline lets one editor "own" the citation style of an article. Do you not see that Merridew's approach would allow a single editor to "own" the citation styles of hundreds of articles? So who should get to "choose"? An editor who doesn't contribute content and spends a few seconds completely changing an article with some script, or an editor who maintains the article, reverting vandalism and fixing up things for years, and who has to actually deal with the article text? I've been around long enough to know that the cause célèbre du jour in style changes is likely to be undone by a later cause célèbre. Remember linking dates on every article you edited? Yep, people went around doing that on thousands of articles. And a few years later, people went around undoing it. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expressed more concern than merely that point. "So who should get to "choose"?" Whatever the correct answer may be, I read your answer as "Gimmetoo". You've expressed your view that your opinion is worth more to the Halle Berry article than anyone else's because you've been dealing with article content and maintaining it for years. That's a terrible reason, and it reads like ownership. A lot of people expend a lot of energy fighting vandalism and bad edits out of numerous articles - that's something we are all supposed to do - but it doesn't give them any greater claim over those articles. Changing the citation style is not "completely changing an article". It doesn't take as much as a comma out of the content you've contributed or maintained. You ask, "Do you not see that Merridew's approach would allow a single editor to "own" the citation styles of hundreds of articles?" No, I don't. Because if there was no opposition to it, that would imply consent or acceptance on the part of any editors who have seen the changes, and if the style remained in place it would be because collectively the community either accepted it or did not oppose it. That shared "ownership" is within the expectations of Wikipedia culture. Jack Merridew wouldn't own the style, nobody would and everybody would. A single editor never has that large a voice. Their voice is entirely dependent on the rest of the community. You're not bound to abide by the guidelines, it even has a disclaimer to that effect, but if you choose to uphold it "because the guideline says" instead of "because it's the best option", you do own that, not the community, because you've made the decision for everyone. There is a difference and although Wikipedia is not a democracy, Jack Merridew's edits allow for the whole community to comment upon them, and that does allow for a more democratic process than just shutting him down, which would result in essentially zero comment. You make a good point about the delinking of dates. It's possible that next "delinking of dates" could be "updating of citations". I've also been around long enough to see one cause célèbre du jour made obsolete by the next, and that is precisely how best practices evolve, not only in the real world, but here too. Rossrs (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teh owner's back. The tool, Checklinks in the last instance, fussed with "Accessed" vs 'Retrieved' a bunch of times; that's about consistency. It also tagged some links that have rotted and mebbe we should be getting back to that. There are other worthless links in there, too: [67], [68]. I did not do most of my edits in 'a few seconds'. See the history, this span of edits that took nearly two hours; that was manually done work to the referencing, which is a part of the 'content'. You don't like that my focus is on structure, do you? That's a big piece of this, methinks.

I don't know what the deal with your admin account is. I don't care about all that noise. FWIW, when I first posted @you, it was on User talk:Gimmetrow, not User talk:Gimmetoo. This was per your claim as being an alternate; and I noted that it was of an admin account, but didn't notice that 'trow had not edited in months. An hour later, I'd looked further and posted to the talk page with the recent other block and the trout on it.

FWIW, I supported unlinking most dates; seven million links to 2006 is dumb. Regards, Jack Merridew 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare's involvement

For reasons that should be obvious, I find NW's participation in this incident to be particularly wrong. The block was wrong. The talk page lock was wrong. The threats of global block was wrong. I am a little concerned that NW locked the talk page right after I claimed misconduct, which could be viewed as an attempted coverup. I suspect at some point that NW started to become aware that NW might have screwed up, but NW did not remove the block. NW, in the capacity as SPI clerk, approved an SPI involving an editor NW had inappropriately blocked; this could also be interpreted as a coverup, hoping to find some dirt so NW's critic would stay silenced.

NW is currently an arb clerk "trainee". The first quality listed of an arb clerk is that he be competent/clueful. I claim this incident demonstrates NW's incompetence. I think NW should be removed from the arb clerk position. Also from the SPI clerk position. Shouldn't screwups of this magnitude have some consequences?

And trouts all around for the other admins (Fastily, WJBscribe, Kww) who supported NW. If there were such a thing as wiki sensitivity training, I would think they need it. Seriously, "forcing" an editor to edit with a different account can have real life consequences. If the account hasn't been used in a few months, maybe there is a reason. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Risker has said you are exactly you who said you were. I would guess this seems clear. Fine.

I am still totally lost why you went through no effort to prove anything about your identity. As a long-term sysop and editor, you must have been aware that there have been issues with impersonation before. You are correct that at some point I felt uneasy about the block I made. That is why I reenabled talk page access, hoping you would provide a reasonable explanation for your actions. I approved the checkuser to doublecheck my block, not to find any dirt. But had a checkuser report not come back, I would have stuck with my block. While you might have been editing in some of the same areas, your writing style in some areas didn't seem to resonate with what I had seen you write before, although of course I am not am expert on these matters and have only seen you in passing when reading GA and FA-related pages. WikiChecker showed you editing from likely another time zone entirely. Not once were you (and still, might I add) willing to provide any sort of proof for who you were.

And as for real life consequences, I considered that and dismissed it. You had not invoked a right to vanish or left no message to indicate that you were retiring in early May. Your new account was clearly identified as the old one, hardly the usual work of someone looking to vanish.

I do apologize for the block, as it was mistaken, but it would be nice if you could provide any sort of explanation.

As for the ArbClerk and SPIclerk business: Someone has noticed your request on WT:AC/C, and has forwarded it to the mailing list. I shall not be participating unless directly asked to. You can do the same at WT:SPICLERK, while there is no mailing list discussion there, I would not participate onwiki unless the other clerks asked me to. NW (Talk) 12:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a trout for Kirill [69]. Suffice to say that Kirill no longer has my confidence, and will probably not be supported at the next arbcom elections. This also confirms my decision not to email the arbcom. Can none of you see that there might be a legitimate reason why someone with access to a second account would not be at liberty to login to it or edit from it? Perhaps I should have done some edit from the 'trow account to connect the accounts before May. Perhaps I did and none of you have noticed it. But once I am not longer at liberty to use the 'trow account, then using it to satisfy some random admin is simply not an option. Do we need some sort of policy provision to handle this situation? I really wonder why so many admins can't get it. Are most of you teenagers without enough job or life experience to even imagine what might be at play? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm crossposting Kirill's statement so people don't have to click on the above.

It was certainly appropriate to treat Gimmetoo's claim of being Gimmetrow with a healthy level of suspicion; impersonation of administrators is not uncommon, and it is quite feasible that someone may have wanted to harm Gimmetrow's reputation by getting involved in a heated conflict while pretending to be him. Whether this suspicion needed to be handled with an immediate block, or whether the appropriate investigations could have been carried out while the Gimmetoo account continued to edit, is a question to which different answers might be argued; but, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the block was not a correct response, the Committee is not so fickle as to judge someone on the basis of a mistake made in a good faith attempt to protect the project. NuclearWarfare retains the Committee's confidence, and will continue in his current role. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(Clerks, as there appear to be multiple venues for this discussion, please feel free to cross-post my comment above to any other venue where NW's role is being discussed.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I didn't see an edit conflict, as I saw Kirill's post below after I hit save. Dougweller (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should consider that editing from multiple accounts is a privilege, not a right, and that someone cannot simply claim to have an administrator account without providing any evidence thereof? If we have no way to verify that you are who you say you are, then we are unfortunately forced to take measures to ensure that we protect existing accounts in good standing from being harmed by your actions. That is unfortunate, and not a reflection on you personally; but we could have a difficult time explaining to Gimmetrow why we failed to do so had it turned out that you were, in fact, an impersonator. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, you do have a way to verify the claim that the accounts are linked, and it's a way that doesn't require someone to edit from the second account. There was, indeed, plenty of evidence that this was an alternate account. I would question whether, in this case, there is a simple claim to "have an administrator account" - yes, 'trow is an admin account, but it's not like either 'too or 'trow identify as an admin on the user page. Nor have I been claiming admin "authority". Nor have I tried to have the admin bit transferred from the account, which I would expect requires some verification, and probably wouldn't happen without making the request from the admin account. The identity or non-identity of the two accounts was, as far as I can tell, pretty much irrelevant to the issue that started this. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen in the SPI discussion, I thought it was nearly impossible for this to not be you, simply using common sense. But in defense of those who were suspicious, common sense should have suggested that you place the declaration of this being an alternate account by using your main account. I had a temporary alternate account that was retired a long time ago, and I marked it with my main account so that there'd be no ambiguity. At least it is cleared up now. I apologize for the inconvenience it caused you, but please remember that all of this scrutiny started when you choosed to engage in an edit war at an article, something that has given you two blocks in the past. Maybe in the future, for your own sake, you might consider a voluntary 1RR? I chose to abide by 1RR myself long ago and I've never regretted it. -- Atama頭 17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make one extremely obvious statement here: Gimmetoo's behaviour is problematic. No plausible explanation has been offered that would explain why posting as Gimmetoo and loudly proclaiming oneself to be Gimmetrow would be safe, and making a single, simple edit as Gimmetrow to either unblock Gimmetoo or claim the account would not be. In addition, per Gimmetoo's request on Commons, I e-mailed Gimmetrow some codewords for Gimmetoo to use and verify his identity. I haven't seen them from Gimmetoo. I think the most likely explanation is the Gimmetrow and Gimmetoo are the same editor and that he believes himself to be defending some point of principle, but I'm at a loss as to what that principle is. I asked politely above for him to link the accounts with no threat of blocking, and that was ignored. His response to his block was immediate (within 60 seconds), so it was apparent that he on-wiki and presumably aware of the request. Once blocked, he could have cleared the situation in seconds, but instead he chose to escalate it. Why?—Kww(talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ik ben Gimmetrow. Ik heb geen flauw idee waarom jullie heb mij geblokkeerd. I'm not inclined to provide any reasons - the time for that is long gone. But you might want to review Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT, security, as one example. Assuming admin accounts on Wiki have any value, someone might not want to have an admin account compromised in a keylogging environment. Not saying this is what's going on, but it is one scenario where even a login wouldn't be possible. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed what Gimmetoo was asked to say in an e-mail to Gimmetrow.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Indeed, that would be a perfectly legitimate reason to operate a secondary account; nobody is suggesting that you may not have one. The concern is that, if you are faced with circumstances where confirming ownership of the account may be impossible at the time you are questioned, then the onus is on you to make the necessary arrangements for it to be confirmed in a manner and at a time convenient to you. That may, in a case like this, mean that you will lose access to the secondary account until you are able to take whatever steps you feel are necessary to safeguard access to the primary one; but, at the same time, other administrators cannot be expected to let a potential impersonation continue merely because the potential impersonator claims such circumstances, as that claim is just as easily made by a real impersonator as it is by the owner of the account. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion

Unless I am mistaken, Jack Merridew's editing restrictions were last modified near the end of 2009. One of the restrictions apparently currently in place is: "...follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions." Do others think that Merridew has "followed dispute resolution processes" appropriately in this case? Merridew has stated that WP:CITE "got it wrong", but has never apparently discussed the issue at WP:CITE. Merridew is acting in opposition to WP:CITE, and has left the article in an inconsistent style. He claims to invoke WP:IAR to reject WP:CITE, and has said "Get in my way in an unreasonable manner, and I'll kick you in the... shins... every time." WP:IAR is a double-edged sword; you can cut yourself when you invoke it. Merridew doesn't seem to care about the the usability of articles for other editors after his makes his edits. Note that, before the 2009 modification, Merridew's editing restrictions included "avoiding all disruptive editing" and "may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator". Comments? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm if there are still any restrictions on Jack the committee should probably remove them now. If you want a comment from an admin, you both behaved badly but as an admin I would have expected much better of you then Jack. *trout* Happy now? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dollareuro (talk · contribs) is moving article content by cut and paste

• from Assyrian people to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people

and

• from Assyrian Genocide to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Genocide

Losing the article history and so violating the license. In addition the lemma change may be in violation of a prior Requested Move consensus.

