Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Shortcuts WP:ANI WP:AN/I This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Take a look at 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

The page Moroccan was a redirect to Morocco since 2004, in September 2011 an IP redirected it to Moroccan people, on October 22nd, another IP turns the page into a disambig page whilst we already had a Moroccan (disambiguation) page, I undid that edit but then User:Joy came along and undid me, we've tried to talk but only seconds after I first replied User:Joy unilaterally deletes the page Moroccan and moves Moroccan (disambiguation) to Moroccan and merges the two histories while disregarding the previous consensus and disregarding that he should not use the admin powers he has while involved.

• Deletion of the page Moroccan: [3]
• History of Moroccan (disambiguation) now merged with the history of the page Moroccan: [4]

I think using the admin tools to force a "fait accomplit" on a simple user (me in this case) constitutes a serious misuse of admin tools and I want a proper action to be taken and the page Moroccan to be restored to its pre-September version until we reach an agreement on what should be done with it. Tachfin (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no forcing involved, you can still continue to impose your opinion as you did before. But instead I direct everyone to the fine explanation at Talk:Moroccan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless you shouldn't use admin tools while involved in content disputes, WP:INVOLVED is pretty clear. I wasn't imposing anything just restoring the previous version that nobody complained about. A non-admin cannot obviously restore the history of Moroccan (disambiguation) that you've merged elsewhere with no discussion no consensus Tachfin (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't restore (unmerge) it but you can trivially move it over there, with zero loss of functionality. Overall I'm at a loss for words over your blatant WP:OWN violation and inability to reasonably argue a content dispute without resorting to petty procedural complaints. This, coupled with the appeal to "consensus" over the circumstance that nobody noticed this page being redirected wrongly for years, indicates a clear lack of understanding of WP:CONS. Sure, someone can assume bad faith in my "admin actions" and undo them completely without regard for what they actually were, but that won't change the simple fact that all my arguments of the matter have remained unanswered. Talk about WP:DISRUPTIVE, sigh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like a fairly clear case of WP:INVOLVED and a violation of use of the admin tools. The admin actions should be undone, while discussion is still continuing. Silverseren^C 18:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly did I use admin tools to gain an advantage over the non-administrator user? What advantage did I gain? Because, I honestly don't see any - I did not prevent them from doing anything they want, apparently I only enabled them to complain here, which seems... disadvantageous. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You used admin tools to delete and then move another page to the deleted title, while in a disagreement with another user over the title and the disambiguation page. It seems pretty obvious. Silverseren^C 19:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) He cannot undo your changes because he is not an admin, that's the advantage you have. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, what? Of course he can undo my changes, he can move the disambiguation page back to its old location and create the same redirect again. Nothing I did prevents him from doing that. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can plain editors do history merges, and more importantly, can they undo them? I think not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I said before, yes, that's a procedure they can't do on their own, but I fail to see the observable benefit to me / harm to them from that history merge that prejudices the content dispute and constitutes an admin tool abuse. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • After I've read the talk page discussion, I agree that the complaint about the histmerge is of marginal concern. The main dispute is about the page move. As with such controversial moves, it should probably be undone and a {{movereq}} posted on the talk page. Right now this is a two party tango on the talk page. It's hard to say there's consensus either way. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been recomendable to avoid doing any actions while discussion was still going on, however we must see that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on. Unfortunate rush and perhaps a lesson to be more patient in future... FkpCascais (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'that there was no bad-faith in Joy´s action and seems to me that he did that as way to close the episode and move on.' Doing that only seconds after I posted on talk page with no reply and no consensus for the move, I saw it as an attempt to impose a "Fait accompli" since I cannot do/undo what he did and what he did was certainly unwarranted with no consensus and in violation of WP:INVOLVED. User:Joy (as any other user) should not disregard opposition to the breaking of a status quo that has been going since 2004, and unilaterally use his admin powers to impose his preferred version. Tachfin (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the admin actions are undone and the discussion continued, then everything should be fine, yes. But they have to be undone to be fair to the discussion. Silverseren^C 19:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So is there any good Samaritan Admin to restore things to the previous status quo? And friendly warn User:Joy to not use admin tools while involved and not edit war (The instant reverts are quite uncollaborative to say the least, I feel as if I am personally targeted since I'm just willing to restore a version that has been living since 2004, even Ips weren't reverted with such quickness and enthusiasm) Tachfin (talk) 07:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are many admins who would be willing to (consensus here seems clear that Joy was involved and should not have used the tools), but the problem is that the two articles should never have been histmerged at all. They had parallel histories and the histmerge has left the history of the article in a mess. The correct procedure would be to perform a history split, but I can't see how an admin doing a history split would be able to tell which edits were from which article. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it is possible; admins can see the history of deleted pages. Tachfin (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Once again, you can revert all the relevant edits yourself - click the move button on Moroccan and move it to Moroccan (disambiguation), overwriting the reverse redirect, and then re-create Moroccan as a redirect to Moroccan people. The fact that the disambiguation page was moved around will still remain in the history of the "... (disambiguation)" page. How that history is organized there is, frankly, a triviality. I'm not sure why you are insisting that an administrator do this, other than continuing to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. (And, I should mention, if you proceed with this action, it will mean that I have to proceed with a formal move request, which in turn means that more editor time will be wasted on another redundant explanation of how disambiguation works.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, a non-admin cannot undo this because a history split would be required. "How that history is organized there is, frankly, a triviality." I'm sorry, but that is a completely unacceptable comment from an admin – you have history merged two articles that have parallel histories, which goes directly against what it says to do in the relevant guideline. Please do not perform anymore histmerges before you have read and understood WP:HISTMERGE (particularly the section on parallel versions). Jenks24 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in the meantime, other people seem to have proceeded with the disambiguation of the term Moroccan, and now only four incoming links remain. Unsurprisingly, nobody else came to complain. So much for "[making] our editing lives miserable". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is with regret that I have blocked Δ (talk · contribs) (formerly Betacommand (talk · contribs)) for 48 hours, in enforcement of his community sanction (listed at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community as follows:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

Betacommand has run his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation on over 130 articles between 20:47, 18 October 2011 and 14:51, 22 October 2011 (see Special:Contributions/Δ) without seeking this consensus. I, and other users, have attempted many times to engage him in dialogue about his recent return to automated editing without consensus to no avail. The sad thing is that for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive; but regretfully, the productivity of edits does not excuse failure to seek and adhere to community consensus, nor does it excuse ignoring restrictions placed by the community or the opinion of other community members. I feel sad that this has been necessary. (Corrected) --Tristessa (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable - if he has violated his restrictions. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Attempts made previously to discuss with user without success" (block log) — err, where? I assume this refers to a recent speaking-to? NW (Talk) 19:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[5], [6] from me, but plenty of other people have tried to talk to him in the past; he's definitely been warned and knows the consequences of his actions, I think, as this has gone on for literally years. The history goes back a long way before I first communicated with him. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2, his block log, AN/I discussion way back in 2008, his talk history. I think we can safely say he's been gently spoken to, counselled, begged, pleaded with, screamed at, and generally informed. --Tristessa (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether this is a pattern of edits - his rate of editing is within the restriction, but its the 25 of a "pattern" of edits that's being claimed here. And real, I can't agree with that, particularly since he has seem quick to correct any problems and/or drop changes that were proving problematic (eg wiping invis comments) when he is told about them. As the last complaint at his talk page was Oct 6, its a little hard to see what the issue is here; if someone thinks his editing is making a mess, that needs to be told to him than sitting on it. The bulk of the edits (spotchecking the 130 contributions) seem to be avoiding template redirection, removing long-deleted image links, adding white space, adding titles to bare URL references, and the like, all within style guidelines. ---MASEM (t) 19:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a bit severe to block him for this , "for the most part the edits he is making are, in fact, productive" - can we unblock him and talk to him? Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the productivity, regretful as it is, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad. As for talking to him, this has been tried exhaustively and has routinely failed (he does not generally reply effectively to talk page messages attempting to discuss these issues with him, if at all). Were communication possible, I wouldn't have blocked. --Tristessa (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but regrettably for you, it is active contributors to articles that make this place work - and you have only six minor contributions to en wikipedia articles this month, and as such a minimal contributor you have no right to restrict active good faith contributors from contributing - you should have opened a discussion and suggested blocking a user and waited for community consensus,and not stepped in unilaterally when you are barely contributing yourself. - We need contributors. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be uncivil about this; don't be a dick, please. I never said he wasn't contributing in good faith. The issue is the stalemate re communication that appears to be impassable. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't attack me with your wiki lawyering crap - you're the dick for the bad block. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, please calm down. Your assertion that an admin not use their tools because you don't feel they've made enough contributions lately is ludicrous. Let's please stick to this situation. Dayewalker (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ludicrous at all - if your not contributing you have no authority - simple as - so you should not make unilateral judgments on active contributors and restrict them, you should make a report and defer to request the communities position. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it up at the village pump, because that has no basis in policy that I can find. Dayewalker (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its more reflected in common sense. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, not even in the slightest. Dayewalker (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its more reflected in common sense and as such doesn't need taking off to the village pump, it more needs promotion of the reality to stop such violations as this, so that users are aware that whatever the labels they have, thay actually only have and only should only use the authority their contributions reflect. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your last (apparent) communication with him was on Oct 4. He replied. I can't tell (without reviewing all his edits) whether he did take your advise re: Wayback links, but again, spotchecking the 130 contributions you're pointing out, I don't see this. The fact that he replied a few weeks ago means that you should have at least tried to communicate this concern to him before blocking. And evenmore if the edits were all productive and non-distruptive (and truly, as best as I can tell, all seem to be non-controversial), this is a bad block. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But he only replied tangenitally in the middle of a discussion with another user (User:Hammersoft), in effect offering almost no reply to any of what I said on his talk page. How would you suggest proceeding given his recurrent proclivity towards not communicating, and that so many people have tried to address this with him? I think he's been more than adequately warned. --Tristessa (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Between the "tangenital" and "don't be..." comments, you might want to review your own edits just a tad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here on other business, but just as a suggestion, every time one of this seemingly endless series of incidents turns into a heated argument between beta blockers and delta enablers the community loses that much more patience, and it's probably increasing the likelihood that he'll end up banned from the encyclopedia entirely. That's a poor outcome for everyone. Best tone down the emotions and deal with it practically and efficiently. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no credible argument presented that it was a bad block. He violated his restrictions. Previous history suggests that, unless he respects the person questioning his edits, he won't reply, and, even if he does, he won't stop before being blocked. In fact, the only times (that I can recall; I haven't been watching him continually, so I may have missed an incident) that he has changed his behavior is after a block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One could actually argue that those edits don't actually contravene his "pattern" restriction, because they're not all doing the same thing, even if they're all tagged with the same edit summary. This together with the lack of any pre-block warning whatsoever I think makes this a bad block. Indeed, my sense of AGF is stretched a bit here, because it does look as if the blocking admin - who has used the block button precisely eight times in five years - was irritated by an error that Δ made in his edits 19 days ago, and waited for him to make some edits that could possibly be construed as a pattern before pressing the block button without further communication. If this block was not of Δ I think it would be reversed immediately because it contravenes numerous parts of WP:BLOCK. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I'd like to point out that this definitely wasn't my motivation, Black Kite. My first attempt at interaction with him over this issue was [7] (09:15, 28 September 2011) which I linked to above, and that was before I made any specific comment on the actual effect of his edits at all. Given the massive history of DR activity related to these behaviours, are you seriously claiming he had too little notice that he'd be liable to be blocked? I suppose there's no way of me proving to you that it's not a case that I was (or am) "irritated" with him, and indeed regret deeply that it came to the point of blocking him. --Tristessa (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm just going by the edit history. If you (or indeed, anyone) had even considered informing him that his editing pattern might be violating his sanctions, then I'd agree with the block. But no-one did. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Betacommand violates his sanctions and once again people argue he shouldn't be punished for it. Another day at WP:ANI. Jtrainor (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My problem here is that blocking out of the blue without approaching for discussion and claiming there's a violation when it's on a very subjective edge (eg I don't see this as the "pattern" of edits that the community restrictions call on, but that's my opinion) is an issue. Starting an ANI thread, discussing the problem, and in the end if he still got blocked for 48hrs, I can't argue against that. But out of the blue blocks, and ones that claim communication has been tried when they haven't is a bad block. The edits should be reviewed here, and if still deemed a problem, sure. But this feels like the case of people trying to find any way to get Delta blocked indefinitely from WP. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Especially given that the block was placed 16 hours after the edits, it would clearly have been better to have this discussion first. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the time difference is germane. The edit restrictions here are for long-term (multi-year) problems. There is no way to expect anyone to monitor Beta's edits closely enough to be able to place a block for a violation within the hour when it is made. 16 hours seems completely reasonable to me. I can say I have also considered blocking for the apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time. It's pretty clearly a violation IMO, but I decided to wait to see whether other people also noticed it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone did that, they'd be accused by the regular crowd of stocking, harassing, or provoking him. I seem to recall last time we had a delta discussion someone mentioned all these clean-up edits to him.--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According the to restrictions, Beta is required to propose edits on the village pump if they affect more than 50 articles. Did he do that in this case? If so, we can get a link, and all is well. If not, then it seems to me the block is sound. If he makes 130 edits with the same edit summary, it is unreasonable to expect others to review them to see exactly what was changed. It seems like he simply ran the same script on 130 articles - and that seems like a "pattern" to me even if the script might not make exactly the same edit on each article. The restriction specifically is intended to prevent Beta from unilaterally running scripts on large numbers of articles without discussion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block, it is unfortunate that he has a history of doing this, refusing to discuss, and only discussing and or modifying after a block. If he doesn't want to be blocked, he needs to not violate his sanctions, as he is well aware. It is a pity he puts us through this every so often but there is no reason to shoot the delivery person when Beta is the one who filled out the order, mailed it off, paid for it, and then opened the door. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's hard to tell if a script is being run, but the edits seems to be all doing different things, even if there is the same edit summary. It doesn't appear to be a script. In on edit, he's correcting IMDB to IMDb (or was it the other way?) and in others he's removing links to deleted images and in others he correcting the format of infoboxes. The edits are too diverse to be a script. I think he just used the same edit summary, but it doesn't appear to be a progress of the same edits. Silverseren^C 21:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Beta made 1597 edits in September with the exact summary "Cleanup" and another 408 this month with that summary. He made 320 edits in August with the exact edit summary "clean". — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can learn much from the edit summaries then. We just have to check to see if a series of the same edits are being done, which would indicate a script. But the edits all seem to be different, at least from what i'm looking at. Silverseren^C 21:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the main effect of the single summary is to obfuscate which tasks he is actually doing, to make it more difficult to find a pattern. But it would be amazing if there was not a pattern of 25 similar edits among the 2,000 I mentioned. IMO it is up to Beta to use different edit summaries for the different tasks. If all the edits summaries claim to be doing the same thing ("cleanup") then that is a pattern of edits. If Beta wants to show he is doing different things, he needs to use descriptive edit summaries. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re automated edits: As has happened before, this user is running scripts or 'bots which make large numbers of minor changes, some of which are useful, some of which are pointless, and some of which make things worse. And, as before, the edit comments are useless. This time, there's a new pattern of pointless changes. See [8], where the script or 'bot is converting HTML 24-bit hex colors such as "#ffcccc" into 12-bit hex colors such as "#fcc". That's a "legacy color" format from the NeXTstation/Amiga era, and is deprecated in the HTML5 spec.[9] (See "Steps for parsing a legacy color value", esp. item 6.)