--Pjacobi (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author Dollareuro (talk · contribs) already mentioned the reason for redirection :" in order to inlude all Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" btw these three groups consider themselves to be one ethnic group, therefore it will be a good thing to be under the one common name Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac.

Yadamavu (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the redirects. If there is consensus, then it needs to be moved properly. If there is not, it needs to be discussed or reverted as good faith mistakes. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also undone the one at Assyrian diaspora - the moves seem nonsensical and pointy at the moment, though made in good faith as far as I can see. The new titles aren't particularly practical. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to tidy this mess up. Two of the copy-and-paste moves are now back as speedy requests (it is my believe as clear copy violations this is one of the times re-adding a speedy is OK) and the third is now back as a redirect (although an admin may still wish to delete and recreate the redirect). An inappropriate AfD that was started speedy closed by me (NAC). Requested move started here. I'm now going off to try to collect all appropriate comments there. I'd appreciate if an admin could review my actions and make sure everything is in order. Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's made a few more changes of Assyrian to "Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac" - it's a horrible way to demonstrate a multi-faceted ethnic group, would it be prudent to ask him to desist until consensus is attained one way or the other? He doesn't seemt o be doing it at any hectic pace. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken that part of it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts for guidance. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm engaged in dialog with User:Curvesall on article Racism in Israel, and I'm having a very difficult time. The editor doesn't seem to really understand how to properly edit, and they have introduced numerous style/grammar/formatting errors into the article in the past few days. Every time I try to fix them and explain, the editor reverts my changes. They do engage in talk on the Talk page, but it gets nowhere: I think we have agreement, then wham, they rever the change again.

Here is one example: A source in the article is an essay by person A, in a book by edited by person B. Person B is perhaps biased. User Curvesall keeps changing the text in the article to state that B wrote the essay (B did not: B was merely the editor). Here are three times I tried to indicate to Curvesall that B was not the author: [70], [71], [72] Yet, in spite of all that guidance, Curvesall insists on inserting text into the article that says B is the author (the line is "Nahla Abdo-Zubi, Ronit Lenṭin, critics of Zionists have described Israeli media as..." (Abdo and Lentin are editors, not authors). That is just one example of about 40 problems Curvseall has introduced into the article.

For what it's worth: this user is a single-article account ([73]) although I've seen no evidence of anything nefarious.

Any help would be appreciated. It is excruciatingly difficult trying to repair the damage Curvesall has done. If some editor could review the situation and give some input on the article Talk page, or Curvesall User page, maybe that will help. --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "resolved" tag: if the inquiry does not belong here, please tell the editor where to bring it, don't just shut the door in his or her face with an unsigned "resolved" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Ken said: if it doesn't belong here, where does it belong? Or is this a "content issue" where someone should either be happy to beat their head against a wall or just give up and let someone else, well-meaning or not, ruin an article? Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Some conversation is happening on the talk page. I warned Curvesall for 3RR, and he's been invited to join the ANI discussion. He seems like someone with prior Wikipedia experience. If Noleander thinks that Curvesall is not following our policies, he can make an update to this report, or file an edit-warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, I asked also noleander to come to consensus before editing, I just followed the advice of improving style, and his above comments were met and changed already.Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I still need some guidance here. I am at my wits end. I've invested tons of time trying to repair this article, but it continues to get damaged. For each fix I implement, two mistakes are introduced. For example, user curvesall just made another irrational edit (putting a topic about Ethiopia within a section on India) [74]. I can't spend 40 hours per week for the rest of my life following this editor around and undoing mistakes (some of which, I concede, may simply be due to an honest misunderstanding of English). I suggest that Curvesall be temporarily banned from editing that article for a couple of days, to give me time to restore it to decent shape (grammar, spelling, formatting, logic) ... generally to make it encyclopedic. I'm willing to commit to not removing any content that Curveall has added to the article: merely re-formatting and cleaning-up. Then the ban can be lifted and we can start afresh. I understand the WP:Don't bite the newcomers policy, and I've tried to be collegial and helpful at every turn, but I'm not seeing much progress in Curvesall's behavior. --Noleander (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm begging some admin: Please, please ban this editor for a few days. Besides violating just about every WP policy and style guide, the way the editor makes changes to the article is: he has a personal copy of the article, and every time he wants to edit the article, he copies his entire personal copy into the WP article. If any other editor makes a change to the article between, it is lost. See Talk:Racism_in_Israel#Do_you_replace_the_entire_article_each_time.3F. If a ban is not palatable, at least a stern lecture? --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to come across Paperwheel (talk · contribs) today while reviewing the edits of an Anon IP [75]. The Paperwheel account does not seem to have ever edited a live article or used a talk page, and has exclusively created and worked on a big list of subpages in his own userspace [76], [77]. The subpages are here [78]. They appear to be just copy-pasted bits and pieces of userboxes and help pages, plus some pages that are just utter nonsense. I'm probably going to submit the lot to MfD, but before I do I was wondering if this was familiar to anyone here, possibly familiar behavior of a blocked user? Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified Paperwheel of this thread. Basket of Puppies 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

(edit conflict)Thank you BoP. He hasn't edited in over a year so I guess I subconsciously didn't think to do it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have indeed edited articles: twice.. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man, your eyes are better than mine are! Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, twice. What infraction is this? Just curious. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an infraction. However, it's not an especially productive use of Wikipedia, either. Accounts should be here to edit and contribute to the encyclopedia, not create catalogs of subpages full of userboxes and nonsense. That's venturing into WP:NOTMYSPACE territory, which is why I've sent the lot to MfD. I'm not here to "report" anyone, the behavior just seemed odd to me and I was asking if it was familiar to anyone. Sockmasters are known to do things like that. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nonproductive it would seem to be. It's a strange assortment of incomprehensible stuff. I wonder if it's computer-generated — by some kind of program? Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 August, Schwyz (talk · contribs) moved Province of Pomerania to Province of Pomerania (1815-1945). Per WP:BRD, I want to undo that move. I contest its merits because per WP:PRIMARY, "Province of Pomerania" should be used and other articles should be linked from the dab page mentioned in the hatnote. If Schwyz or anyone else disagrees, they may use the WP:RM process.

I can not undo the move myself, since Schwyz salted the former title by turning it into a redirect page. Thus, I need admin assistance to

• delete the current redirect page Province of Pomerania
• move the article Province of Pomerania (1815-1945) to Province of Pomerania

Thank you, Skäpperöd (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There has been a similar request of mine just a few days ago [79], and since I have seen similar requests by other users [80] [81] [82], I wonder if any admin may instruct Schwyz to make less use of WP:BOLD and more use of WP:RM. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

non-admin responses

What you're requesting is identical to CSD G6, which is usually done by placing {{db-move}} on the page that you want deleted. Being a speedy deletion request, this is done when the move is uncontroversial. Since potentially controversial, this request belongs at WP:RM. A question, have you initiated a discussion on this yet? I couldn't find one. The important part of BRD is discuss, so maybe you should focus more on discussing the move and gaining consensus to solve the problem, and less on complaints to ANI. Swarm^Talk 07:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The initial move user Schwyz performed is controversial, so per WP:BRD it should be undone and discussed at WP:RM. Since when is one expected to start a WP:RM discussion to revert a controversial move? It's the other way around. The request is placed here because Schwyz salted the original title, which was stable for years, so I technically can not make use of my right to revert a controversial edit w/o admin assistance. Please can an admin clear the original title by deleting it, so the article can be moved back. If Schwyz insits on the title they moved it to this time (they had moved it to another title previously), they may file an RM and see if a consensus forms there supporting such a change, as it is standard procedure. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just note that User:Schwyz has around 1600 page moves (counting TP's) out of 4400 edits. Mauler90 _talk 07:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should have no effect on this specific incident at all, unless their moves are consistently problematic. Swarm^Talk 08:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are, and they have yet to show any signs of heeding others good faith concerns about it. Quantpole (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the msg by Mauler, by that number I would have at more than 800 real moves, since some pages don't have a talk page. Out of 800 moves, some are controversial. For that specific one: I disambiguating between two entities called Pomerania Province or "Province of Pomerania" - for the former revert Skäpperöd did not mention he would thinnk the topic is WP:PT - so I didn't assume it would be controversial to introduce proper dab page again. Schwyz (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose - the revert of the former did introduce false incoming links. There are other entities called Province of Pomerania, that's why "(1815-1945)" needs to be added. Also: the former revert that Skäpperöd asked for he motivated by "Pomerania Province" va "Province of Pomerania" he didn't mention WP:PT at all. Also it fails WP:PT, no numbers brought up to support WP:PT for specifically that province, the Prussian one. Schwyz (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to argue about the merits or dis-merits of your move. You should do it at Talk:Province of Pomerania. (I am sure many users would like to join you there.) This thread is about cleanup after your controversial action. I have stricken out your comment above as being unrelated to this discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an RM discussion, this is a technical request as the salting of the redirect prevents non-admins to properly follow WP:BRD. Once the article is moved back to its former title, you may file an RM and outline your rationale there. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more than a tech request, you brought it to ANI, and in your original request you include things not related to the tech question. I really couldn't see that you prefer wrong incoming links to be introduced again and that you think disambiguation between entities named the same you wouldn't like. Your former request you did only motivate by naming of the base name, which I respected. Schwyz (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course PT was not mentioned when your last controversial move was undone, since it did not affect the title you moved it to that time. I referred to PT simply because I wanted to let the housekeeping admin taking care of this request know that there are arguments that I base my opposition on. There are more, eg the title you moved it to is utterly unstable because it does not contain the MOSsy mdash, and someone will "fix" that with another move soon, creating ample double+ redirects, if this problem is not taken care of. But really, let's discuss that in a WP:RM, not here. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course PT affected the former title. The year numbers were included. You didn't say anything about the year numbers in your former undo request. For the mdash - thing - no problem, redirects and bots can handle this. It is one more redirect, to call that "ample" is only putting ATTACK into the talk. Schwyz (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page should be put back to its original position, and an WP:RM filed with notices placed at relevant WikiProjects. Then we can collect suggestions about the best way to proceed. There's no rush, so let's sort this out properly with proper community input. Knepflerle (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To let users end up on the wrong topic is far worse than on a disambiguation page. Schwyz (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we can discuss the best ways to avoid this during the WP:RM discussion, and pick a solution so that this will not happen. Knepflerle (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question to admins: why is this taking so long and so much talk? Skäpperöd asked a revert because he declared the speedy deletion was controversial. This very statement should be enough to revert (although he added good motivation). He also suggested someone talked to Schwyz explaining that any possible controversion in a move/delete prevents speedy housekeeping. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: Not an SD was controversial, but a move. I wonder why it does take so long, too. <sarcasm>Maybe I should go and call someone "little shit" to catch their attention.</sarcasm> Skäpperöd (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think that would help. Apparently, there is no admin around here to even be insulted ;-). Move or SD: it's about the non-controversial, of course. Anyway, even the previous discussion about Schwyz behaviour here, (which does not have your name), did not solve it. -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please block Schwyz asap

Retracting my block request since Schwyz declared their retirement [83] [84] [85] [86], so there is no immediate action required preventing mass introduction of controversial links. I still want the page moved back though. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I award the Wikipedia administratior corps a huge pile of horse manure for not taking prompt action on a simple technical request and allowing this discussion to turn over into something that looks like a trollfest. Loosing Schwyz (talk · contribs) is a great loss to Wikipedia. Early and prompt action would have avoided this. (Award to the right. I don't know what right KoshVorlon has to call me a Schwanz, but the award is available here ) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For this egregious derelict of duty, I hereby dock all Wikipedia admins one day's pay. –xeno^talk 13:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my plea on their talk page to stop, Schwyz is atm changing a multitude of wikilinks to link the controversial new title I requested to be reverted above. They treated my request as "harassment", which I take as an insult. I request that Schwyz is blocked asap, the page moved back, and Schwyz instructed to follow WP:RM. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your WP:HAR!!! To ask for block, if a user does disambiguation work is nothing but WP:HAR.

See some of my link fixes, the links went to the wrong topic! The title Province of Pomerania is not unambiguous:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Awinouj%C5%9Bcie&diff=prev&oldid=378689141
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farther_Pomerania&diff=prev&oldid=378690419
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Daniel_Ernst_Schleiermacher&diff=prev&oldid=378688385

This has nothing to do with were your personal favorite as PT is loacted. There can be a redirect later. Schwyz (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly linking your controversial title while this request, that your move be undone, is active, examples: [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]. This is by no means uncontroversial dab work, and to call my request harrassment is insulting. Before 10:00 UTC, you had the bonus of AGF, that is gone now. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I link the other name, to do the dab work. You don't get it: there can be a redirect to your personal favorite topic later. Your ultimatum style block request etc, shows clearly that you don't WP:AGF Schwyz (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U started. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of interest to this thread. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Salting redirects after page moves is an indication of bad faith and in my view cause for administrative action, i.e. temporary block. It prevents the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle needed to handle this large number of page moves. Not all of Schwyz's moves are controversial – the ones that are have usually been immediately reverted and later discussed. See for example Talk:Governorate of Estonia and Talk:Governorate of Livonia. On the other hand I want to commend Schwyz for doing important work on historic provinces, he just needs firmer guidance. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. - The fact that the salting was done after a move war makes the bad faith even more obvious. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting worse, admin attention?

Please can an admin delete the current redirect page Province of Pomerania so the artilce can be moved back (initial request in this thread). It's getting worse. A respected user, no fault on his part!!!!, has now moved Schwyz's title, which was inconsistent with MOS, to yet another title [92]. Schwyz had already started changing wikilinks as outlined above, and now we have multiple redirects pointing different ways... If no action is taken soon, more and more work will be needed to clean up the mess. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification of this discussion (it was I who replaced the hyphen with the dash). Now I've seen it, I strongly support Skapperod's plea for admins to act. We've had too much of this move warring tactics recently, where someone unilaterally renames a page and then insists that others get consensus at RM before it can be moved back. This is clearly not how it's supposed to work - I don't mind people being bold (and frequently am so myself), but as soon as someone makes a reasonable objection to such a bold move, the move should be undone and an RM request submitted to see if there is consensus for the move. Anyone who disrupts that process (by redoing the move, or continuing with other similar moves, or deliberately salting redirects to prevent non-admins moving the page back, etc.) is being disruptive and needs action taken to ensure that they stop and that the damage is repaired.--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there is the RM Schwyz opened before they left, what should be done about this? Skäpperöd (talk)

Skapperod would you stop creating wikidrama? The water is not on fire.  Dr. Loosmark  12:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment by User:Skäpperöd

(Moved by Moonriddengirl to subsection related thread)

I am doing disambiguation work an Skäpperöd is requesting a block for that, [93]. He clearly fails WP:AGF. . Before 10:00 UTC, you had the bonus of AGF - the redirects are valid redirect titles. So nothing to call for a block. Schwyz (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This all seems very familiar. I don't think it was necessary - or appropriate - to start a new thread. Particularly since a complaint in the previous thread was "a lack of admin attention". TFOWR 10:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you have sysop rights, could you please take care of the initial request, and mark this one resolved? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin action

I've reverted the controversial move to permit discussion. If consensus supports the move, it's a simple matter to move it again. Meanwhile, I hope that there is some resolution forthcoming about these moves (presuming the retirement to be temporary) so it can stop showing up at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
EDDDDDDDI (talk · contribs) is posting the names of a student who will be killing students at a school in a future date, and the names of the students who will be killed. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Articles deleted, see also this explanation. I don't think any further action should be needed. Prodego talk 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Just because he says it's a joke now, doesn't mean it actually is.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I believe we have a policy on this. Someone needs to contact the police in the area and give them the info, I believe an admin with full access to the deleted pages will need to do it. I believe this is local station [94]. A checkuser might be needed to get his IP to pass on to the police in case the one posting it isn't one of the named parties.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Threats of mass murder are not a matter for the police, Prodego? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It is a plausible explanation, but the main thing to remember is that if the police are contacted absolutely not to do that without the IP of EDDDDDDDI. Otherwise anyone writing X will kill Y on Wikipedia can try to get the police to show up at 'X's' house. Which would be very bad. Prodego talk 07:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Simply dismissing it isn't the responsible thing to do either. Requesting a checkuser and forwarding it to the police and letting them make the call is.--Crossmr (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Dismissing it is my first preference. It is out of pattern with the other edits, the explanation is very plausible and comes with an apology, it looks pretty clear to me. People make stupid joke edits all the time. But if a checkuser agrees to release the IP, so be it. Prodego talk 07:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Out of pattern? They've only made a couple of other edits. There is hardly enough edits there to establish a pattern.--Crossmr (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I agree, per WP:TOV ALL TOV are to be reported to the local police. I'll open a quick checkuser case if no one has done so already... Pilif12p :  Yo  18:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Please, get the IP, get the deleted revision and call the police right away. I would do both if I only had the access. Basket of Puppies 11:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I couldn't find an enwp CU on at this time. I was told to email functionaries-en, and I did, it is now awaiting their action. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 19:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Foundation was notified earlier today and has taken appropriate action. Philippe Beaudette, WMF (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think it would be equally funny if he never posted here again, but then my humor tends to be a bit "different". HalfShadow 03:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100110100 was banned per this discussion. Here is a previous ANI discussion on the user.

Since then, the user has been using sockpuppets for a while, the most recent of which is User talk:199.126.224.156. Here are other ANI threads about this user's sockpuppets: [95] [96]

After other admins recognized the latest sockpuppet, it was blocked by User:NuclearWarfare on July 27. Since then the IP has been editing every 3 days, and I have been extending the block each time and rolling back the edits per WP:BAN.

I could use some other admin eyes here, particularly because I haven't been able to get through the to the editor that they are actually banned. Since this IP address seems pretty stable, would a longer block be in order? — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a month long or three-month long block. It's quite obviously a static IP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. In fact, I would not actively oppose an even longer block (though such might be problematic/controversial at this stage). I'm going to extend the block to one month, which I think is a fairly obviously appropriate course of action here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and if they start up on that same ip as soon as the block expires then a 3 month sanction should be applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the problem is that they don't realize they're banned... the problem is they don't care. Hardblock the IP if it's static. If they come back, rangeblock. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a pity that the user's talk page has been deleted as it make to most other editors as if this has come out of the blue. I was involved in some of the previous discussions about this editor and am willing to help enforce a block. Let me know on my talk page if there is anything I can do to help. -- PBS (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything a non-administrator can do to help please also stop by my talk page and let me know. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long and protracted dispute. But I support brevity whenever possible and I will try to avoid anyone quoting WP:TLDR to me. The dispute involves Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who, starting last June, insisted on adding their personal analysis of a video into the Prahlad Jani article which was identified as synthesis and original research by myself and two other editors. In the span of about two months and after two RFCs and two reports at WP:ORN, the second report at ORN, at Wikipedia:ORN#Prahlad_Jani_redux, finally rendered opinions that the attempted edit was WP:OR. But although, initially, Nazar seemed to accept the opinion rendered at ORN, after a few days s/he came back at the Prahlad Jani article and added the Defamation of various entities through biased rendering section, where among other things s/he also accuses me and user McGeddon that By refusing to provide the neutral dating of the evidence material, the mentioned above editors are protecting the con. Since I want to keep this report brief I will not add more details but I would like to ask if anyone thinks that the "Defamation of various entities through biased rendering" section added by Nazar on the talk page of the Prahlad Jani article constitutes a legal threat and if anything needs to be done about it. I am also asking for an opinion about whether the editor should be advised about disruptive editing given their persistent refusal to accept the fact that the edits s/he attempted to insert into the article are synthesis. See also the Nazar revisited section on user Prodego's talkpage, the Prahlad Jani section on my talkpage,the RFCs section on my talkpage. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's already said "No legal threats...implied." which surely rules it out as a legal threat, no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using the legal term "defamation" and not retracting it goes against the words you just linked to. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a legal threat. Civility issues mayube, but nothing too serious.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. But I think that pushing synthesis for such a long time despite advice to the contrary by so many editors is at least disruptive. Let's not forget about the repeat and blatant ad-hominem arguments and personal attacks for which he was warned multiple times by myself and twice by user McGeddon. However it is good to have an opinion one way or the other. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point that Dr.K. has been trying to 'punish' me and constantly threatened me at any possible occasion with various Wiki Policies, Rules and other things, trying to imply that I severely violate all and any of them by my edits and my comments in disputes. He also often demanded that I ‘stop editing…’, ‘stop commenting…’, etc… This has been rather oppressive from my point of views and felt/feels like an attempt to intimidate an opponent in dispute by misusing the superior mastery of Wiki Policies which Dr.K. seems to boast. I was reluctant to report this anywhere as I do not claim my edits to be 100% perfect and do not possess a comparable command of Rules and Policies as that of Dr.K. But since the issue has been brought up here, and I feel rather 'pushed into the dead corner' by Dr.K's actions, I feel compelled to mention this now. I'm not requesting any 'punishment', 'official warning' or something of the kind for Dr.K. Just want to highlight my feelings and my experience in connection with the situation brought up here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You replied: constantly threatened me at any possible occasion with various Wiki Policies Can you provide a specific example? Can you also supply a diff where I "seem to boast" my knowledge of policy? And a few more diffs showing when I told you to "stop editing" and "stop commenting"? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also say that Dr.K.'s reactions and involvement of Rules and Policies in reply to my comments in a dispute seem artificially exaggerated and imply a well-calculated regular over-reaction and provocation, probably aimed at pushing the situation to the point where he will have enough reasons to officially accuse me of some violations. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A look at your edits over the past two months as well as the diffs I provided above tell a different story. The single-minded synthesis-push of your personal video analysis speaks for itself. You even added a reply at ORN today still defending your personal synthetic analysis. You also say well-calculated regular over-reaction and provocation, probably aimed at pushing the situation to the point where he will have enough reasons to officially accuse me of some violations. Yet you take no responsibility for pushing this dead horse for approximately two months. People can tell you things once or maybe twice but if they tell you things many, many times as even user McGeddon told you, how can you accuse them of over-reaction, exaggeration and provocation? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 14:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe it's Dr.K. and not me who has been pushing a WP:Synthesis for months? And why should I spend hours looking for diffs and citations just to prove something personal to Dr.K.? I try to focus on article related issues and don't want to get into this pointless personal argument. I said above how I feel, that's all. If someone is interested, let them look into my edits in the context of the on-going dispute and make their own mind. I may add that I've been a bit too emotional at some points and I did say I'm sorry for that in appropriate places. That, however, does not change my view of Dr.K.'s attitude. I'd also like to add that it is my right to defend my own position in an argument, and if 2 or 4 or even more users are of a different view, that does not necessarily mean that I must change my own well-founded logic. I did my best to take into account all the Policies and did not try to edit-war against the Rules. Any further requests from Dr.K. to abandon my own logic seem like an obvious oppression and violation of my freedom of thought. Look at the updated discussion here. I believe my arguments to be very well founded. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said: Well, maybe it's Dr.K. and not me who has been pushing a WP:Synthesis for months?. Maybe so. But unfortunately for your theory you must add Users: Jonuniq, McGeddon, Escape orbit, Quoth 31 and Nuujinn, all of whom told you essentially the same things I told you. As far as not finding the diffs to support your claims against me, I leave it up to the other editors to judge. As far as your "new" arguments at the ORN, they are simply more of the same stuff justifying the synthesis you have been attempting to add to the article. Nothing new here. But since no admin seems willing to act in this case I have nothing more to add here. It is regrettable that such a huge effort was spent over months by so many editors for such an unambiguous case of WP:SYNTH and no admin has taken any action either for the synthesis, or the personal attacks and general incivility of this editor. It seems that only when Giano or Malleus are involved, civility rules become really sacrosanct. Nuff said. Goodbye. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The case had further development, which made me call for help and advice of an experienced Wikipedian. I've addressed user Prodego on his talk page, since he was involved into the issue and offered help before. But if anyone could advise me more, I'd appreciate it very much, because Prodego hasn't been active for almost 2 days and the situation requires some reaction preferably without longer delays. The details are on Prodego’s talk page. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing the issue up here per advice of  Chzz  ►  on my talk page. -- Nazar (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user needs a break from using Twinkle. He's showing a serious lack of maturity and is misusing it, even after being warned not to. This first came up when I saw a bit of a pile-on on a new user making good faith edits. Yumechaser, was displaying some bad faith by labeling their content dispute edits as vandalism [97] and making a comment that seemed like bad faith that fans of a particular singer couldn't be objective, when it was more his misunderstanding of the subject that lead him to think they were non-notable.[98]. I warned him on his talk page. His response was to question my eye-sight and make some other slightly uncivil and bad faith comments [99]. When I clearly spelled it out for him [100], he shut up, didn't take any responsibility for his bad faith comments and uncivil remarks, and didn't retract them either. I went on vacation almost immediately after that and when I returned, I thought I'd check if he took it to heart. he didn't [101]. He was repeating the same kind of bad faith labeling in content disputes yet again. I repeated the warning and told him to cut it out. After being caught with his hand in the cookie jar twice, his response was this [102]. It tells me that he doesn't have the maturity nor responsibility to be using this tool, and it tells me that he is going to continue misusing it. As such I think he should be blacklisted from using it, and since an admin is required to do that, here we are.--Crossmr (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified this user of this thread on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 11:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