This is apparently done whenever this user's script touches an article. This is not only pointless, but a step in the wrong direction. It generates a large number of diffs, obfuscating any substantive edits. It will confuse later editors who aren't really, really familiar with the formal HTML parsing specification. Somebody please make this nonsense stop. --John Nagle (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - the user has made just over thirty edits a day with his "Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation over a four day period , most of which have been declared beneficial...- User:Nagle - fifty minor edits to en wikipedia articles in the last six months - no content additions at all. - Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct, Rob - most of the user's sanction-violating edits in this last period (> 100) occurred within one day (22 October 2011) in high-speed chunks (4-6 per minute), and I haven't even dealt with the subject of his historical editing using the "Cleanup" script on dates before the period given in the block. Aside from that, again, please stop the ad hominem. It's not helpful. --Tristessa (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the data from the comments here - I have seen nothing presented , and you yourself said it wasn't that his contributions were detrimental - It's not an ad homin to point out that an account is not contributing to article content - please stop your crap attacks on me. Its boorish. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are considering a rule requiring significant recent content contributions by editors who impose sanctions on others then we should first consider it in light of the sitting Arbitrators.[10]   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not considering a rule - just a heightened degree of common sense application of attributed authority - I would suggest that its well understood that arbiters have a heightened degree of authority and workload that can and does restrict them from ordinary contributions to project space - unlike administrators who have a lower degree of authority and if they are not contributing to article space they need to understand to not action any controversial authority edits and simply request community consensus first - what is so wrong with that - nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst having some sympathy for Rob's position (and yes I realise I pointed out the blocking admin's lack of use of the tools), this is probably distracting from the main issue here. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, he should have been blocked for a longer time, he got blocked for a year for a reason. --Hinata talk 21:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, if the edits are beneficial, then WP:IAR concerning the sanctions and get off his tail. Are we going to start blocking active contributors now? Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 21:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rainbow Dash. IAR, unblock, and let's take this to Arbcom so this stupid sanction can be buried. Or can somebody point to me how Beta's edits were disruptive? "It's not the point, he broke the rules"? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Just for my own edification, are we claiming that he's made a series of distinct, beneficial contributions spread out in reasonable numbers of the course of days, but since he's used "cleanup" as his edit summary, that he is deserving of a block? Is it a part of his sanctions that he must use different edit summaries? If he's violated his sanctions, then a block is justified... but if we're blocking because he used generic edit summaries, resulting only in preventing him from making positive contributions, then it should be reversed. Are any of his edits detrimental? The HTML color code thing isn't convincing to me, even as a professional web developer. That could easily be a mistake from a non-automated process.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my take - its people trying to read into "a pattern of edits" to as much a degree as necessary to "criminalize" Delta. It is vague, unfortunately, but I think one has to look at why these are in place to be understood what the issue is and what that means to "pattern of edits". The community clearly did not want Delta editing mindlessly with changes to articles with no human oversight that was creating avoidable errors and problems in articles. Again, not having reviewed every single edit, the spotchecks show nothing earthshatteringly bad. A few weeks (months?) ago, he had been doing cleanup that stripped hidden HTML comments from articles, but when he was warned on that, he no longer did it. Again, best as I can tell, when he was warned off adding Google Book links or adding Wayback links, he backed off. He's listening. This is what the community wanted, yes?

If the issue was that this felt like a pattern of edits (arguably either way), then the right course of action shouldn't have been to block but warn Delta "This appears to be a pattern" and request he VPP what he's doing. A block this fast is just assuming a lot of bad faith when Delta is trying to contribute as much within what he can do within the restrictions. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Hinata. Two weeks seems more appropriate. He is right, but that doesn't mean he gets to steamroll everybody Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You agree with user Hinata - since the last five months the User:Hinata hasn't even contributed a single minor edit the the en wikipedia article space. - a user that has only ever contributed minor reverts to the en project - and only ever fifty of them http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&contribs=user&target=Hinata&namespace=0 - Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, strange that isn't it? Wonder how he suddenly got alerted to this thread? My AGF is certainly being strained tonight. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rio, I believe another ANI has been started in response at least partially to your Re: of my comment. The bottom line is that I think that Delta/Beta has acted improperly, because he is using the fact that he is right to ignore other guidelines that suggest how to act. I feel the block was appropriate, and could/should even have been longer. How many contributions some editor I agree with has zero bearing on my opinion Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to discuss every Betacommand sanction violation exhaustively, on the grounds that he really ought to know better by know, but keeps violating his sanctions anyways. Just how much longer will his ridiculous behaviour be tolerated? Jtrainor (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wrong question. The correct one would be: are the sanctions helping, or hurting the project? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 23:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the sanctions have averted some of the bad tendencies in Beta's editing, they have helped the project. When I was on the group that developed the sanctions originally [11], I expected Beta would have no trouble following them, because they were written to be easy to follow. The fact that he continues to step outside them underscores their value. Also, without the sanctions Beta would simply have been banned from enwiki. So in a sense the sanctions help the project by allowing Beta to contribute in some way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the "pattern" part of them isn't actually that clear, if this ANI discussion is anything to go by. And unfortunately, that's the important part here. The rest is easy to follow, but they aren't relevant here. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that it's a stretch to argue that 2,000 edits with exactly the same summary do not constitute a pattern. Also, if you look at his contribs, the articles are editing in alphabetical or reverse alphabetical order, which is evidence he has made a list based on some criterion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would completely agree with you if all the edits were doing the same thing; but they're not. In fact they appear to be doing a quite wide range of cleanup operations. As for how the list is generated, I suppose the best person to ask would be Delta. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the same cleanup script does different things depending on the page it is run on (one example would be AWB), it's still the same script. Experience shows there is little benefit in trying to discuss these things with Beta; that's how we ended up with the edit restrictions. However, it seems like the common thread in the recent edits is removing references to deleted or nonexistent images. Start with the edit to Carleen Anderson and go down the list of contribs from there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look tomorrow (it's 1:15am here). It's fairly clear regardless that this block isn't going to be undone anyway; but I do hope it'll lead to Delta's constraints being tightened up (in the sense that it's patently clear to everyone what is and isn't a violation). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, persistently yelling "ban him" at every ANI discussion when everyone else is trying to have a sensible discussion is not really helpful. We heard you the first time. It's like the random person who walks behind the TV reporter and makes faces. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit amazed to see people debating whether these edits are a "pattern" and whether they are done by script or not. They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup. Some aspects of it are beneficial (the removal of redlinked images), some are unnecessary (the addition of spaces after asterisks), but it does look as if the errors and more controversial aspects of this cleanup task have been stopped after the discussion we had on his talk page on 27-28 september[12].