They were already notified, I think its a further illustration of the problem by blanking the notice and not responding here. They'd rather continue the behaviour and pretend there is no problem rather than address it.[103].--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this edit shows me that they appear not to understand what rollback is and what it is for (even though that's a Twinkle rollback and not an "original" rollback). I think a stern warning should be enough; if they keep misusing the tool after that, then their permission can be revoked. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my initial warning was pretty stern. After that warning, he did it again. Since he doesn't seem to understand, and wants to instead pretend nothing is wrong, I can't see how another stern warning is going to change the situation. if you think he doesn't understand rollbacks at all, perhaps all his tools should be taken away.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about a warning from an admin (which I'm not), because sometimes editors respond more to them than to those issued by non-admins... And because, in general, I prefer to avoid restrictions (such as revoking Twinkle access) unless strictly necessary... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's assuming bad faith? 夢追人^YumeChaser 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous responses and the fact that you took the time to blank that notice (2 of them) rather than respond here) we don't assume good faith blindly. You've been quite uncivil and refused to respond with anything except bad faith accusations to this point. You had an opportunity to explain this previously but instead stopped communicating--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I did not know that "Rvv" meant revert vandalism. I use it all the time on plenty of edits and no one has ever told me that I was wrong for using that abbreviation as opposed to "rv" or just writing out "revert". So when Crossmr left that message on my talk, I responded in a harsh manner. And when he did point it out, I left the subject alone, because in my eyes it was over and done with. Now, the last edit did not even involve the use of Twinkle and it is a habit for me to type "rvv", I need to work on that now that I know. I told you to go away because I didn't want to deal with you. It's as simple as that. You are reading to much into it and you are overlooking the good that I have done with Twinkle with the bad, all of which is minor. 夢追人^YumeChaser 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YumeChaser, please read WP:ROLLBACK. Rollback is a tool that makes it easier to undo someone's edits, but only when there's no need to type an edit summary; that's why, usually, rollback is used only for vandalism (or to remove a lot of similar edits in rare cases). It implicitly assumes bad faith. If you're in doubt, you should always use the undo button or the good faith feature of Twinkle's rollback. And, at the same time, you should avoid using "rvv", unless you're reverting vandalism, because that too assumes bad faith. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that, but one minor point: The user has never had rollback rights. YumeChaser, I am assuming that this all boils down to misunderstandings on your part, but please consider this thread your warning about misusing Twinkle and mislabeling non-vandalism as vandalism. —DoRD (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I just miss the part where I misused Twinkle. I just pressed the rollback button and added a edit summary. I don't see how that was misusing the script. 夢追人^YumeChaser 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback, even the Twinkle version, should only be used for vandalism or other bad-faith edits. Use undo or rollback (AGF) for anything else. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle's rollback button should only be used for vandalism or other bad-faith edits, unless a descriptive edit summary is also used. Otherwise, use undo or rollback (AGF). —DoRD (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's brought to light a greater issue which is your civility towards other users both in tone and bad faith accusations. Misusing RVV and rollback s but one issue. Your response to any opposition to what you were doing was extremely uncivil, especially after it was spelled out for you. Your bad faith assumption that fans couldn't be objective about a subject you thought wasn't notable when they clearly were is another indication of that.--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folks. Twinkle has three rollback buttons - one is AGF, one is vandalism, the other is - what? If anything that isn't vandalism should be rolled back with the AGF option, what's the middle option for? It clearly can't be only for vandalism, as there is a specific vandalism rollback. So come on, before admonishing people for using it incorrectly, how about we identify what it actually should be used for? I've never thought that the Twinkle "neutral" rollback automatically implies vandalism - am I wrong? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The generic rollback button allows the use of a custom edit summary, so yes, it could be used on something other than vandalism, but "rv" as an edit summary isn't very useful, and "rvv" is just plain wrong. —DoRD (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "rv" is a pretty useless edit summary. We can see you revert...we want to know why you revert. --Smashville^talk 16:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "rv" or "rvv" in edit summaries is not what I'm talking about. You, DoRD, rebuked the editor for using the generic Twinkle rollback, saying "Rollback, even the Twinkle version, should only be used for vandalism or other bad-faith edits". If you are now agreeing that was incorrect, you should withdraw that specific rebuke, but if you still think you were correct, you should explain rather than obfuscate. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions clarified (although I thought that, in context, the original version was clear). Is that better? —DoRD (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is news to Yumechaser, this goes back about a year with me, and further with others. I pointed out here [104] that his characterization of good-faith edits ( [ [105], [106], [107]) as vandalism violated WP:CIVIL. His response was to revert my comment with the edit summary "Look at their history and leave me alone" [108]. (I reverted that ([109], bad move on my part, I concede, but I wanted a record of the warning, given the pattern of behavior); and he re-reverted with "My talk I can remove what I want." [110]). When I pointed out that "The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user." [111], his response was simply "Leave my talk alone" [112]. The conversation continued for a few more edits, with Yumechaser exhibiting a misunderstanding of talk pages and user pages, but I think you get the drift. My point is simply that Yumechaser has been warned about this behavior over and over, and continues to hide evidence of the warnings, only to appear to be surprised about it now. TJRC (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that certainly puts a different light on it. Do you know if he's specifically had RVV explained to him before? Civility seems to be an on-going issue with him though, and perhaps he needs a time-out since he shows no indication of changing that behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block Request

I'm going to request an admin block Yumechaser to prevent further disruption. As TJRC has pointed out Yumechaser was previously warned not to assume bad faith and label non-vandalism edits as vandalism. Yumechaser has shown a propensity for incivility when opposed (edit summaries, insults in the few messages he's left, etc) This edit 2 months ago [113] and [114] show that he's still continuing that behaviour. His interactions on the article talk page Narsha still show that he's assuming bad faith as do his responses to my warning. Here is a more recent example [115]. He claims the IP is a sock as well but provides no evidence. [116], [117]. The list goes on with his assumptions of bad faith. Since he's been warned more than once and had this all explained to him and seems like he'd rather blank warnings than fix his behaviour, I believe a block is required to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic IP socks of the same user (I wonder if a sockpuppetry case can be opened about him because seemingly, there has already been a case of him opened, in [118]) is CONSTANTLY, for years, continuing to disrupt and change the article as he finds it appealing to his eyes. Now what he is doing is removing the "Futurepop" section. I have requested this article to be protected and it has been protected for only one week. This isn't useful in my eyes, because immediately after the protection he has been writing in the talkpage of the protecting admin, see User_talk:Tcncv#Electronic_body_music, and "promised" to vandalize again in the future, as he has alredy been continuously doing a lot in the past, mostly in the talk page of EBM (see [119] for example where he makes this statement). You can see how disruptive he is also in the history [120]. I don't know what is appropriate here? A much longer protection, or maybe a sockpuppet investigation? I have many reasons to think it is a sock of User:Breathtaker. Maybe I'm wrong and it's someone else but the editing patterns are similar. Thanks. 89.139.161.224 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is generally applied in escalating length, and a week initially is reasonable. I agree that he'll probably come straight back after a week, but in that case we're clearly at the point where his activities are agreed as being unconstructive: the article will simply be re-protected for increasingly long periods. The idea being that eventually even the most dedicated unconstructive editor tends to get bored and stop trying: the only way to find out they've done so is for protection to be lifted. By all means ask me or any other admin to re-protect if he does come back after this one expires. ~ mazca ^talk 14:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there's no reason to say "if". It's been years already and it's unlikely he will ever stop. But I understand your decision. I hope the EBM article is in your watchlist now.... 89.139.161.224 (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A week initially is reasonable, if it was initial. See the log, the edit warring continued as soon as the previous one month protection wore off. O Fenian (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! IMHO, it should be semi-protected for more than one month, maybe three months. And that is simply because the one-month protection was done right before this one week protection. This 1 week protection is the exact opposite of what mazca said , "Protection is generally applied in escalating length."89.139.161.224 (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I agree, you didn't mention the protection log to start with! :) Next protection should probably be a few months. ~ mazca ^talk 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago I blocked Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) for continued hounding of Gun Powder Ma (talk · contribs). See ANI discussion. I offered TI unblocking if he agreed to a voluntary restriction - an interaction ban, pretty clearly spelled out and agreed to here on Aug 11 and recorded at User:Teeninvestor/Restriction. Since then the editor has violated the ban by editing Great Divergence, Economic history of China (pre-1911) and Chinese economic reform within 1 month of GPM. I've blocked TI for violating the restriction, but would like a broader review of the situation. Note that there is already a RFCU open for TI about different issues. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to restrict someone in this way. He now has to look through history to see which articles he's allowed to edit? There must be some way of reformulating the restriction in a way that makes more sense. If Teeninvestor is editing reasonably, he should be able to edit any page. If he's not editing reasonably, he should be blocked. I see no purpose to such a restriction. Friday (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not commenting on the merit of this particular incident, such a restriction is difficult to respect for the restricted user and very easy to game, if the other party wants to keep them from editing a particular article or a group of articles. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have misparsed the restriction as a 1-month ban on editing articles recently edited by GPM. But in any case this was a comment on GPM (who had started the GAR). Kanguole 18:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The whole condition detail seems a bit severe to me and he only had a 48 hour original block and got these conditions imposed for an early unblocking, and the conditions appear to be easy to violate and of course he has and now he has a three week block, it seems a bit much to me, the condition should be removed as it is nothing but trouble. Allow him to finish off his original 48 hour block and remove the condition. This will also allow him to defend himself at the RFCU. Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the others that this restriction seems to be the type that can easily be used to game the user into getting a longer ban. I deem "interaction" to be talking with the other user in non-mainspace directly (or being involved in a discussion that features the other user in a major way) or directly reverting or being involved within only a few edits on an article in mainspace with the other user. Saying that GPM edited the article a month ago and TI editing it now is interacting with him/her is ridiculous and impossibly restrictive. And, as Off2riorob stated, the restriction is impossibly harsh for just an early unblocking of a 48 hour block. In short, I do not consider this incident "interaction" and feel that TI should be unblocked immediately. Silverseren^C 18:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teeninvestor knew full well before the block which articles were contentious between him and others users including me because we were interacting on these for several weeks now and they are actually closely related in terms of contents, many relying on the same set of scholarly references. The disputed articles were no more and no less than seven:

1. List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita
2. List of regions by past GDP (PPP)
3. Military history of China (pre-1911)
4. Economic history of China (pre-1911)
5. Chinese economic reform
6. Great Divergence and
7. Roman metallurgy

On all articles (or their talk pages) has been a lot of action in the recent past and a lot of users were involved. Particularly, Teeninvestor's edit behaviour on these articles was dealt with at length on his RFC/U. In this light, I find it hard to believe that Teeninvestor who writes about economic history and historical statistics had over night lost his ability to count up to 7. It were only those seven articles out of 2.5 mio and Teeninvestor happened to edit three of them within 24 h of the agreement. Moreover, he indirectly violated the agreement, as I see it, by trying to get another user on board for Economic history of China (pre-1911). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Those who claim that there is a time gap of one month between my last edit and Teeninvestor's should please provide evidence for that, because is actually no such large time gap. Most importantly, my editing stopped only because Teenivestor relentlessly reverted me and others, not because I, as others, agreed to his version in any way. The editing only moved to other pages where the contentious questions were much the same. In other words: The whole dispute ran across the seven articles in circles and to pick out a single example where there may be a time lag of one than one week is missing the full picture of the dispute. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban proposal

I was going to make this earlier but discovered Teeninvestor had been blocked and had agreed to a voluntary interaction ban.