Basically, it is clear that this is a pattern of scripted edits, but on the other hand I can't find actual problems with the current run. Suggest unblocking on the condition that Δ gets approval at some location (VP or so) for his current cleanup task (which shouldn't be a problem), and that he gets prior approval for any changes/additions to it, to avoid the need for constant scrutiny of his many edits (which did contain errors and problems last month). Fram (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There were actual problems; that they are minor is arguable. Here, the edit removes an important (IMHO) hidden instruction to editors, and removes "is" from the intro entirely, which is restored by another editor here. Not a big deal, but sorta zealous and hurried, without proper previewing. Yes, it's a giant article, and it's hard to preview everything, but that was the first word in the lead sentence. That's the only example I'm going to cite, because I feel most of the edits performed were beneficial, though a few were neutral, and arguably personal preferences (shortening named ref names). I have no beef with the editor whatsoever, and it is indeed regrettable that the situation has gone this far without the editor responding to requests and suggestions in a meaningful way. Hell, I even learned how not to be uncivil as a result of reasonable requests, and (finally) links to helpful essays. I'm saying that requests shouldn't be ignored, or blown off; they should be considered civilly. If they pile up unanswered, per WP:DISPUTE, escalation is not only desirable, it is necessary for the health of the encyclopedia. If escalation is all that will get an editors attention, it's not so bad. --Lexein (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever is doing the distributed TCP flood attack on my home connection's static IP (I guess you must have found it via /whois on freenode), can you please stop doing it. If you have a grievance about the block, please raise it here or on my talk page. Thanks. --Tristessa (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

""Cleanup" automated/semi-automated operation"/"apparently unapproved series of "cleanup" edits, which has been going on for some time"/"They are clearly done by a script and form a pattern: they are removing deleted images from articles, and in the meantime the script does most things AWB does, plus some more like adding the title of a link to a bare link, adding (after asterisks) or removing (at the end of lines) spaces, indicating dead links, ... They don't add or remove any content, they are (like the summary indicates) pure cleanup." - If you (pl) say that that is a pattern, how is it different from this/this/or this pattern of adding and removing text? Is adding and removing text a pattern, is fixing typo's a pattern, is fixing references (which all contain a different text) a pattern, is using the same edit summary over and over a pattern, is bringing a large number of articles to FA-status a pattern, is removing links to deleted images a pattern? If you guys have to dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same, and then call that a pattern, or have to sweep them all together and say 'they all do cleanup, that is obviously a pattern' .. then you are just looking for a reason to block, aren't you?

So can someone show me where exactly there was a pattern of edits? And if not, can we then overturn this block? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to "dig out 25 edits from a large set of edits to find 25 which do all something which is the same", I just have to look at the last 25, or 50, or 100 edits by him with the "cleanup" tag. They all are based around the removal of deleted images from pages, and add some minor AWB-like cleanup stuff. Do other editors have editing patterns as well? Obviously, e.g. my AWB edits are a pattern, even if they include things like space removal, template replacement, and adding of orphan tags. The pattern in my case is tagging as unsourced. Some of my non-AWB edits also follow a pattern, e.g. category additions. Others are completelyt outside any regular pattern. Taking the same approach, it is quite obvious that Δ makes patterned, scripted edits. E.g. these 4 consecutive edits in one minute: [13][14][15][16] all have one image removed, and some layout cleanup, including the automated addition of descriptions to bare links. You can check the dozens of edits before and after these as well. I don't see the point in your denial that the sky is blue here, or that this isn't a pattern. Fram (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that is clear then. Doing 25 cleanup edits is a pattern - as probably is doing 25 edits in a row. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually wonder how someone who is not allowed to perform more than, what was it, 25 edits with a conceivable pattern without permission is allowed to do thousands and thousands of edits. Δ should have been blocked way earlier than this. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can Delta use more than 25 edits on one page to bring it to FA status? Or is that a pattern of 'bringing a page to FA status'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The restriction is to 25 or more pages, not to 25 edits to one page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT, now you say that he is allowed to do 25 consequtive edits to one page, which all would, e.g. convert 'period-space' to 'period-space-space' and it is not a pattern, but if he does that on 25 different pages it is. No, Carl. Both are patterns - 25 edits to 25 different pages, changing some text in all of them is a pattern of changing text in 25 different pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the contribs from Carleen Anderson down in the current list of 50 contribs, they all involve removing a reference to a deleted image. So there is one pattern just in the recent ones. It is probably true that he should have been blocked earlier, unless he did get a village pump approval for these. But nobody is being paid to watch his edits so closely, so we can only expect people to notice things occasionally. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the edit before that, removes another image than what is removed on Carleen Anderson. So editing 25 pages in a row, in all cases adding or removing a couple of (every time different) words is a pattern of .. adding a couple of .. editing. Can we please define 'pattern' now? What is the pattern that you see and that is different from 'adding every time a different word to a different page'? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all the edits he is removing a reference to a deleted image. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• @CBM; you're effectively saying that if Δ makes any edit that is similar to another one, it's the beginning of a pattern. If he removed a link to a particular image, I could see it. But, you're saying that if he removes links at all he has to seek approval. This is mind bogglingly vague. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if he makes a series of edits that are similar to each other, that is a "pattern". He clearly has **some** purpose in mind with his edits, he is simply obfuscating it by not giving clear edit summaries. The restriction is not excessively vague, he is simply pushing it to the edge instead of working inside it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carl, but .. well, adding characters to one article is to me pretty similar to adding characters to another article, is that also a pattern, or are you (or Tristessa) singlehandedly to decide when something is a pattern? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So, per the above, it appears to be a valid block. But I don't think it's really a good one. The blocking admin should have warned Δ prior to the block, or at least discussed the issue with them. I know patience with Δ is low, but what harm would it have done to question him on the matter? If the edits are, as evidence suggests, beneficial to the project, then the goal should be to stop Δ from violating the sanction while continuing to add those beneficial edits to the project. Put another way, if he had actually posted and asked permission, would it have been granted? Would it be granted now, seeing as we have examples of the work? I don't know. But, however valid, I think this block was mishandled - and I'll bet half the discussion here is a direct result. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The block wasn't mishandled. This is a repeat violation of editing restrictions (a form of community ban) by an editor with a long history of the same. In practically any other case of a ban being flouted in those conditions admins are not normally expected to stop to think twice before enforcing the community consensus with the tools provided for such a purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated/Semi-Automated tool usage

I asked this last time, and never got an answer. Is Delta not still prohibited from making automatic/semi-automatic edits? Last I checked that was on his original list of sanctions and I don't remember ever seeing a discussion about that being listed anywhere. Frankly he just shouldn't be anywhere near that scene at all. It always ends badly for him.--Crossmr (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmr:

Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin.

Betacommand must manually, carefully, individually review the changed content of each edit before it is made. Such review requires checking the actual content that will be saved, and verifying that the changes have not created any problems that a careful editor would be expected to detect.

Betacommand must not average more than four edits per minute in any ten minute period of time.

Betacommand is placed under community enforced civility parole. If any edits are judged to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. If not a blatant violation, discussion should take place on the appropriate noticeboard prior to blocking. Blocks should be logged here.

For as far as I can see, there is no restriction on automated or semi-automated edits there. Strict review, yes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look directly above that?

Community consensus placed editing restrictions on Betacommand during late May, 2008. He is prohibited from running automated programs to make edits (or edits that appear to be automated), on either a bot account, or his main account. He is also placed on civility parole; any edit which is seen as uncivil by an uninvolved administrator may lead to a block. Failure to comply with either of these restrictions will lead to a block of up to one week at the discretion of the blocking administrator. These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate

I knew we'd decided that, and I don't recall a concensus reached discussion anywhere that overturned that and it certainly isn't recorded there.--Crossmr (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I missed that. But a script is not an automated program when every edit is manually reviewed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's prohibited from making edits that could appear automated either. And in the past he's admitted to not properly reviewing edits like in the case where he reverted someone over NFCC violation because he didn't properly notice they only linked to an image and didn't re-insert it because he was working on diffs and not actually looking at the page.--Crossmr (talk) 11:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed

This issue of "pattern" was previously raised here. See [17], just a month old. The behavior being found at fault here is effectively the same. So one AN/I thread concludes with no apparent violation, and then this thread starts with a block and unsurprisingly the resulting fracas.

I think User:Tristessa de St Ange's block without recent discussion with the editor was improper. There was discussion a month ago (see this thread), but that thread completed with Tistessa asserting "A series of different types of changes in a single edit qualify as a pattern", leaving me cross-eyed.

But the bigger issue is this restriction is very vague. It's being interpreted to cover a broad swath of edits. At this point, the restriction is so vague that effectively before every time Δ makes changes to 25 articles, he needs to seek approval. The result is a restriction that is unfair to Δ. Sure, some of you are going to scream "but he doesn't deserve fair, he hasn't earned it!". Cart before the horse. If you can't provide an environment in which he can work within his restrictions, you are dooming him to fail no matter what he does. At this point, according to Tristessa, a series of different types of changes constitutes a pattern. How in hell is anyone supposed to abide by the restrictions when it's interpreted so broadly that any edit constitutes a pattern?

This restriction either needs to be more tightly defined, or Δ needs to be banned from the project, since the restriction is making it impossible for him to edit. This middle ground is resulting in far too many threads, far too much acrimony, with entirely predictable and avoidable results. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real problem is that we are dealing with an editor who is unable to communicate effectively. Further up the page here, there is an incident involving Rezabot, which had to be stopped because of a total of 3 bad edits in a run. The bot owner's preferred language is Farsi, but he's been perfectly amenable to efforts to diagnose and resolve the problem, and the bot has been restarted without concern that he'll just go back and do it again. If Beta only communicated, we would not be here. I agree he may not understand the restrictions. Do we want to say "you may not edit with bots, scripts or any other automated tool, unless you have completed all the paperwork and got approval." Is that the intention. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the point is that if Beta wants to perform some task on 25 or more articles, he needs to get approval. That is an explicit goal of the editing restriction, to prevent him from doing undiscussed semi-automated editing of large numbers of articles. It is unreasonable to allow him to avoid the restriction by obfuscating thousands of edits by giving them the same edit summary. If he were to focus on writing content instead of cleanup, these sorts of complaints would disappear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, Carl, writing 25 different articles is a pattern of editing. And 'removing 25 different images from 25 different pages' is not more or less a pattern than 'writing 25 different articles'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It gets even worse, technically, over, say, 10.000 edits and a period of, say, 2 years (or more) {Δ would not be allowed to remove, e.g., the word 'the' as superfluous in >25 different articles, since that is also a pattern. Just a matter of going closely through his edits, and for sure you will find 25 of that type of edits over the last year. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This situation is not like that. In the last 50 edits alone we can see a pattern of removing references to deleted images. It is not as if these "cleanup" edits were infrequent and interspersed with other sorts of edits - the recent contribs show over 25 in a row with no other edits at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The paint brush you are describing is using TYPES of edits as a "pattern", rather than SPECIFIC edits. Under such an interpretation of the restriction, it's impossible for him to edit unless he gets approval for every 25 edits. We can debate whether it was a pattern elsewhere. The point is, you've construed this paintbrush very, very broadly. Others don't construe it as broadly. This needs to be clarified, or we WILL be back here again because of disagreement as to what this restriction really means. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the restriction applies to types of edits. The same sort of cleanup edit made to 25 articles is a pattern, even if the exact change to the text is not the same each time. We don't expect a semi-automated process to make exactly the same change each time, just the same type of change. In this case we can point out exactly that the type of change appears to be. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Then it is impossible for him to edit here without your approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but still, doing 25 edits in a row trying to improve 25 articles is a pattern as well. And are you now suggesting that if he, say, every 20 edits does one dummy edit to break the pattern it is not a pattern anymore? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not a broad enough paintbrush. These two edits separated by two years constitute a pattern: [18] & [19]. See, they both used "cleanup" as an edit summary, and both modified what templates were being addressed. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would even go as far as calling this a pattern: [20] and [21] - you see .. 2 edits which do not use the word 'cleanup' - a clear pattern of not using the word cleanup in the editsummary.</ridiculous addition> --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Arguing about the definition of soup isn't helping anyone. –xeno^talk 16:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is the definition of "pattern" isn't defined, and is being construed to apply across a broad swath of editing. Without a clearer definition, we will be back here. So, I suggest either clarifying the restriction or banning Δ entirely, since it is in practice impossible for him to comply with the restriction according to all definitions apparently in play as to what a "pattern" is. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Beetstra and Hammersoft are trying (so far unsuccessfully though) to muddy the waters by debating what constitues a "pattern", and using reductio ad absurdum as if it was a valid debating technique. Perhaps they can indicate what, in their opinion, constitutes a "pattern" and what doesn't. The edit restriction gives "any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages)", but apparently removing references to deleted images on dozens of pages in a row, with minimal automated additional cleanup on the same pages, does not fit that definition. Could either of you please give an example of a task that you feel does fit the "pattern" definition? Or are you trying to say that anything extremely repetitive set of edits is not a pattern as long as Delta makes them? I hope the former, but it looks more and more like the latter, and that you are trying to defend Delta because it is Delta, and are willing to ignore reality when it suits you here. Fram (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already stipulated that if Δ were to remove a particular image 25 times or more that that would be a pattern. Perhaps you missed that? The point is what YOU call a pattern, and what I call a pattern is irrelevant. Every person here might have a different definition of what that is. Without a clearer definition, Δ is set up to fail. No matter what he does, he can't comply. As an abject demonstration of this lunacy, the case here in call was already discussed a month ago, and concluded with it not being a pattern. Now, it suddenly is and his head is being served on a platter. He can't comply. The only possible way to make all of you happy is for him to stop editing entirely. Perhaps that's the point? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, Δ could err on the side of caution and request approval as indicated if he wants to make a large series of semi-automated edits that all do something quite similar. –xeno^talk 16:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've asked Δ's permission to operate on his behalf to make requests based on his past pattern of activity. I intend to make separate requests to cover such things as adding stub templates, removing references to deleted images, re-pointing calls to templates away from redirects to the proper template name, etc. I'm going to paint using as broad a paintbrush as possible to avoid the sorts of threads this one is so emblematic of. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be extremely helpful I feel. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• First five proposals have been made. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Requests_for_various_.CE.94_tasks and subsequent five threads. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are people making this so bloody difficult. I simplify some, but Delta is in this situation because Delta wrote number of scripts with some controversy, ran them through a few hundred or few thousand articles, did not answer the resulting criticism well, and kept repeating that loop. Sometimes things were exacerbated by claims that hundreds of edits an hour were "manual" rather than "semi-automated" and so not subject to bot approval. So now, just about any repetitive task Delta does is treated as de facto semi-automated, and limited to 25 articles without prior review. Ordinary, manual article editing is rarely "repetitive" for more than a few articles, and doesn't have long "patterns". Gimmetoo (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And as far as I can its a clear violation of his restrictions, as such 48 hours isn't even remotely enough.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on whether they are modified by WP:VPP consensus further to Hammersoft's excellent work on the subject, enforcement blocks could escalate -- but blocking a productive editor is not something that should be taken lightly and I really couldn't have felt justified blocking for any longer. If of course this situation continues he may then be blocked for longer, but I think we should stay away from any medium or long-term block unless it becomes clear that efforts made in this discussion haven't worked later on. I sincerely hope this will not be the case and positive developments in collaboration between Hammersoft and Delta may well ensure it is not, provided Delta becomes more responsive to communication in the future. --Tristessa (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem seems to be that Beta desperately wants to make large numbers of edits automatically or semi-automatically, and just isn't good enough at programming to do it without frequently breaking something. What he really needs is outside code review. It might improve his programming skills. Given the communication issues, though... --John Nagle (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have had little involvement in this, but my impression is that Δ's main problem is not a lack of programming competency, but rather one of [temporary] obstinacy, and perhaps one of lacking knowledge of editing standards outside Wikipedia. See the archived discussions about dates of book publishing: User talk:Δ/20110901; AN thread. He usually changes his script when enough people complain about a particular aspect of it. That talk archive page has some genuine bug reports, but also at least four design complaints: (1) switching articles to WP:LDR, (2) switching non-temlpated book citation to {{cite book}}, (3) the publishing date issue, and (4) linking to main google book page [not page preview]. However his first reaction seems to be "it's not a bug, it's a feature". The main communication problem seems to be that his semi-automated clean-up tasks aren't documented anywhere as far as I can tell, and his scripts seem to get enriched with new features that don't seem to be discussed with anyone prior to their implementation. I don't know if that's a violation of some Wikipedia policies or of his restrictions or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Δ/Proposed tasks was created yesterday by a friend of his. Perhaps there's hope of a more cooperative approach here. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've got contributions going back to 2005. Unless you've spent your wiki career under the proverbial rock you should know this isn't the community's first kick at the can with Delta. No one takes blocking Delta lightly and outside of possibly Giano, jimbo and that on wheels guy I doubt anyone else has ever received this much attention and/or community effort to work with him and shape him into an editor that is here to work with the community.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram - it is not my intention to muddy the water, it is my intention to show that 'pattern' can be turned into anything positive or negative, and then Δ gets the block as soon as someone defines a pattern as being negative - or even when all edits in the pattern are in fact 'positive'.

@all: OK, there is a restriction that should stop patterns. That is all fine, it has been lengthy discussed etc. I can see the necessity of it. I do however think that the risk with the broadness of the term 'pattern' is that things evolve to being a pattern, and that anything - positive and negative - can be construed as a pattern (which I tried to show with my reductio ad absurdum). One removes an image left, and an image right, and there is no pattern yet, but when it approaches - even over 5000 edits spread over months - 25 times a removed image, it can be, and obviously is, construed as a pattern - especially when it then comes in longer bursts where that is happening. For more, see suggestion below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of "take the first letters of every article Beta edits, turn them into numbers and divide by three and you get the Fibonacci sequence". It's BetaCommand carrying out a series of small, rapid cleanup tasks with generic summaries which closely approximate the sort of things that bots and scripts are written to do. This is why most bans include the words "broadly construed". We do not want banned editors to test the waters of their bans. We want them to stop doing what they were banned for. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Chris. And I know that certain edits mentioned here are pretty clearly a pattern, but I do think on the other hand, that if you take out the obvious patterns, there will be less obvious patterns (but which are still not as absurd as I, Hammersoft or now you put them). I am not excusing Delta from not seeing the obvious patterns and not asking permission for it, but I do think that when first there is an AN/I thread saying that there is not really a pattern, Δ editing on with that thought and then a month later after hardly any discussion someone comes, construes something/it as a pattern (which it now apparently is, while first it was ot) and blocks Δ is not the way forward. I've been on Wikipedia a long time - and I do know how effective WP:BEANS really is - even if it is not a suggestion, but just as a practice that works. Δ now asks permission for 30 patterns (and may get all 41 granted), starts editing, and one 'Beta-blocker' (I know, 'Δ-blocker) goes through the edits, and finds obvious pattern 42 and we have another AN/I thread and another (and then probably lengthy) block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way Chris, I hope we want banned editors to become productive editors again. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on BetaCommand to be careful to stay within his editing restrictions as they may be construed by the admin corps; if he is, after all this time, unable to wrap his brain around what is construed as an automated edit and what isn't then that is not the fault of the admin corps, nor anyone except Beta. If he chooses to skirt close to the edge of the defined restrictions, or otherwise to test them, then he has little recourse when a member of the admin corps (who is likely not perfect, but is almost certainly better-trusted by the community than Beta is) opts to interpret said action as flouting his restrictions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know .. but as I said, first an AN/I thread states something is not a pattern, and then it is interpreted by another admin as 'flouting his restrictions'. Again, the WP:BEANS have now been planted to find the pattern that Δ is flouting after this block is expired. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe at this point since there is no definition of "pattern" that Δ's edits in general are a pattern (i.e., 25 edits in mainspace = pattern) which there are attempts to suppress. That's the source of this most recent block; no definition of pattern. Indeed, chaos = pattern [22]. It's hopeless. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Suggestion: If someone finds that something is a pattern in Δ's edits (however obvious or absurd), then that editor is a) bringing that to an AN or AN/I thread and b) obviously notifies Δ of the thread. Δ is at that point to stop with performing edits that were construed as being part of a 'pattern' (disable it in a script, whatever, just stop it). Either the community answer is 'this looks like a pattern indeed, Δ needs to go through VPP' (note: Δ can do that immediately when notified, even when community is not yet certain if it is a pattern, if it is not really a pattern, if the pattern is absurd, if it is necessary, whatever, going to get it is wise anyway - that can also be done when an editor notifies Δ privately (also wise), but then is not sanctionable if Δ would not), or the community dismisses the pattern as not being a pattern. There will be no blocks applied, even if it is deemed that over the last thousands of edits there were way over 25 of said pattern and the community does notice that Δ did not ask for permission for that pattern (blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern). Note, that if Δ himself thinks certain edits can be construed as a pattern, then he should go to VPP as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do admire the refuge in audacity that is repeatedly suggesting BetaCommand's editing restrictions should be enforced by not enforcing them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the 'blocks can/should be applied if Δ continues to perform numerous (>10?) edits after the community decision is that there is indeed a pattern'? All I try to prevent here, is that less obvious patterns are resulting in immediate lengthy (and technically correct) blocks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not miss that you graciously offered to allow for BetaCommand's current editing restrictions to be enforced using the standard method after a new series of hoops are jumped through. I also did not miss your new blanket retroactive immunity for any edits made up until this new "warning" phase, which suggests that Beta could simply work in 10,000-edit bursts so long as he could complete each run in time to halt it when the VPP thread inevitably turned up. What I perhaps missed is whom exactly you think you're likely to persuade here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got me there, did not think about that loophole. Though there is still a restriction on edit-speed (so 10,000 edits is difficult to attain), and I am sure 50 in a row would be impossible due to the monitoring that is applied. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We still have the issue with the current restriction above against edits which are automated or appear automated. Delta needs to just stay away from scripts full stop. That's the suggestion. Frankly, I seem to recall more than one person thinking Delta is running automatic scripts or a bot on his main account the way he edits sometimes. There has been a lot of that going on, and it has been causing issues on top of that. Pretending he didn't make those edits or ignoring it won't make the issue go away.--Crossmr (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So far as I'm aware (correct me if I'm wrong) there is no restriction on Δ using a script. Given that, there's no point to your opposition here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delta is prohibited from making edits which are automatic or appear automatic. This would include using a script if his work appears automatic. It's clearly listed on his restrictions.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ...and is completely irrelevant here, because it's not what he was blocked for. That was editing in a pattern, regardless of any automation (and it was fairly clearly a manual script). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You apply the adjective "manual" to "script" as though an exemption, but surely it's impossible by definition for a script to be manual — that is, unless he's a human Perl interpreter, running the code in his head with a Wikipedia edit box and a pageholder bearing a printout of the source side-by-side. I assume he's painstakingly typing the word "Cleanup" with precisely the same capitalisation in each edit summary box. His achievement of 6 edits/min is testament to his phenomenal, computer-like brain; I could, in which case, make a fortune writing his biography. --Tristessa (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you do realise that it is possible to type the word 'Cleanup', manually, a couple of thousands of times in the same way (sure, tedious), and do 6 edits manually with tabbed browsing within a minute (easy, I can do more), and it is even possible to actually combine those two. No scripts involved there. Point is, it is entirely possible to do 100 edits by hand, which are a pattern, and I hope that you blocked him for editing with a pattern without having consensus for that pattern, not for scripted, and not for automated edits (I do agree that the term 'manual script' is a bit strange - script assisted edits or something like that is more likely). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As a point of fact, I frequently conduct group of edits where the edits are completed within a minute or two, have the same edit summary, and conduct the same work. I don't use a script to do this. I am using an electronic device to assist me though. I'm confident Δ uses a similar device as well. Unfortunately for him, that device hasn't been explicitly authorized by consensus for him to use it. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delta listing edits as vandalism when they are not