I am now going ahead and proposing the following interaction ban:

Editors User:Teeninvestor and User:Gun Powder Ma are banned from interacting with each other. This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. If either party feels that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

This would be logged at the edit restrictions page if enacted by community etc. It would not have a fixed duration, ie it would last until repealed by the community.Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're good at this. Silverseren^C 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing I've been convinced that this is not necessary nor a good idea. Sorry if I've created any unnecessary drama (there is such a thing as necessary drama I think). Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: Teeninvestor has also been banned from interacting with another user, Tenmei. And, frankly, I don't see why several users should be banned from articles Teeninvestors edits when it is obviously him who creates the stir. I don't like the idea of creating an exclusive lane for problematic users at the cost of other users. I don't like it even less since he is the subject of an RFC/U, not me. Have you taken a look on how many users find Teeninvestor's edit pattern problematic? More than half a dozen, in fact. On how many more users do you want an interaction ban to be imposed so that this one user can go his way? I don't see the least reason why I should be singled out to pay for Teeninvestor's aggressive edit pattern.

I have edited for four years on military, economic and technological history and I don't see a reason why I should suddenly give up a good part of it because of one problematic user. I am frankly disappointed by your one-sided approach. Teeninvestors breaks the agreement and you shift 50% of the blame (or rather its consequences) on me. Real neutrality does not lie in simplistically distributing the blame equally on all shoulders as you well know, but to judge everyone according to one's actions. So forget it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"should be banned from articles Teeninvestors edits " Perhaps you may want to re-read the exact language: a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. You cant revert each others edits, or directly respond to each other on talk pages, but there is nothing saying that you cannot edit the same articles. --Active Banana | Talk 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not reverting? This is unworkable. Not that I am fond of reverting (a waste of time), but it is impossible to work on an article effectively if there are sacrosant statements which cannot be changed. Effectively, this would mean that there would be two separate articles created on one page. I can agree to the whole ANI stuff, but I want my right to edit and revert to remain intact. If I overstep the 3rr or whatever, block me, but don't take it away from me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: This conflict has got to stop. If this passes, we should unblock TI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Support. One-way interaction bans never work and the current editing restriction appears to be overly harsh. Interaction bans are not a way of allotting blame, but only to stop conflicts and disruption; therefore, you shouldn't construe one imposed on you as a way of saying you're wrong or disruptive or whatnot. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Doug's proposal seems a reasonable and balanced measure, intended to keep the peace; it limits the interactions of users who've been engaged in a long-running series of disputes. It offers no judgment or prejudice against any party. An interim measure, pending further and future decisions. This might have worked, but: Haploidavey (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Teeninvestor's self-justifications further down the page worry me; sorry, don't know how to do diffs, but see under "Topic ban for Teeninvestor proposal"). After all that's been said, he still justifies his misunderstanding of what's required and relevant to topic. Gun Powder Ma has no such difficulties. I'm now in favour of limiting Teeninvestor's editing rights. I'm opposed to any editing restictions on Gun Powder Ma. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified users of RFC/U, since they are most knowledgable about the whole thing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - seems fair to both sides. I also support the unblocking of User Teeninvestor. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Most of the disruption seems to come from Teeninvestor, particularly his high degree of incivility and wikihounding of GPM. This is the reason he was banned from interacting with GPM in the first place. It seems unfair to impose restrictions on the victim as well. The stipulation that This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. is also problematic and seems unworkable, and can potentially lead to all kinds of problems and misunderstandings. Athenean (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It's a neat, balanced solution, but this is not a balanced situation. The trigger for this was Teeninvestor's behaviour at Roman metallurgy, where he has been edit warring to remove a well-referenced figure for Roman iron production, not because he has a different figure, but because he finds it out of line with what he knows about China (I am not making this up). It's also unworkable, both for them and other editors on these articles (not that the one-sided version was much better). Kanguole 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Gun Power Ma, I was going to propose just this before I even knew there was any agreement. I also agree that it is Teeninvestor who is the main problem. However, I'm not convinced that a one way ban is a good idea and I know that both above and elsewhere I've seen them opposed. We'll see what others think, I'm flexible if we can find a solution that brings this conflict to an end and stops other editors from wasting time on it. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Dougweller, this is not only unfair to me, it strikes me as completely unworkable and could probably lead very quickly to a confusing situation which would rather increase the risk of blocks for both of us. With such a ill-conceived and ill-defined framework, neither Teen nor me would be able to assess the consequences of our actions properly and risk involuntarily massive (and unjustified) blocks. In other words, the situation would rather escalate and not even necessarily because of bad intentions on either side but because the whole arrangements has massive shortcomings, loop-holes and grey areas. Yesterday, I promised to stick to the interaction ban for four weeks and that's what I still intend to do.

There are these seven articles above which are contentious and which are edited by both of us. Other than that, Teen and me have had in the past not seen much overlap. If Teen keeps out of them for the next month and does not follow me I don't see any particular problem. So my proposal is let's wait for the four weeks and the outcome of the RFC/U. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If there is some way to insure that, I'm happy with it. I certainly do not want to hinder your editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural remark: I noticed that nowhere do we describe what a topic or interaction ban actually is, hence the need to draw up detailed rules for every case. I've attempted to describe our usual practice on the relevant policy page, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of ban.  Sandstein  21:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the blocking administrator has added wikibreak templates. Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite gone yet but on my way out. For the record, any administrator is free to modify the existing block on TI, unblock or modify the voluntary restriction in place. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks for that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose restriction on GPM Teeninvestor seems to be the aggressor here. And its not the first time either. They need to learn to edit collegiately or go somewhere else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this would not improve content, and would likely harm it. As I've said elsewhere, if there are problems with GPMs content contributions, they're subtle and hard to detect (i.e. i haven't found any). Teeninvestors, on the other hand, are nationalistic, rely on weak sourcing, and are skewing content.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Having seen quite a number of the edits of both of these editors, I can't disagree with your comments about their editing. Dougweller (talk) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose restricting Gun Powder Ma. (Comment placed out of order because it pertains to preceding.) I have confidence in Dougweller's view, but if GPM's contributions to article content aren't at issue, he should not be placed under restrictions that inhibit his efforts to create high-quality articles. That's what we're here for, and from what I've seen, his work is good. WP is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, not a Safe Place for people lacking competence to edit. This business of cowing productive editors because they aren't nice to CPUSHers has to stop; send them to WP:CHARM SCHOOL instead. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OPPOSE -- Dougweller's proposal needlessly undercuts the significant investments of time and thought which mark Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor.

A. This gambit is bad for Wikipedia going-forward; and in the context of the RfC/U, it becomes a little like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (转胜为败).

B. This thread arises from a number of factors which aren't captured by this proposal. It is both untimely and short-sighted.

C. The understandable frustration of Dougweller and others is justified. This puts a spotlight on problems which Coren identified in 2008, including the need for

• More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. All of us need to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues -- see here
• Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). All of us should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia -- see here
• Increased transparency -- see here

Summary restatement. This approach moves us towards throwing out the baby with the bath water. --Tenmei (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose, sorta. I don't have a strong objection to the interaction ban being put in place, but I don't think it will solve the problem. While both parties' behavior is objectionable I think this is a case where we shouldn't say that both parties are equally at fault—Teeninvestor is more responsible for this situation than Gun Powder Ma, and sanctions should fall more heavily on the party who's more responsible. I'd rather see a topic ban for Teeninvestor, or perhaps a site ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support at this point, an outright interaction ban would be best, since both sides are at least partially responsible for this drama through their stubbornness. This would formalize what Teeninvestor has already agreed to do in his unblock request through e-mail to myself. However, recognizing that the consensus is that GPM has (perhaps arguably) had a lesser role, I would not be opposed to a weaker sanction on GPM. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please allow me to summarize briefly the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor. Opened by User:Nev1, this has been running for almost a month now. In this period:

• 2 users apart from me have certified to the basis of the dispute
• 4 users have endorsed Nev1's summary of TI's problematic behaviour
• 6 users apart from Toddst1 have provided outside views on TI's problematic behaviour which were endorsed by altogether
• 12 users User:Nev1, User:Kanguole, User:GregJackP, User:Athenean, User:2over0, User:Badger Drink, User:Tenmei, User:Haploidavey, User:N5iln, User:Bali ultimate, User:BigK HeX, User:Akhilleus, while only one user, User:FeydHuxtable, took a position more in favour of TI.

Now sit back and think a minute. How much clearer can get the picture? How much clearer can get consensus? I won't object to your observation that I have behaved stubborn at times, too, and this has been pointed out to me by other users (and I will work on that), but your notion that "I am also at least partially responsible" is at complete odds with how the drama around Teeninvestor actually evolved and what the community believes. I bet you won't find a single user from above who believes that Teeninvestor's edit pattern would not have been problematic if I had not opposed some of his edits. I fully accept that my actions are placed under close admin scrutinity and that I am liable to strong admin reaction if they are deemed improper which is only fair. But I will object to any simplistic portrayal which reduces the said user's problematic overall edit pattern to a sort of Western stand-off between him and me. This was never the case. In fact, Teeninvestor has edit-warred against multiple users on multiple pages over an extended time span, and that's exactly what the current RFC/U shows. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I proposed a similar proposal to User:Toddst1 before. I won't comment except to say that if anyone's interested in my side of the story, I presented an overview here 1 before I was blocked (and that BigK HeX didn't participate in my RFC).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sanctioning Gun Powder Ma: The proposal is based on the premise that the parties are equally at fault, yet the discussion so far and the RfCU do not back up this assumption. To the contrary, it seems that Gun Powder Ma has spent a lot of their spare time to prevent damage to the project. A simplifying "it takes two to tango"-approach is likely to cause harm in the long run - we need editors who dispute problematic edits, and not let those wo introduce them have their way as everyone shys away in fear of sanctions just for that. If someone is disputing problematic edits and/or challenges problematic behavior, it is not the dispute (symptom) that needs to be remedied, but the problematic edits/behavior (cause). Skäpperöd (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Perhap in order for an admin to better gauge consensus, it would be better for everyone who's expressed their opinion to also state if they're involved in the underlying content dispute. As far as I'm concerned, I'm entirely uninvolved. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

I've unblocked Teeninvestor per an e-mail he sent me through the Wikipedia e-mail system nearly half an hour ago. For transparency, text was as follows:

“

Dear Patar Knight: I would like to draw to your attention a recent issue which I have found myself in. Recently I have been blocked due to disruptive behaviour in an editing dispute with other editors. The relevant link is here: [121]. I would like to apologize for my behaviour and I promise this will not happen again. I would also like to state that I support completely Dougweller's proposed interaction ban on ANI, and proposed a similar proposal to Toddst1 [122]. I promise to respect this proposal, stop interacting with GPM, and to address the issues involved in my RFC such as use of sources, NPOV, etc. I hope that in light of my changed altitude, you will consider unblocking me. I am truly sorry and I hope this incident will be the last. Teeninvestor

”

Since if he follows those provisions, incidents like these will not arise, I've unblocked him with caveats that he follow what he's agreed to do in this e-mail to avoid further drama. If those provisions are held, there is no reason why he cannot be unblocked to constructively work on non-controversial articles. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for Teeninvestor proposal

I want to put up a proposal for discussion which predates the failed interaction ban. This I still find a impossible and unpractical scheme. I propose a topic ban for Teeninvestor on military and economic history. I firmly believe only a solution where there is a clear red line would be helpful in easing the dispute and not having the opposite effect of unintentionally aggravating it. From my experience as an editor, a sufficiently clear red line can only be one which stipulates that certain articles and section are taboo to interaction. The above proposal that users can edit one and the same article but only on the condition of not interacting with one another in any way I find thoroughly unworkable and a sure receipt for disaster. This would almost certainly lead to the destruction of our accounts in a cloud of confusion and allegations and counter-allegations, if we start editing the same articles.