Either the IP is actually user Alucardbarnivous, or he's trying to speak for him, neither of which would be a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither true, actually. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by Hammersoft

I was going to just carry on when I made my comments at VPP earlier, but I've noticed that since I've commented there, he's added a whole pile of extremely trivial requests of no specific direction which don't really seem in-line with the intention of Delta's restriction. It seems like Hammersoft is fishing to add all kinds of blanket "Exceptions" to Delta's editing restrictions rather than propose that delta is about to undertake a specific task as would seem to be indicated by the restriction. These edits come across as pointy, WP:BEAN, WP:GAME, an assumption of bad faith on the part of the community, and basically boil down to being disruptive. Despite the fact that out of the first 12 or so he proposed, only 1 or 2 really had any traction, including the blanket "oppose all"s at the top, he's gone and proposed several more. As someone pointed out, it would seem the intention behind this restriction is in a scenario like this: Delta seems an issue with a series of articles. Perhaps all the articles in a project need pictures, but only 5 out of 200 have them. He wants to add a picture request template to the articles. So he goes to VPP and says "I want to make 195 additions of this template to the articles in this scope, what do you think? much as one might propose a bot task. Instead Hammersoft is attempting to add indefinite exceptions of no scope and no time frame to the list of restrictions we already have. And in fact, despite doing that, all Hammersoft is really asking is that Delta be allowed to perform these tasks. He's already allowed to perform, but if he's going to make similar changes to a large group of articles he should just propose it first to make sure there are no preemptive objections. This entire situation reminds me of the mess we have sometimes when someone decides to AfD 50 articles from a single project (like that transformers thing) this is just entirely unmanageable and disruptive per the above cited policies and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Every requested task are edits that Δ has previously done and someone might construe as constituting a pattern. It is a good faith effort. I'm sorry you don't feel that way. Am I asking for indefinite exceptions? No, but if I were you need only look as far as the first bullet item in his restrictions, which also has no time frame. 20 edits from 2009 and 20 from 2011 can be construed as a pattern underneath that restriction. Perhaps you might suggest a re-wording of the restriction to clarify the issue? What I am hoping to achieve is to avoid situations where an editor looks through a few months of his editing history and demands linking to a thread at WP:VPR showing where he had approval to do edits of a particular type. That's happened several times already. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason it has happened is because Beta has refused to follow his restriction, not because the restriction was too vague for him to understand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand you oppose Δ. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't oppose him editing. I oppose efforts to enable the particular sorts of editing that he has proven unable to perform productively. Ironically, proposals such as yours to allow him to edit more freely will only result in him coming under stronger sanctions later, because he has shown time and time again that he is unable or unwilling to perform certain types of tasks without controversy. The solution is to find things that he is able to do, not to allow him to dig a deeper hole for himself. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You oppose him doing maintenance tasks because you believe he's unsuited to them. I believe he is. My opinion is worthless, yours is gold. I am not making ANY proposal for him to edit more freely. You (if I recall) and others have demanded he provide evidence he made requests at WP:VPR for various editing he has done. Now the requests are being made and you cry foul? What the hell is he supposed to do? You are not giving him any way out except to quit the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You are indeed making proposals on the village pump to allow him to perform various tasks in an automated or semi-automated manner without further review. Ironically, if I did want to see Beta banned (which I do not), the best way to accomplish it would be to convince everyone to allow him to go back to the sorts of edits that led to the restrictions in the first place. That seems to be what you are seeking in your proposals. The only way to prevent Beta from being banned is to break the cycle of chronically disruptive editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That doesn't seem to work. He is doing semi-automated editing whether you like it or not. That is certainly the bulk of his edits for the past 3 months. The only alternative to a full site ban is to let him do those tasks that he can code correctly and that are uncontroversial. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he continues the way he has been, it is clear he will eventually be banned again. Experience shows that he is not able (or not willing) to limit his maintenance work to correctly coded uncontroversial tasks. So I think we mostly agree. But I think there is a chance he could continue to edit if he were willing to change to a different sort of editing. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely counterproductive for Hammersoft to continue to act as Delta's spokesperson and uncritical apologist. How is Delta going to show that he has learned how to express and explain himself and to respond to community concerns and complaints, if someone else is constantly doing it for him? The implicit statement is that not even Hammersoft trusts him to speak for himself. Is there a way we can put an end to this? postdlf (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. When the last round of problems with Beta's non-free image work came up, Hammersoft argued vehemently that tere was no problem at all. Beta ended up topic-banned from non-free images. When Tristessa attemtped to discuss concerns with pattern editing, HS took over and argued the case right into the ground. A little later, Tristessa blocks Beta for pattern editing. Now HS is once more tenaciously leading the fight to get all these tasks approved and it looks like at least half are being rejected. And that's better than Beta could do himself? Franamax (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So what's next, you're going to ban me from something? I frequently am an advocate for people who are being unjustly treated here. Δ isn't isolated. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Really? You want to go with unjust treatment? Delta brought this on himself over the years of poor behaviour. His repeated inability to not get it, and the direct result of the ever dwindling number of those running around enabling that behaviour. Delta probably owns the record for most chances given, and the current restrictions exist only because of that past behaviour. He has utterly failed almost from the time he was unbanned until now to work within these restrictions. Restrictions he agreed to follow. There isn't anything remotely unjust about the way he's being treated.--Crossmr (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So you would suggest Δ receive no help, no input, no assistance...that whatever his faults, nobody can help him? He has to prove he's perfect by all the various insane measures being applied to him, and do so on his own under pain of banishment from the site? Right. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, Hammersoft, your recent edits say that NFCC#10c content "MUST be removed". The actual quote from the policy is "the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." Please change your edit summary to be compliant with Wikipedia policy. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to take up issues with my editing elsewhere. This isn't the forum for it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're going to get very little sympathy if you continue misstating policy just because you were warned in the wrong forum.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've started discussion on your talk page regarding the edits. Feel free to contribute to that conversation or not. This entire thread is about Δ, not me. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My talk page isn't the right place to discuss your edits. An AN/I thread about disruptive editing on your part will do nicely, I think.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Then feel free to do so, rather than co-opting this thread. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is completely counterproductive is for certain editors to attack the few, like Hammersoft, who try to address greater wrongs, and help editors who are slammed by badly constructed, too broad restrictions. Unfortunately, like in the real world, few get popular by trying to help the downtrodden, while piling in and kicking those who are down - and the few who try to help them - is a much more popular sport. Recommended reading #1 and #2 come to mind, although I recognize well they are just a voice crying in the wild... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm. You're saying that after Δ wrote [23]:

This bullshit idiocy is irritating, along with the stalking and harassment. One day my edits are OK, and then less than 30 days later Im blocked out of the blue because the same edits I was making a month ago........ ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you find his civility restriction pointless as well, but not because it doesn't get enforced. And perhaps the WP:BOTPOL is useless too. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with the language, but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment. It is absurd that one month a set of edits is not viewed as a pattern, and a month later without discussion he is blocked for the same type of edits. THAT is a facepalm. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It was immediately clear to me he was doing semi-automated edits just by sampling a few around the one that intersected my watch list. I just had no idea he was under community restrictions. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• He is not prohibited from performing such edits. The issue isn't using a script. It's the definition of "pattern". There's some efforts under way to more tightly define what "pattern" is to avoid situations like this in the future. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You have argued to death here that his repetitive tasks are not a pattern. Nobody is buying this theory but you and Dirk Beetstra. Please desist with this nonsense. See for instance how he volunteers that he is "standardizing references"; his edits in that series triggered more than one editor to comment on his talk page. User talk:Δ/20110901#Google Books links, and subsequent threads. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I've argued to death that the definition of pattern needs to be clarified. There is a huge difference. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Well in that case wouldn't it be optimal to actually define what a "pattern" is, rather than having a huge and pointless circular argument where everyone makes up their own definition and then claims it to be "obvious"? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)I agree with Hammersoft, there is no clear definition of what a pattern is. Until there is a definition, Δ should not be blocked again for "violating" editing restriction #1. I stated my points over at WP:VPP, I believe the restriction is quite ridiculous. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think making it clear is perfectly reasonable behaviour - a large number of people seem to have an issue with clarity - clarity is always good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What folks may mean is where use of automated tools looks probable, without the near-impossible burden of proving it. And most likely the issue is those that are not low key maintenance types, i.e. edits where someone would expect a genuine edit summary of substance, (and the related case-by-case deliberation which that indicates) written for the specific edit. Which may be the answer. North8000 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I wasn't around when the restriction were drafted, so I use the Webster to interpret "pattern" as:

a reliable sample of traits, acts, tendencies, or other observable characteristics of a person, group, or institution <a behavior pattern> <spending patterns>

a discernible coherent system based on the intended interrelationship of component parts <foreign policy patterns>

frequent or widespread incidence <a pattern of dissent> <a pattern of violence>

What Δ was doing "standardizing references" seems to fit these definitions for example. And so was removing deleted images. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably take this to ArbCom if there's community disagreement whether what Δ was doing had patterns or not. ArbCom's evidence pages allow more analysis than is normally possible on noticeboards. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And what benefit would that yield? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't you deduce from the explanation I gave above? [I just changed my user name, by the way.] ʔ (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If the past 24 hours are any indication, taking it to ArbCom would result in 20,000+ words, 60 pages worth of argumentation, and we'd still not have a definition of "pattern" for our purposes. Your dicdef, among other problems, doesn't contain a time frame. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, since we literally have lawyers on the ArbCom (e.g. Template:NYB), maybe they'll come up with a better set of restrictions than the community managed, or perhaps they'll remove them altogether as impractical given Δ's editing focus. Do you think they could handle that? ʔ (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think taking it to ARBCOM is a good idea. The village pump process seems to be producing sane results - it took 15 minutes to respond to all the points there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout any sequence of edits that doesn't have edit summaries specialized to the particular edit? North8000 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about we just topic ban Hammersoft from commenting about Betacommand in any way? Jtrainor (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about we all chill out? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd buy that for a dollar. As far as pattern goes, I'd suggest that any repetitive task (e.g. deciding to remove all the deleted images from a list of articles is a pattern) or any kind of theme of edits, general cleanup which may be labelled as such but include some variation in each article (ref cleanup, typo fixes, date maintenance, etc) would be a pattern. It would also need to happen over a reasonable time frame. Dirk and Hammersoft have been harping on this whole scenario where they claim someone is going to find 25 like edits that stretch over the last 2 years and have him banned on them. But I've seen no evidence to support that (hence my point about the VPP process being an assumption of bad faith, as it was born out of that mindset), but I'd suggest that if he's going to run his "semi"-automatic script on more than 24 articles in a 48 hour period he should propose it's function and get feedback first.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You imply that two years is an unreasonable time frame, and attack me for posting to WP:VPR in bad faith, and then come up with your own personal definition of "pattern"? So I'm posting in bad faith because I can see people construing two years as a pattern, and you're posting in good faith because your opinion is 48 hours. Do you not see the disconnect? --Hammersoft (talk) 00:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course it's an unreasonable time frame, and this fear that you and dirk have worked up over it seems to have no basis in reality. Other then Delta's just generally poor editing behaviour over the last 2 years (civility, stubborness, that kind of stuff) have you ever seen anyone try to put together diffs stretching over 2 years to claim he was making a specific kind of pattern of edits? No, I don't think you have, and trying to make all these pointy proposals based on that fear is a bad faith assumption. My suggestion is simply that, a suggestion, something I'd view as a reasonable time frame, people are free to discuss it and modify it as the community saw fit. You were using your assumption as motivation for what looks like the issues I laid out above. Two entirely different scenarios.--Crossmr (talk) 07:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this thread and watched everyone's own definition of "pattern", this thing comes into my mind. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several proposals on WP:VPR to more accurately define "pattern". Constructive comments are welcome. Solipsism is probably something we could do without, unless you personally volunteer to physically oversee Δ's activities. Uʔ (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ʔ - I think you did misunderstand Hammersofts (and also my) reductio ad absurdum of 'pattern'. Yes, there are edits which can constitute a pattern, I am not disagreeing on that. The point is, that when you either take out the pattern that is now there, or when you allow certain parts of the pattern, a new pattern will emerge (he is then doing a pattern of edits which is created of edits which are following an allowed pattern - but he does not have permission do to a pattern of patterned edits). a) the word pattern is too vague - b) the timeframe of 'pattern' is too vague - if he does 25 edits in a row which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common, that is a pattern (that is what he did now), if he does 25 edits in a set of 100 edits which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common, that is arguably also a pattern, if he, from the moment that he is allowed to edit, until now does 25 edits which (amongst other things) do 1 thing in common .. then one could construe that as a pattern. Maybe I am reducing this ad absurdum, but unfortunately the beta-blockers have that handle with this vague description.

For ARBCOM - I do not expect them to lay out the definition of 'pattern' for us, they will maybe enforce or confirm the restriction, and still leave the definition and specifics of the word 'pattern' to us (they may even add 'broadly construed' to the term pattern, so it becomes even more vague). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our social policies are not a suicide pact. Exhaustively defining Beta's editing restrictions to cover every real or imagined permutation is not a productive use of our time. The inevitable outcome is that the restrictions will become broader over time rather than more specific until either Beta stops testing the waters and does something useful with his time or he is blocked from editing entirely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that, and there will always be cases slipping through. But using some common sense to define 'pattern' (as opposed to leaving it totally blank) is necessary here - otherwise we can just as well indef Δ now and get over it and avoid all future dramah, as that is simply what is the outcome. I know that is not what the general aim is of all people here, but that is what is the general outcome of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The expected outcome is that Beta refrains from editing like a robot, because time and again he's shown that allowing him to do so causes disruption. In that respect, two dozen exceptions to Beta's restrictions which cover things which we could do (and do do) with a Perl script does not help with that at all. His supporters should be trying to wean him off these edits, not simply prevent him from being blocked when he makes them. As for simply banning him entirely, we edge closer and closer to that outcome every time we end up back here, as it does indeed look like the path of least drama. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Δ's supporters constantly state that, with respect to Δ's sanctions, no definition of a "pattern" yet exists. They also claim that a usual interpretation of what "pattern" might mean is in fact not a pattern, and it's all a big, tragic misinterpretation on the rest of the community's part. I believe this is simply an attempt to have him exempted from the editing restrictions by forcing as unusual, and as abstract, a definition of a "pattern" as possible; and that their proposed definition is actually "nothing that Δ ever does". In addition, we have heard from CBM (talk · contribs) since this thread opened who helped draft the wording of the community editing restriction, and he clarified that Δ's editing is exactly the sort of thing he was meant to be restricted from doing. The act of applying the same set of "cleanup" general fixes to a range of multiple articles should, I think, more than adequately class as a pattern in most editors' eyes. The existence of "patterns" should be left to individual administrator discretion to determine, a state of affairs that appears to be broken only in the eyes of people trying to help him avoid the sanctions. We have, for once, proper dialogue on the tasks that he is able to undertake with permission at WP:VPP, which means there is now surely no excuse for not bringing automated tasks to community approval. The attempts to include modifications to the sanction to ambiguously permit MoS edits, or redefine the word "pattern" to a sideline meaning not related to the problematic behaviours, are not helping; the correct course of action is already happening. But what I would like to see is more of these users assisting Δ to liase effectively with the community, and less of them trying to find or generate loopholes in the sanctions. --Tristessa (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that each individual discussion is starting with a blanket 4 people opposing each one, I can't see you (generally used) generate enough support for most or any of those to actually go anywhere. About the only one remotely going anywhere is #7, which a bot already does, #18, which a bot already does, and that's basically it. The rest all either have significant opposes in the discussions, or the handful of supports they've gained really don't make an overwhelming consensus in the face of the opposes at the top. Hence why I brought this here, as this was more or less clear before the last 7 or 8 were added.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blanket opposes have little or no basis. It's opposing to oppose. It's like opposing an RfA with a rationale of "because". --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If people do not have sufficient trust in Beta to authorize any more tasks, it is bureaucratic to make them say so 20 times. Once at the top is sufficient. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If people do not have sufficient trust in Beta to authorize him, then they should make a proposal to ban him from article space. Blanket opposes do nothing to help foster a consensus building environment, and are antithetical to the process. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, if the flock of proposals is engineered so that the status quo is not an available choice then it amounts to a wikigame. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The status quo is that Δ can edit mainspace. Blanket opposes are nothing more than an attempt to ban him, without consensus, from editing mainspace. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Beta is free to edit mainspace in non-automated fashion. If you're okay with that status quo, then perhaps you'll withdraw your proposals? We shouldn't have to re-vote to affirm the community decision every time Beta tests or violates his restrictions or one of his supporters wants to lift them. At some point the community has made its decision. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Δ is required to seek permission to perform edits that can be construed as a pattern. These requests are being done in support of that requirement. I will not withdraw them. The problem isn't the requests, it's the definition of pattern. Every one of the proposals so far made can be construed as a pattern, if enough of them are done. Since these edits have been done in the past, moving forward to do any more of them requires approval. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And those proposals are being individually considered by multiple editors. Yet when editors register and explain their considered objections, you claim it is opposing for the sake of opposing and should be dismissed. You are the one who decided to make the individual proposals. You shouldn't complain if some or most of them are rejected on their individual merits. Franamax (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blanket opposes are opposing "because". It's not considering each proposal. I have no objection to proposals being rejected on their individual merits. A blanket oppose is no better than a person coming to WP:AN/I and saying "I hereby disagree with every thread here". It's meaningless and empty. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not simply "because". It is perfectly reasonable for the reviewers to take into account both the request and the person making the request. If reviewers do not feel Beta is suitable to perform the tasks, that is a perfectly reasonable explanation for opposing the proposal. Reviewers are allowed to take Beta's history into account when they look at his proposals - that's the point, actually. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is that each proposal is not being reviewed on its merits. Instead, it's a blanket oppose to Δ doing anything. There is no such sanction on the table or being discussed. If someone wants to propose that, fine. But, to attempt to use a blanket oppose to stop all proposed tasks is missing the mark by a mile. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The notion that each proposal should be considered strictly on its merits, in a vacuum, without even the possibility of considering the long and colorful history behind all of this -- to wit, applying the sanctions blindly without considering why they were put in place to begin with -- seems very novel. There was no wording in the sanctions that suggests Δ would be allowed to continue semi-automated edits indefinitely; in fact, it's clear from even a cursory reading of them that he is only going to be allowed to do so where and when he has the community's support, as judged by consensus. If, as you seem to be suggesting, we should discount opposition to each proposal that "is not being reviewed on its merits", how do you feel we should interpret support which apparently does the same? Yours, for example. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

74.237.193.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to edit sporadically, but has been editing highly unconstructively each and every time. It appears that for the past 3 years, this IP address has added the final results to articles on reality television competitions that are in the middle of their seasonal run. I attempted to report the IP to WP:AIV, but I guess due to the nature of the vandalism and the fact that the IP only edits once every six months, it is not actionable there. But is it actionable here?—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful? Doc talk 03:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the information being added true and reliably sourced? Wasn't the result of the spoiler fracas a few years back that we don't label information so as to not spoil things for our readers? If so, then how much less acceptable would it be to withhold factual sourced information (if that's what it is) from them? Of course, if the IP is getting their (true) information from an inside source, than it won't be reliably sourced, and what they're doing is essentially OR, even if it's correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that this particular IP's last edit prior to this one was over a year ago. There's a pattern... but a really slow pattern. Unless there are other IPs or named accounts suspected to be the same user that can be evidenced (which would for SPI most likely anyway): if AIV wouldn't touch it, why would it be an AN/I issue? Doc talk 04:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A year between edits, given they're being handily reverted, is too slow to do much about. Even a year-long block wouldn't stop them and another year from now, they may be gone from that IP. An indef block of the IP could wind up causing an even bigger waste of volunteer time, so I see nothing for an admin to do here unless another unhelpful edit pops up within, say, a few months. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the case of their last edit, a year ago, their result was wrong. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- vandalism, then, deliberate posting of insourced inaccurate information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Colofac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) indefinitely for being an unproductive and disruptive account. He had previously been blocked for disruptive editing (here is the previous block discussion). Since the block expired on Sept 25, he has made about 40 edits. In this time, he has added next to nothing productive including [24], openly stating he has no desire to edit productively, created absurd SPIs, andadded aggressive/disruptive user boxesto his user page. Looking at his overall history, he has added nothing but disruption to Wikipedia. Since the block expired, he has had one edit to the main space, and 5 welcomings of new users. That's the extent of his productivity.