Moreover, a majority of users, particularly those with past experience of TI's behaviour, agrees with me that a ban which would place the same restrictions on me as on Teeninvestor would be unbalanced and unjust to me given his aggressive edit pattern. Obviously, the topic scope can and should be better/more narrowly defined, but our disagreement has been practically confined to questions relating to military and economic history (particularly with what I regard Teeninvestor's continual efforts to subsume European and Western history under China by making strained and unnecessary synthetical comparisons as someone else fittingly observed), so I am positive we could work something out if the majority of users believes a ban of some sort is necessary. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you are his main opponent, your suggesting restrictions for him is clearly better avoided, also, teeninvestors restriction that was imposed by Todd has no value and should be removed and forgotten about. What you guys need to work on is getting on, you have what looks to me as a content dispute and you both seem to be intelligent just with opposite views, try to meet in the middle and add both sides to the articles. For the duration of the RFC simply avoid any further fall outs. Off2riorob (talk) 08:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. I am not his "main opponent" or what you make of it for the reasons given above. Perhaps you would like to read the RFC/U on Teeninvestor first to get more background info. I won't comment any further on TI, but I don't see a reason why this proposal should be less seriously discussed than the one above. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it likely that the RfC will settle these matters anyway, and sooner rather than later. Interim, I don't characterise this as the failure of two sides to settle their differences in a content dispute. Just some thoughts here; on the one hand, cited content based on scholarly sources. On the other, generalised appeals. Coming in from left field, "civility" issues (yes, scare quotes; it's possible to edit and discuss tendentiously and destructively, all with the most winning good manners). Maybe a couple of own-goals, one or two fouls worth a penalty. But should all this be lumped together and redistributed evenly between both "sides"? I'm beginning to wonder about the usefulness and justice of a judiciously even-handed ban in these circumstances, even if temporary. Haploidavey (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This link proves that I never cite my sources. Same here and here. I wonder if any of the editors above who claim I have weak sourcing has accumulated more numerous and reliable sources than this?Teeninvestor (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may well have, and I'm certainly someone who has said before that you've used sources improperly - you must recall discussions about WP:SYNTH. I don't want to rehash old arguments, just point out that I am speaking out of experience. It may well be that you no longer do that, I haven't looked at discussions involving you for a while. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Teen. Your link compels me to clarify my position. My comments here apply to editing at Roman metallurgy. My contribution as an outsider at the RfC is limited to the same. Haploidavey (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I also cited several of the sources there such as Wagner 2001 and Needham 1986 for the dispute on Roman meatllurgy, but apparently no one wanted to look.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the content, which you should take to the relevant page, where it has been stated repeatedly that sinologists are not experts on ancient Rome. Arnoutf (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Quigley was recently indefinitely blocked by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for the following reason: "nothing but hardcore pov pushing". Quigley has not previously been blocked, apart from a block that was undone as a misunderstanding, and has received (as far as I can tell) no warning about the conduct that is supposed to be the basis of this block. Nor has YellowMonkey left a message explaining the reason for this block. As the admin reviewing Quigley's unblock request, I am therefore having great trouble understanding the basis for this block. On my request, YellowMonkey gave the following explanation:

"Well, if you look at his edits, it's rather obvious that he editing in the equivalent way of a Chinese Communist Party internet policeman, blanking anything negative to the CCP etc, and engaging in POV-pushing and synthesis/OR for said purpose, eg Buddhist terrorism and the AFD, Genocides in history and so forth...And yes he has been warned about POV pushing on his talk page before, by another user"

My request for diffs supporting these contentions remains unanswered. I therefore believe the block is severly mistaken and should be lifted. Even if it were true that Quigley has been POV-pushing, and I can't confirm that after a quick look at his contribs, an indef block on that basis alone is only acceptable as a last resort after all other means (discussion, RFC/U, shorter blocks) are exhausted, and certainly not in this offhand manner. But since I strongly dislike unilateral unblocks, I would like to invite others to comment about whether they think this block has any merit.  Sandstein  19:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Admin Observation: To my understanding, we (editors and admins) are required to give escalating warnings about a "You shouldn't do that" event. From what I can tell there was a level 3 "Don't blank" warning after Quigley removed a blockquote and cleaned up some language on a contentious page. To jump from that to a Indef block seems like a overreaction.Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jumping straight to indefinite block without even an attempt to discuss the concern with the user seems rather inappropriate –xeno^talk 20:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Xeno except for the use of the word "seems".--Cube lurker (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both and suggest to unblock as time served. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Time served" is an endorsement the original block: I'm not even sure that's appropriate. –xeno^talk 20:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my opinion, this editor seems to be editing disruptively ([123], [124][125]), that's why I think this block wasn't entirely inappropriate... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the topic, but these edits do not look prima facie disruptive to me.  Sandstein  21:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a general overview, they seem attempts to push POV (for instance removing wikilinks to history of Tibet, human rights there, sinicisation of the region in an article about Tibet; removing wikilinks to a shooting, to various independent movements, the category "Tibetan independence movement" from an article about a shooting related thereto). I'm not saying I would have blocked (even if I could), but that there seems to be evidence of POV-pushing... Many of their edits seem to be pushing POV to me. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are not the people who added those links determined to promote the independence movement? I see nothing worth a block. At most , a suggestion to be more evenhanded. There is no basis for any block.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my comments on this user's talk page, I don't think this editor engages in gratuitous POV pushing. He edits articles on Tibet, which is a very controversial topic, and it's unavoidable that some edits will be also controversial. To the extent that he has different biases than we are used to seeing around here, that's useful for working toward balance. Quigley makes a lot of quality edits. I agree with Wehwalt that there is no basis for any block. I do urge Quigley to be as evenhanded as possible.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the comments. There is consensus that the block was inappropriate and I'm lifting it.  Sandstein  06:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's been an on-and-off issue with Wyvren (talk · contribs) editing a number of Scotland related articles. I just noticed he added a personal essay to Scottish dress, which I reverted and then warned him about. He (logged out as an IP) responded with [redacted] this rather offensive little bit of text. Can that edit be oversighted out, and maybe something done about this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP, seems to be a string of nonsense and I don't think such shite should be tolerated, personally. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Offensive, yes, but not applicable for revision deletion or oversight. FYI, the best way to request oversight is either via this link or by emailing oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org rather than posting it at this, the most visible forum on the site. —DoRD (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my mistake. Thanks for dealing with this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and blanked the insult and delinked it above so that it's not so visible. —DoRD (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The offensive and racist comment by Wyvren (which can easily be found, even without a link) is far from the first evidence of his disruptive and tendentious editing. There is a long thread at User talk:Brianann MacAmhlaidh#Steven L. Akins, in the course of which Wyvren describes himself as "a White Rights advocate and an anti Semitic Supremacy activist". Other editors there accuse him of fabricating sources, and note that he removed 21 references from an article about a white supremacist website. This is a disruptive and offensive editor, who we could do without. RolandR (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't really oversight material, but please note the giant red text at the top of the board instructing you that it is not in your best interests to ask for oversight on one of the most frequented boards on wikipedia. If you want something rev deleted ask an active admin. If you want something oversighted, email oversight. Protonk (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and I'm sorry for posting here about it. I guess I was looking more for the block than the revdel. As RolandR said above, it's been this sort of thing from this editor for quite some time, and I guess I was a little hasty in trying to find a solution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. Just be aware that bringing material to AN/I for oversight/revdel will have the opposite of its intended effect (usually). Protonk (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I feel kinda lame for it anyway. I've struck the oversight parts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see additional ANI request regarding Wyvren for related discussion. Minor4th 10:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buckshot06 has not followed policy concerning not re-prodding an article where a PROD has been contested; has treated me with incivility by falsely accusing me on my talk page of “harassing” other admins; and also repeatedly ignoring my request to not post messages on my talk page:

• As an Admin, Buckshot06 must know that it is against WP:CONTESTED policy to replace a removed PROD tag to an article, yet he does just that here.
• After I removed the improperly restored prod tag (and properly notified Buckshot06 here), Buckshot06 ignores the message at the top of my talk page to not post messages and, in violation of [WP:CIVIL]], posts the false accusation that I am harassing other Admins here. This is, at its best, a violation of WP:AGF, and at its worse it is an example of taunting or baiting.
• I responded to that post on his talk page (as stated I would on my own talk page) and told Buckshot06 directly that I did not want him to post any more messages on my talk page here and also here.
• Ignoring my request to stay off my talk page, Buckshot06 taunts me with this posting on my talk page, even though he could have more easily posted the same message at our discussion taking place on his talk page.

I have become discouraged with Wikipedia precisely because some Admins seem to act as though policy does not apply to them; and then, when challenged or corrected, use their position/experience to bully. Even though Buckshot06 is an Admin (or perhaps because he is an Admin) I believe that he must abide by the same policy and rules of civility that is demanded of other editors. Inniverse (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking sides, and having no idea the history behind any of this, other than what you linked here, I will just post my observations to what I see.