I welcome review of this. It might seem to be too long/aggressive, but I have seen very little that is productive out of this account in its 2 months here. The account is just her to stir up and participate in drama. only (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with this edit he is bluntly stating "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" so at first glance this seems like a sound block but I'd like to hear what others have to say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, aside from his userpage he hasn't had any edits since the 5th. I'm curious as to how this user was brought to your attention. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had a conversation with this user at another ANI discussion a month or two ago, and when I saw him blocked, happened to watch his talk pgae. Then these edits to his user page popped up today (for which he had previously been warned) and that triggered in my head. only (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colofac has responded and requested unblock at his talk page. only (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd urge caution about putting material in quotes when that material wasn't stated by the user. Some may think the statement " I've been slighted on this site far too many times for me to want to build it" expresses exactly the same as "I'm not here to build an encyclopedia" but I see a difference. The actual statement made sounds like an expression of frustration, an underlying desire to build an encyclopedia that has been beaten down, and a hope that someone will address the issues so the user can return to the real purpose. The second sounds more definitive, and an explicit statement that one's goals are in opposition to the WP goals. I don't want to debate whether some see the two as close enough, but the user didn't say what was in quotes. We would not allow a paraphrased statement in an article in quotes, why should we allow it here?--SPhilbrickT 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• unblock I agree that it seems unlikely that this editor will be staying here long, but I do think that a fair trial with input from the community is required to impose an indefinite block like this. Productivity is not an argument - editors are volunteers and do not have to fill any quota of "production". Disruption is an argument but the previous block was supposed to be a wake up call, and it doesn't seem that he has caused any disruption after coming out of the block.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the gravedancing, the diving back into drama-discussions, the self-SPI to "clear his name" and the user page statements (for which he was previously warned) that have all occurred since the block show a continuance of the pattern already set before the previous block. Those examples all come from about 40 edits so it's clear to see a non-intent to reform. only (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak unblock The "gravedancing" doesnt appear so to me and the SPI seems good faith but wrong procedure. Despite the diffs above the user has made a constructive edit. The userboxes need to go though.--v/r - TP 17:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mention above that he had a productive edit plus several welcomings, but it does not seem like much compared to the rest of the sample since the previous block. only (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak unblock per TParis. I don't see how that diff can be construed as gravedancing, but agree the userboxes need to go. Kcowolf (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block - I have to go with only on this one. First of all, they clearly have some sort of agrudge against Wikipedia and have openly stated that they have no desire to help build it (Pillar #1). Secondly, considering the vicious history between this user and user:ChristianandJericho, I certainly do agree that their edits to that page were "gravedancing", which they were appropriately warned for and provided a totally inadequate excuse. They've added to ANI drama, they've added borderline hate speech to their userpage, and what's the tradeoff? One edit to the mainspace? In my opinion, this user isn't here to contribute constructively to the project and is a net negative. I'm all for second third fourth chances, and I don't think it would be the end of the world if they were unblocked. It just seems that an unblock now would only be postponing an inevitable reblocking of this 'problem user' in the near future. Swarm ^X 19:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak unblock, mostly due to WP:ROPE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block If users are here to build an encyclopedia they can demonstrate that with their actions and he clearly hasn't. We really don't need to be wasting endless time with disruptive users as we are sometimes want to do, so it's nice to see an admin putting their foot down.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block Even the users advocating unblock above admit he will not be a net positive to the project. Why should we let him drive a few good faith contributors from the project before getting rid off him? We have few enough editors as it is.Yoenit (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block Looking at the evidence relied on by the blocking admin to block this editor, which confirms the correctness of that decision beyond any doubt, I cannot comprehend how we are even considering an unblock without a credible indication from the user concerned of behavioural change. Making constructive edits here and there is not a licence to do whatever else you like.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment IMO the gravedancing bit links to the wrong diff. While modifying the comment may violate TPO, and I don't really see why Colofac cared since it wasn't negative, I can understand how it might a bit frustrating if you are named and feel you can't respond (and if Colofac had left a response, it probably would have been seen as worse). However[25] does seem like grave dancing.Nil Einne (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block - If an editor admits to not being here to improve the encyclopedia, there is clearly no place for them here-- we are not a debating society, and should not encourage drama for its own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Unblock- per WP:ROPE.OIFA (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Have they not been given enough rope thus far? Is a fourth chance really warranted? Swarm ^X 04:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock. Yes, he does appear burned out, but some his actions were in good faith. He requested SPI against himself to prove his innocence. Although the English Wikipedia doesn't allow that, it's not an unreasonable request, and is even allowed in other Wikipedias. See reply from admin [26] We need to see more serious evidence than this kind of mild disruption. Not everyone takes the time to read the huge and often poorly written policy pages. What happened to "blocks are not punitive"? Do you truly think for instance that he is going to file another SPI on himself after he was told "no"?! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• And people should stop edit warring over his fringe politics user boxes [27]. That is disruptive and a waste of time. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• And if unproductive editors are your concern, head over tothis RfC, where there's evidence of umpteen times more unproductive chatter (and that's a polite understatement) + IDHT, yet no blocks have been issued.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support unblock. My word, I thought this was a no-brainer. There is no policy that says that a user has to make a certain number of edits to mainspace to be allowed to stay. I don't think I've made more than half a dozen in the past month! I gave him the talking to regarding gravedancing and he backed off. I agree he should not be showing disruptive userboxen and he should be blocked (for a time period) if he keeps replacing them as that is disruptive. But blocking him indefinitely because he hasn't done enough good - especially when he hasn't done that much at all - that seems like a dangerous ball game. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock for insufficient grounds. Simply being an "unproductive user" is not grounds for permablock - or any block. There are a truckload of FAR more "unproductive" users that should be getting the axe long before this guy. On top of that - while his userboxen might not be acceptable to a user or three, they absolutely, 100% do NOT wiolate WP:UP#POLEMIC and WP:NPA as claimed in the reversions to his page, as there is/are no specific editors that are targeted by those. While I appreciate the spirit of the reverts and the grounds - it does not fall within the letter of WP policy, despite what some admins might think. If you want to block this cat, you are going to have to come up with far better reasons than being offended by his position and claiming he is "un-productive". If we were to whack all the unproductive accounts there would be less than 1/3rd the current active accounts. If you start with this one - don't stop until they are ALL done. Srobak (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very first bullet point of the policy you linked, WP:UP#POLEMIC: statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).This falls squarely into that criteria. It doesn't require that a specific editor be named to fall under that criteria. - SudoGhost08:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock so long as the editor agrees to keep this off of his userpage, per WP:UP#POLEMIC. Other than the userbox issue I'm not seeing any gross disruption (the gravedancing was out of line, but it was discussed with the editor). While these behaviors might warrant a shorter block, I'm personally (from a non-admin standpoint) not seeing anything overly warranting an indefinite block. - SudoGhost 09:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC) (See below for why I no longer support unblocking) - SudoGhost 08:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, one thing is clear to me: he lacks the emotional intelligence to take part in editing Wikipedia without hoisting himself on his own petard every so often by starting pointless fights. Because of that, I think he will ultimately be indef blocked or banned, if not now, then later. I no longer support unblocking him because he fails to recognize that his actions were a big part of this drama, and because so far he has not given any indication that he will not restore those boxes or engage in similar behavior. But I cannot support this block either because it was doled out too easily relative to the proximate offense. A RfC/U would have been more appropriate given how similar behavior of other editors is commonly dealt with. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Shorten the block to two weeks. His previous block was for one week, so this seems an appropriate intermediate measure. I support immediate unblock iff he promises to stop provoking fights with polemical statements, including in user boxes.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following snippet from his talk page is indicative of the problem we face here, and also a reply to my comment right above, so I'm copying it here:

I find Have mörser, will travel's comments on ANI regarding me "provoking fights" completely outrageous. I have never, not once provoked or goaded a fight on Wikipedia, and unless he can provide links to back up such a claim, it should be withdrawn. Colofac (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The homosexuality user box had been removed from your user page on Sep 20 [28] by Viriditas. You have not edited between Oct 5 and 22. On Oct 22, your 2nd edit was to restore that user box [29]. That counts as provoking a fight in my book. Good bye and good luck. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That does not count as "provoking a fight" and has been discussed earlier, I now request you withdraw that comment at once.Colofac (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"has been discussed earlier" where? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussed in the sense that other users have brought up that matter without the need to make personal attacks regarding emotional intelligence or erroneous statements regarding picking fights. I now feel your continued involvement in this matter unhelpful. Colofac (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My reading of your edit history is that nobody discussed your Oct 22 edits (with you anyway) prior to your indef block. Your last Israel/Palestine user box was added at 09:54, and you were indef blocked at 16:41. At 16:51 (Oct 22) the administrator who placed the block informed you of it on your talk page. There is no other post to your talk page before that going back all the way to Sep 26. If you think that's a discussion of your latest edits, or that blocks are more helpful to your understanding than my frank remarks, so be it, I'll stay away. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 10:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it is clear that I was referring to the ANI discussions, where other users have brought up the matter sans untrue accusations. Your dramatic change of tune and selective presentation of my responses to your accusations show that you have no intention of helping, hence why I asked you to cease commenting here. Please respect that request. Colofac (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record: I have copied here all his replies addressed to me as of the timestamp of this message, so I'm unsure what he means by "selective presentation", but I won't engage him anymore per his clear request. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, I actually missed one:

I'd like to draw your attention to User:Nableezy and their userpage. I think you'll agree, what is on that page is far more disruptive than mine. Colofac (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block. The fact that the blocking admin chose to phrase it in terms of "lack of productivity" makes me squirmy, but the fact is that Colofac appears to be here to fight, and pretty much only to fight. He has repeatedly failed to engage in a constructive manner, as evidenced by the history of his talk page for the past month or so - calling other editors namesoh bugger, that wasn't him in that diff. I'm off to find the right one, sorry about that! A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC), making discriminatory nationalistic and sexist comments, and generally refusing to get the point when other editors ask him to stop doing these things. Block for not being productive enough? No, we don't really do that. Block for not being here to build an encyclopedia, and in fact appearing to be here to help tear one down? Yep. Amend the block reason to reflect that and let's turn our energy to editors who show some sign of wanting to work collaboratively. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct diff for "calling other editors names" was intended to be this one. 17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous block & warning

Blocking admin noted in [30]:

As a consequence of your inappropriate conduct, I am blocking you from editing for a period of one week, and strongly suggest that you reconsider your approach to interacting with other contributors in the future; otherwise, the next block is likely to be indefinite. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 14:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've asked Kirill Lokshin to comment here because he seems more aware of the background here than most other commentators.Have mörser, will travel (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting as it was prematurely archived, without resolution. Unless there is further input on this - it would appear the consensus is to unblock and for Colofac to ensure he will refrain from reproducing the objectionable material. Final or further thoughts? Srobak (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, we seem to have a hung jury. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There's definitely not a clear consensus to unblock here, at least at this point. Srobak, please keep in mind that because you're friendly with Colofac, you may be interpreting what's said in this thread in a different manner than other editors might. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* date tag here +1 week to prevent premature archiving - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I don't think that simply unblocking Colofac merely because the particular userbox in question has been removed is a particularly good idea. The fundamental problem with Colofac's behavior—which Colofac has yet to acknowledge—is that deliberately trying to make one's fellow editors (whether they happen to be gay or Chinese, or some other group) feel unwelcome is simply not in keeping with the standards of collegial behavior that Wikipedians are expected to follow. The fact that Colofac has chosen, in this particular instance, to do this via userboxes is not particularly important; so long as Colofac refuses to recognize and correct the underlying problem, we are going to continue having incidents of this sort.