1. The fact that Buckshot06 is an admin seems to have no bearing on the readdition of the PROD.

2. He seems to have admitted his mistake on the PROD, and tried to tell you so on your talk page.

3. Why would he say that you are harrasing admins?

4. Why do you not like messages on your talk page. Isn't that the whole point of them?

5. I don't see how the last comment by Buckshot was taunting.

And thats all I have to say about that.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for his claim that I harassing other admins, he appears to be upset that I have challenged the closing of two AfD's where the articles were deleted when it looks like no consensus to me. Following policy, the first step it to raise the issue with the closing admins, which I did here and here. To answer you next question - despite having an open discussion with me on his talk page, Buckshot06 ignored the top message and two direct requests to not post on my talk page. That is why I describe that last action as taunting. Inniverse (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do what you wish with your talk page, but I wouldn't expect a minor disregard for whatever rule you created to be construed as taunting or harassment. Protonk (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confused. I have not accused Buckshot06 of harassment - he came to my talk page to make that accusation of me. Inniverse (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taunting then. Either way. The article is now at AfD, the prod tag is removed. I would describe Buckshot's response as less than optimal, but I don't see a grave error. Protonk (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that is not less than optimal. That is completely wrong. This is a blatant [126] assumption of bad faith, and he was told to stay off his talk page and went to it. this is a clear violation of WP:HARASSMENT. We routinely enforce any situations where someone is told to stay off someone's talk page. This is extremely poor behaviour from an administrator and shows very bad judgment.--Crossmr (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Crossmr. Was what Buckshot had to say really that important that it required communicating with Inniverse on his talk page? Was there not a common article they were working on that he could have posted his apology? The repeated returning to Innverse's talk page was a blatant disregard and stab at Inniverse basically saying "I will have the last word and you cant stop me from talking to you". A classic power play and attempt to demoralize an "opponent" (from Camelbinky's Art of War on Wikipedia). The fact that the admin hasnt come here to defend themselves is also troublesome and disconcerting. Is there an admin out there with the balls to say "I'll monitor this admin and if he continues to seem like he doesnt have the civility to be admin action will be done". Admins, step and show the regular editors you have the balls to police your own, including blocking and desysoping. Perfect opportunity.Camelbinky (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk's right--saying "don't use my talk page as a talk page" is entirely unhelpful, and ignoring that directive is not per se harassment. If you don't want to have a talk page, edit as an IP. Setting up "rules" that themselves are at odds with community norms, and then expecting them to be adhered to by admins with whom one has started a conversation is certainly not working collaboratively on the project. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would definitely have to say that Buckshot's actions here were completely wrong. It would have been fine if he had just made a mistake in regards to the PROD, as everyone does every once in a while, but his comments to Inniverse after s/he told him that his actions did not follow policy were completely out of line. Also, Inniverse is certainly not the first person I have seen who has asked others not to have discussions on their talk page. Buckshot was already informed of this by Inniverse and has no reason to comment again on the said user's talk page. That would, most definitely, qualify as taunting. Buckshot could have just as easily responded on his own talk page, which he should have done. I do think there needs to be some action taken here and I echo Camelbinky's statement that an Admin should not be left off when they do something wrong. I have seen too many Admins let off on their actions by other Admins. The Administrative community needs to police their own members and, if they do not, they cannot blame the multitude of other users that refer to Admins as a "cabal". I have certainly thought the same at many points in time and have seen little to discourage the viewpoint. Silverseren^C 07:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jclemens initially that's fine, but he went there and specifically told him to stay off his talk page. That is blatant harassment and that very scenario has come up here time and time again and it is always upheld as harassment and inappropriate. This is disgusting behaviour for an admin and the fact that other admins would sit around here and try and excuse it is an even further disgust. Admins aren't above the polices and guidelines, they're only there to enforce them when people won't adhere to them.--Crossmr (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • this edit is the only thing I've looked at, as it was described as "taunting" by the original complainant. It is objectively unreasonable, in my view, to call that edit taunting. It amounts to advice on collaboration with a reasonably friendly and conciliatory tone. If that is the worst administrative misbehavior the original complainant can come up with, then there's no actionable complaint here. If the circumstances had been different (less polite message, less clear encyclopedia-building reason for leaving a message, more objective reasonableness in the initial request to keep off of a talk page) the circumstances might be different, but the bottom line is that it is objectively reasonable in my view for an administrator, even one who's had a disagreement with a non-administrator, to post friendly advice on a talk page in this precise fashion. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concur with Jclemens. --John (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • No, actually, this response is the one that is much more problematic. I wasn't clear on the fact that PROD tags created an illusory "consensus" when you add them to an article. I'll have to make sure to remember that one for my future activities, it's always useful to have imaginary consensus behind you when you're doing something. (Oh, and hello new member of the "cabal", welcome to the discussion). Silverseren^C 18:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is an article I keep on watchlist because, well, people don't like it, and often include unsourced material about their pet peeve. One such user, Vexorg (talk · contribs), has been doing this on-and-off sometimes (he did this back in February). He's hit the article again, here. Now, in his edit summary, he says that he's restoring sourced material, and he's technically right... if you count them as sources. Most of the "sources" are to Youtomb or political/religious channels on YouTube about ZOMG CENSORSHIP (and for the record, I actually subscribe to Thunderf00t; I just don't see him as an RS for Wikipedia). But the worst part is the anti-IDF paragraph... using sources such as Portland Indymedia and American Freepress, full of anti-Israeli invective which, to crib from Alan Grayson, would blame the Israelis for ruining the suicide bomb industry if they ever found a peaceful solution to the conflict. And these are proper sources? At the very least, I recommend the "reviewer" right be stripped from him; as he cannot differentiate between reliable sources and horse manure, he cannot be trusted with a tool that could potentially introduce libel into BLPs. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported this user for edit warring... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sceptre_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 on this artickle. Please not his offensive comments in his reversions. I also read his politically motived diatribe in his summary above and cannot take it seriously as it simply reflects his personal subjective opinion on the sources in the article Vexorg (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical note, the page in question has been protected for one week to (hopefully) induce discussion and stop the edit war. --Chris (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the "reviewer" right should be removed. Vexorg simply can't be trusted with it. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above exposes your childish agenda because it goes BEYOND the contention on this article and attacks my editor status as a whole.Chris was right in protecting the page to to stop your edit warring. Looking at the edit history of that page you have a clear 'ownership obsession' of that article. All I did was restore properly sourced material. YOU jumped in with an immediate edit war obsession straight away because another editor trod on your perceived territory. . Vexorg (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not protect the page to stop Sceptre from edit warring. I protected it to stop the edit war. As you so correctly pointed out, it takes two to edit war. Do not misconstrue my action as support for your position. --Chris (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, how many times do I have to say this? YouTube is not a proper source. YouTomb is not a proper source. Indymedia is not a proper source. American Free Press is not a proper source. And there is nothing "childish" about upholding the policies of Wikipedia, which, sadly, I seem to be the only person doing so for that article. Well, and Chris too. Thanks for protecting the right version. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 05:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, how many times do I have to say this? YouTube is usually not a proper source. :) Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe YouTube et al fall squarely under WP:SPS. So yes, they would usually not be proper. --Chris (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are only four out of dozens examples from user:vexorg edit history: removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic; arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-Semitic; Inserting BLP on Tony Blairabsurd editing. With such record the user should be banned on a few topics at least, and not given reviewer rights.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eech. He's worse than I thought. No wonder I was the subject of personal attacks. I mean, I'm already considered far-right at my university for not thinking Israel should be wiped off the map :P Sceptre ^(talk) 05:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vexorg does seem to be a very problematic editor. Someone else pointed him out earlier, and looking at his contribs I can see why. Not just in relation to Israel, but really just about everything. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Vexorg has a longstanding and disruptive pattern of POV-pushing and incivility. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given this discussion and his block history, I'm going to remove his reviewer rights later today unless there's some strong objections. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral for now. "The permission is removed at the request of the user, the community, or the arbitration committee." Removal would seem to have to wait until more discussion by the community has taken place. Under the current phrasing... Doc9871 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am also unsure about removing his reviewer rights, this effectively disenfranchises a user, he does have issues, but are his additions vandalism, if they are only poorly cited or POV then they can be dealt with through reverts and reports as usual. Has he misused his reviewer rights? As more is known about the reviewer right now the community could use a discussion as to if and when the rights can or should be removed. Also as the pending changes trial is about to expire and is in need of consensus support to continue, the reviewer right could be redundant. Off2riorob (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the reviewer right can be removed at the request of the community. I see Dougweller's comment above as initiating such a request. I'd suggest that !votes should be made with that in mind, and not whether Dougweller is correct in removing the right (Dougweller hasn't removed the right: they've opened a community discussion about removing the right). TFOWR 10:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note That's correct, I'm not going to remove his right without some form of endorsement of that action. But I can't see how it 'disenfranchises' him. And I simply do not understand why someone with a substantial block history for edit warring (Feb 2010, 4 blocks in 2009, 1 in 2008, 1 in 2007) should have been granted the right in the first place. This latest block just underlines the issue. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of experienced quality contributors that have substantial block history for edit warring. Has he misused the reviewer right? Off2riorob (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so,, and I don't know if he's misused the right, but do we want them to have reviewer rights? It's a serious question. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After the two months trial now more is known about the workings of the tool and it is closing today or tomorrow and community consensus support is required to continue, here Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure. I would say if it is kept then a discussion on the points your asking is needed to clear these issues up. Personally I am of the opinion that the tool is primarily designed to be quite easily issued and is primarily designed to keep actual vandalism out of articles and if a user has not violated that then he has a right to keep the tool. Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously moot, so I'm not going to take any action. I'll probably comment in any discussion if it's kept, as I think this should only be given to trusted editors, and that many blocks for edit warring shows he isn't to be trusted. Dougweller (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed its moot at the moment. Other users have recently also commented in support of your position but I agree that is a needed topic of discussion only really possible after the community decides if we shall keep the tool. I also note that although not opined for a lengthy period there was not one comment in support of removing the right from the user.Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer right should only be revoked for misuse of the reviewer right.Gerardw (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; in my opinion, if, through their actions, an editor shows that they don't understand our policies regarding BLPs or reliable sources, then, even if they do not technically misuse the reviewer right, it can be revoked. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I make a specific proposal this time, I'd like advice. Wyvren (talk · contribs) has been blocked three times for edit-warring and personal attacks/harassment. He also edits as 97.82.45.48 (talk · contribs) although not during the times his account has been blocked. This IP has now been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks, specifically [127] where he tells an editor to "Piss off you slant eyed-gook". I'll also point out Wyfren's edit here [128]. which I think is useful context. I'd like suggestions on how to deal with this, as I don't think the named account should be free to edit if the IP he's used has been blocked. Thanks. I'll notify Wyvren. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed WP:ANI#Requesting oversight on gross slander which is directly relevant to this. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin and don't know what your proposal might be, but I have just spent some time reviewing this user's contributions and block logs. I would strongly support a site ban for the user and the related IP. Minor4th 07:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the user's edit summaries, particularly within the last month. My personal view is that if self-identified pedophiles are subject to ban on site (and I agree they should be), so also should be self-identified racists. Minor4th 07:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DIFFS, please? This guy shouldn't be banned, but blocked when he's disruptive (and he is being disruptive "a little bit"). Just a cursory look shows a civility problem, and an overly "strong" interest in Akins and other select Scottish-related articles. The IP and Wyvren... quack. A topic ban on this article (at least)? It couldn't hurt. Sock case? Probably not necessary, but should be addressed... Doc9871 (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this edit shows that the IP = Wyvren; he logged in and signed for comments he left as the IP. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the part where I eat my words. I have a feeling that commons:User:Ravenlaird is Wyvren. If you look at the history for Sporran, a bunch of images he uploaded to Commons were removed; fast forward six days to when Wyvren's IP readds links to new versions of the same images, only these were upped by Ravenlaird. Guess I'll start a thread up here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there's evidence of illegal activity then that warrants an immediate ban and contacting the authorities. If there's any of that you should immediately contact someone with oversight, not post it here. If that's not what's occurred then you need to provide diffs and go through the normal channels. No matter how repugnant personal opinions about certain issues, ethnically rooted issues being near the top of the list, we go through normal channels. It's not the same as illegal material. Shadowjams (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that hate speech should be treated as any other repugnant personal opinion. I think there should be zero tolerance for it -- irrespective of whether it's illegal or actionable. "Piss off you slant-eyed gook" is only representative, but it's bad enough and shouldn't be tolerated. I don't think Wiki has normal channels suitable for dealing with that kind of invective. I recall seeing Jimbo make a similar statement that seemed imbued with the aura of policy, but I don't have it handy and don't care to search for it. Doug asked for advice and I'm weighing in with my opinion. If the community will tolerate hate speech, I think that's unfortunate. It's not the Akins article or the Scottish dress articles that are the problem. Minor4th 10:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean in your comment because it's somewhat ambiguous, but I will never support blocking an editor solely on the basis that their statement disagrees with my personal politics. More importantly, however repugnant an individuals' personal beliefs are to me personally, that is not a reason to block them. If they're disruptive, certainly if they're illegal, then block them, but I'm quite worried about the language you're using to support this kind of block. A free market of ideas requires ideas we don't like to be articulated from time to time. If you disagree explain why, but you can't simply appeal to authority to shut it down. Shadowjams (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Hate speech" crime in the U.S. absent a separate provable crime. Shadowjams (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The "reference" to Jimbo's statement: I'm not seeing the diff; and you should always search for it. As far as "hate speech": the community doesn't tolerate it as a rule. The derogatory comment he made was bad, but it's not enough to ban him. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also this diff, where Wyvren describes himself as "a White Rights advocate and an anti Semitic Supremacy activist". A person with those views, who makes offensive racist attacks against another editor, and who edits an article on a white supremacist site to describe opposition to antisemitism as "support (for) Jewish supremac", is someone this project can afford to do without. RolandR (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, Shadowjams. Can I now get away with calling you a moronic asshole because I am part of the Shadowjams-is-a-fucking-idiot-party, and that's my "personal politics"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can call me whatever you want, so long as it's your opinion and it doesn't make false factual claims about me. I certainly can't start a criminal investigation about it. If you really think I'm a moronic asshole, there's a procedure for that. If someone causes a bunch of trouble, and does it to try and piss people off, then let's block them, quickly. But because someone shows up and has an unpopular opinion, we don't get a short-cut to blocking them. 99% of the time these people give us an excuse as is. But if we make it a matter of principle, which I think I've done, do I really have to explain the next step? I feel like Noam Chomsky crossed with Rush Limbaugh here, neither of which I agree with, but I feel like I'm doing First Amendment 101 here. Shadowjams (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a private website, the first amendment is a red-herring. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just gonna say, the first amendment doesn't apply; secondly, how about it'd be my politics that you should be strung to a tree, raped with an iron-rod, and subsequently be gassed, and I say so repeatedly on talk pages? Then what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't insult me. The 1st amendment has implications beyond application to private non-profits based out of Florida, although that's relevant to. I'm not going to have a legal discussion with you here. I might actually agree with your reasoning for block above. I just want to temper your lust for a defacto ban on political discussions that are unpalatable. It should go without saying that I also find the original political views disgustingly incorrect. Shadowjams (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't implying you agreed with them. I was seriously trying to find out where you'd draw the line. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that we don't ban (or block) people for their "views" (what they think) - only for violations of standards and policy (what they do). People will believe what they want to believe: all of us included. If he (Wyvren was his name, right?) affects WP in a negative way from now on, it will most likely be noted and acted upon... Doc9871 (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly -- somebody can be a closet-Nazi, Racist, Myca-g-... err--hmm "woman-hater" -- and we'll never know it, and that's fine. Once that someone posts rants and slurs onto pages, it's time for action. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the problem (as I see it) that his IP address is blocked but he's been left free to edit. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if he's using a stable IP. :) But beyond that, if he does, it's block evasion. It usually results in a restart of the block countdown, at least. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, I wasn't thinking! However, shouldn't it be part of his account's block record? Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, if he logs in from a different IP he could still technically edit. I don't really know if it should be part of his block record. We're not supposed to use block logs for record keeping generally (per Wikipedia:Block#Recording in the block log), but this is an odd situation. There's a kind of precedent for user's who "vanish", per Wikipedia:Block#Recording in the block log after username change, but blocking is far from my usual tool use arena and this seems like a pretty grey area. Maybe this is a case for {{subst:IPsock|username|confirmed}}? If so, perhaps placing that on the IP and putting a note on the user's talk page indicating the connection and the block of the IP (with an appropriate edit summary) would suffice? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His latest post to his talk page: Fuck Wikipedia and fuck all the leftist, liberal, faggot-loving Jew Communists that run this fucked up piece of shit website! - is there still any question about whether or not he is going to be a worthwhile contributor to keep around? Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revdeling that edit summary, Doug.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just to explain to others, it was copy and paste of what Wyvren put on his talk page. I take your point though. Dougweller (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me. "The Foundation will not practice or tolerate discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnicity, citizenship, gender, age, political or religious affiliation, sexual orientation, marital status, family relationship, or economic or medical status. The Foundation aims to treat all people with respect, and to foster a productive environment free of harassment, intimidation and discrimination." Guidance for volunteers, they suggest. I'm guided. That kind of behavior does not foster such an environment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked for "conduct inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere, interfering with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia", copied almost verbatim from Wikipedia:Blocking policy under "disruption." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. His edit was almost a request for that. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm at the end of my rope here. This morning has been a challenge with User:IainUK who fails to read policies pointed out to him, and although asked multiple times to keep his conversation regarding the deletion of an article on the AFD page - with a previous notification about WP:HARASS - the editor continues to delete and add things to my talkpage contrary to requests. He has been warned by multiple users.

The overall genesis of the situation is:

• On 12-AUG, User:RHaworth tagged Andrew_Stone_(Pineapple_Dance_Studios) for CSD under A7
• About 10 hours later, User:Phantomsteve declined the A7 as notability was at least stated
• On 14-AUG, the main editor (User:IainUK of the above article left a message at User talk:Accounting4Taste – a talkpage that I have on my watchlist. In that specific message, IainUK had a rather mistaken belief of what WP:CSD being decline actually means.
• As Accounting4Taste is “retired”, I looked further into the article.
• The article at that time was completely unreferenced, and notability was weak as per WP:MUSN, WP:GNG and others. As WP:PROD was inappropriate for a challenged CSD, I brought it to discussion at the WP:AFD.
• IainUK left a message on my talkpage that showed that he continued to misunderstand what a declined CSD meant, and still believed that this meant it was a permanent article.
• I replied on my talkpage about what CSD meant, and directed him to read WP:DELETE.
• I removed a {{hangon}} tag from the article that had been mistakenly placed by IainUK, and advised on the article talkpage as to how to discuss the deletion at WP:AFD.
• IainUK began to comment on the AFD – again, mistaken about what a declined CSD meant. Editor then added some other text, which I properly formatted on his behalf. I recommended that he read WP:AFD to better understand the process, and how to reply.
• IainUK begins to attribute the AFD nomination to malice on my part both on my talkpage, and in the AfD.
• I advised the user that the nomination was in good faith, based on policy, including WP:BLP. I ask if he has read the policies that he has been pointed to.
• The editor becomes more aggressive, attributing further bad faith, and violates WP:NPA.
• As such, I ask the editor to refrain from further posting on my talkpage, and keep the discussion about the article on WP:AFD
• The editor begins to edit-war on my talkpage.
• I specifically emphasize the on the editor’s talkpage my request to stay off my talkpage, and then write a gentle notification about WP:3RR on my talkpage, plus my ability to remove offensive posts
• Contrary to my multiple requests, the editor continues to add/remove portions of my talkpage - based on the clear requests to stop WP:HARASSing me, I have undone them as vandalism
• At this point, I engaged another admin, and disengaged from the situation, although I was forced to remove additional edits to my talkpage
• User began to delete portions of my talkpage, which I restored.

I have disengaged, but the user doesn't get it. I'm always up for discussion, but after the violation of NPA and edit-warring on my talkpage, another Admin has recommend that I bring additional eyes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: editor and other admin have been notified of this discussion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be t'other admin, however I'd add that IainUK was also advised by Taelus (talk) two minutes before their most recent revert on Bwilkin's talkpage.

IainUK seems to have WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as regards deletion, as Bwilkins notes above. They've also tried to suggest by removing IainUK's post from Bwlkins' talkpage, Bwilkins was "bordering on slander". I advised them about WP:NLT and was met with a barrage of wikilawyering. Eventually I, too, disengaged, with a suggestion that IainUK bring the matter here if they remained unsatisfied with Bwilkins' and my handling of the matter. Instead they have continued the earlier edit-warring on Bwilkins' talkpage. TFOWR 15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Already attempting to persuade user to disengage, I begun to do so prior to this ANI listing (got edit conflicted). Hopefully they will disengage, as the only real problem now is that they won't drop the topic. I think the problem is though that IainUK is assuming bad faith of Bwilkins AfD nomination, as they began by accusing him of not doing research/wanting to improve the article. They seem to have convinced themselves now that Bwilkins is biased, when really it is just an AfD discussion which should focus on content, not contributors. --Taelus (Talk) 15:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it takes to add a WP:CLUE at this point, I don't care. This has been a distinct waste of editing time. Thick skin or not, short of saying "look, would you just fuck off, the nomination was based on a lack of WP:RS and WP:GNG, so go away" (which might have been considered a tad uncivil, although WP:SPADE might apply), this has been an absolute waste, and past WP:HARASS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These two images probably need an experienced eye. The permission box reads "This is a "free image with no copyright restrictions".".. hardly compelling evidence. Rehevkor ✉ 18:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first is reproduced from the group's official website, from their gallery here. The site says "© Click Records Entertainment Ltd"; there is no indication that the image has been placed in the public domain. The image is used in a variety of other sites, generally by way of promoting the group's appearances, but this doesn't place it into the PD either. The second image is a crop of the first. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three stories (2010 Summer Youth Olympics, Death of Guido de Marco and AgBank has completed the largest ever IPO) that look like they could be ready for posting and the timer is now red. Can someone take a look? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look now. TFOWR 15:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ...kind of. I agree with the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and the Death of Guido de Marco; AgBank needs some work on the blurb, but I've said I'll stick it up as soon as that's resolved. I've not updated the picture: a smarter admin than me (i.e. any of 'em...) should do that, as I'm fairly certain I'll break something. Probably in a way that results in BC/Delta trouting me... TFOWR 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found this individual on the AIV page. Multiple blocks, no interaction and lots and lots of unsourced, questionable edits re. "Alvin and the Chipmunks." I don't have Twinkle and I'll be here for a week trying to revert the edits one at a time. Would someone with Twinkle take a look atthis and roll back the edits? Thanks. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be cleared up. TNXMan 19:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colon-el-Nuevo (talk · contribs) who also edits as various IPs, eg 71.111.215.249 (talk · contribs) (I don't think for evasiond) and Colombo-o-novo (talk · contribs) (blocked as sock) and Colombo.bz (talk · contribs) has persistently used Christopher Columbus talk pages, particularly Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus to promote his research. I've warned him before, removed some stuff at times, but he persists. In response to a final warning today he both continued to post his OR and on his talk page wrote "I am discussing the HISTORY of Columbus something you know nothing and I am educating the readers on the facts, which you refuse to learn about. It is just a matter of time for things to change", which is pretty clear. I could use some assistance with this. If a block does end up being required, it should not be me blocking him. I doubt that a topic ban will work, he's an SPA. I also think the talk pages need clearing up, they are a dreadful example of what we don't want on talk pages (in my opinion, of course). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People like these tend to fall into the "Single-topic evangelist" category in my opinion (i.e. they believe their way is the absolute truth and no amount of meddling will convince them otherwise). In the case of SPAs being disruptive, blocks are usually meted out if there is no other recourse. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, he definitely fits that classification. I've notifed him (and that although I am pretty sure he is columbo.bz, I haven't verified it, but as there seem to be no overlapping edits...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LiteralKa applied SPA tags[129] to my name on this AFD, which does not apply to me, so I removed them and explained in my edit summary that those didn't apply to me. LiteralKa then put them back, and I removed them again advising that he really didn't understand those tags[130]. Since he has restored them (even going so far as to quote WP:VANDAL[131], which also doesn't apply), I am not going to edit war over this, rather I would ask for an admin intervention here to resolve this situation. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informing me that you had "MANY" edits outside of this topic, including on the IP, is a blatant lie. LiteralKa (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To most English-speaking people, many is more than 5. Anyone can see that I have had other edits OTHER than in this AFD, in which you claim I don't. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To most English-speaking people, many is relative, depending on the context. I claim nothing of the sort. I say that you have little, if any edits that are not "of this sort". LiteralKa (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite his claims that he was "not going to edit war over this", Whose Your Guy has done exactly that. LiteralKa (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are both beyond 3RR and subject to arbitrary blocking. I suggest you both quit while you're ahead. This is overkill by any standards, btw. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To most English-speaking people, "Assume good faith" means not calling the other guy a blatant liar. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cease assuming good faith when the other person is deliberately falsifying facts. This is an encyclopedia. LiteralKa (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what facts would I be falsifying? Diffs, please. And as I understand 3RR, its more than 3 reversions in 24hours unless reverting vandalism. In the context of the SPA tag, it doesn't apply to me so I didn't feel that I was (or did) violate 3RR. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Catch Once and Leave --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period. A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. LiteralKa (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that he has done it again. LiteralKa (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm wrong by removing a wrongly placed tag? News to me. How do YOU define a single-purpose account, then, without "quoting the book"? Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a lot of edits unrelated to RfAs. LiteralKa (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough. The SPA tag does not apply so stop edit warring to keep it in place. —DoRD (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I came here - I knew I wouldn't get anywhere by discussing it with LiteralKa. So what can I do if he applies the tags again? BTW - my true contribs are --> [132]. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]