  Having said that, if the community feels that he must be given yet another chance, then so be it. My only hope is that the cost of doing so does not become too high; we should not forget, after all, that the editors whom Colofac so blithely attacks may choose to find a more welcoming project rather than continuing to contribute to ours. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 05:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps admins with experience in mentoring like User:Worm That Turned, who support(ed) this unblock, should mentor or monitor Colofac? (I'm still not sure how that stuff works.) Have mörser, will travel (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think my style of mentoring wouldn't really help here, as someone needs to encourage Colofac to start participating in the encyclopedia in general, whilst I generally work on increasing understanding and helping the "young hotheads" understand the dispute resolution process. I'd happily help out, but I think that Colofac wouldn't be amenable to that. As I mentioned, I was the one who told him of for gravedancing, and I've already helped out ChristianAndJericho quite a bit, two factors which would mean he'd find me difficult to work with. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Given Colofac's behavior on his talk page after supporting an unblock, I'm hesitant to continue to support unblocking the user. He seems to have a battleground mentality concerning Wikipedia, and without any evidence that his behavior will change (which he has not given in the slightest), I think unblocking the user at this point would be a mistake, as his behavior towards other editors is extremely likely to driver other editors away. Given that he has already demonstrated this behavior multiple times and shown no intention of changing this behavior, I think that the very likely cost of unblocking the user by far outweighs what would be gained by unblocking the user at this time. - SudoGhost 08:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what changed my mind too. I tried to be frank with him and told him what behaviors he needs to avoid regardless of whether he thinks he is right (e.g. provocative user boxes), but alas the message didn't get through. Someone else should point him to WP:Free speech, as I'm apparently not welcome on his talk page anymore. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Block- Does not seem to be a positive to the project, still assuming WP:AGF, but he does in fact state that he has no intentions of positively contributing--SKATER ^{Is Back} 16:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock. Though he's been unproductive in the past, the editor hasn't actually caused too much trouble recently (apart from an offensive userbox on his user page). Deserves a fair chance to choose the straight and narrow with input from the community. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Block. Colofac's attitude toward other editors and the project is directly (and possibly intentionally) damaging, with almost no positive contributions to weigh against. Any attempts to help him have been abruptly turned away, often with an equally harsh tone. He's made no indication he understands there's a problem, and as such there's no reason to believe he'll begin acting differently if given the chance. Even if he's acting in good faith, he's only serving to harm the project as a whole, by intentionally discouraging other editors based on sexual orientation, ethnicity, or other irrelevant factors he personally finds actionable. His presence here serves only to dampen our collegial atmosphere, and drive away positive contributions, and as such I strongly disagree with unblocking, unless he directly and clearly represents that he understands his behavior is problematic, promises not to continue, and seeks help to achieve that goal.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block per Mann jess. --John (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block. When an editor states that they have no intention of contributing productively here, why are we even having this discussion? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Block Throughout this ordeal, Coloflac had ample opportunity to simply accept that his behavior was inappropriate and to make a statement assuring the community that his attitude would change and that he would work harder to contribute to the encyclopedia. Being that he hasn't done this, the block is appropriate. What matters here is not the extent of his offense, but that his attitude in general is not appropriate, and this block is preventing his contribution unless and until he shapes up a bit. I'm more than happy to AGF and change my block to an unblock if he makes an effort, but something that he has to accept (regarding his user boxes) is that this isn't a social networking site on which to share your extreme views. We accept anyone here regardless of their views, but if their views are deemed to be offensive by the larger community, we can and do curtail their advertisement. If someone is here to edit - as oppose to proselytize - they should not have a problem with this. N^oformation ^Talk 19:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block – Colofac does not appear to wish to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia; therefore, he/she should remain blocked. —mc10 (t/c) 03:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block. Whilst we have WP:AGF as one of our solid tenets here on Wikipedia, we are not obliged to extend editing privileges to the ranks of the unproductively belligerant. This editor appears to be a net negative to the project and is likely to continue dramatising his various personal issues here rather than get on with articles. I really see no other course of action given discussion has been attempted to no success, as was escalated enforcement, and his response at every juncture is to continue being combative. Unless he has a very profound change of heart, there is nothing to be done. --Tristessa (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: he was productive in his belligerence, just look at all the drama here. You probably mean "unproductive except in their belligerence". Uʔ (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeeperQA (talk · contribs) has somehow managed to upload an illustration, even though he's blocked. I recommend (1) deleting the illustration; (2) removing his talk-page privilege; (3) blocking the sock that uploaded the illustration. He's already been indef'd, and I've been trying not to respond to him, so someone else can notify him if they think it's necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you're referring to File:Sock-pupper upload.jpg. It was uploaded through Commons. ;) Goodvac (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've asked for help over there also. His absurd rants are one thing. But uploading that stupid illustration is going too far. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His talk page access has been revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's now making legal threats over on commons. I think the admin wheels grind a bit more slowly over there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to edit an AFD page, but couldn't because it contained links to Google, which triggered a spam blacklist

Now, I can see including that as an article blacklist, but that's just insane to include more generally. Looking at google's various sources is considered a key part of showing something as unnotable at AFD. Please fix this ASAP. As it stands, you can't even save changes if someone else at some point included google in their comments. 86.** IP (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A link to the AfD would help. Goodvac (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ralph_W._Moss_(writer) is uneditable because of DGG's comment. DGG's comment may well be valid, however, analysing it would require adding a >references /< tag, which we can't, because of a bad spam blacklist entry for google. 86.** IP (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now editable. I replaced the google.com/url? links with direct links to the sources. Goodvac (talk) 17:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good temporary fix, but it's still a pretty bad blacklist item, that should probably be removed or made article-space only. 86.** IP (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can reproduce the issue, but as far as I can tell www.google.com isn't on the spam list and has never been there. My best guess is that there is a bug of some sort. That url shouldn't be causing problems. Dragons flight (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's on meta[31]. This is being discussed at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Google_redirect_spam, as well as Wikipedia_talk:EL#Google_redirection_URLs. I confess I haven't been following it though. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I thought I checked Meta too, but I guess I missed it somehow. Dragons flight (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Hope they don't blacklist Wikipedia in return. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) with below. For clarity Google is not blacklisted. Only www.google.com/url? is. The reason is because these function as a redirect. I can't see any reason why they should ever be on wikipedia (they are simple redirects, they don't allow you to view the cache or something if the page is down), they mostly happen by accident when people copy the links of Google search results. They add another point of failure (Google) and also may lead to confusion (people thinking the site they're going to is Google and so trustworthy) and also mean people are forced to visit Google to visit the external link (allowing Google to collect their data). However the primary reason they were blocked is because they can be abused, as anyone can use them to link to spam sites overiding the blocklist. Nil Einne (talk) 07:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have an open bot request to take care of these links. Anomie⚔ 01:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a bad google rule, these are bad google links, which can, and I have demonstrated that, be used to circumvent the blacklist. Anything from google ending in '/url?' is a possible problem. And none of these links are necessary. However, http://www.google.com?q=Wikipedia is not blacklisted (and of course will not be blacklisted). Do note, that other parts of Google have already been blacklisted for a long time as they can (and for that: have) been abused for circumventing the blacklist. As I have said before, spammers and people on a mission are inventive, they will use whatever means available to get around blacklisting. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I have added it temporarily to the en wiki whitelist, until AnomieBOT 58 removes all the Google redirect links. Until then, if a newbie is editing a page and gets hit with a spam blacklist warning, they won't know how to fix it. If we weigh the costs and benefits, I think scaring away newbies is much worse than allowing this spam to persist for a week or two. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah .. not completely sure about that, the previous hole in Google was abused. Sure, such editors (who are clearly and knowingly circumventing the blacklist) run into immediate blocks without warning, but you'd still need a quick way to detect it. This is not hitting a massive number of editors, this is not hitting every Google link, this is just a small portion of links to google that have this problem, and not many people will paste in this Google link. Do note, additionally to the 'hole to circumvent blacklist' problem is that these links do go through Google, and hence will get (again unnecessary) click-value for Google (though that is a minimal side effect) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, two other google(-related) 'redirects' (which were abused) are blocked by:

• \bgoogle\.(com|(com\.)?[a-z]{2})/.*[?&]btnl=1
• \b(lmgtfy|letmegooglethatforyou)\.com.*[?&]l=1

The issue is, maybe no single spammer noticed it until now, but since it was published on Wikipedia people know of the loophole. That with the point that it is utterly useless (use the direct link - if you copy the google result link, did you actually look at what you are linking to?) ánd demonstrated as being a way of circumventing the blacklist I think that this really is better to blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a considerable backlog at AfC (yeah yeah, not an admin issue, but this is exposure). Whoever tackles it first gets to take Havenzangers to DYK. 66.168.247.159 (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The backlog isn't too bad yet (135 submissions). I accepted your submission, and I'll try to do some more reviews later today. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of AFC, does the script that helps with reviewing and approving submissions still work?--SKATER ^{Is Back} 19:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, Timotheus Canens recently updated it. The script will automatically perform decline/accept correctly, even with the slightly new process. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinvl insists upon citing the German Wikipedia as if it were a reliable source at the Foot (unit) article. See line 156 in this edit. I don't think anyone who has read WP:V and WP:IRS can seriously think this is acceptable, even so, the policy was acknowledged at Talk:Foot (unit)#Circular references and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to non-English Wikipedias. I view this as deliberate defiance of the Verifiability policy and enforcement of the policy is in order. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No way is the German wikipedia a WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's fairly clear that user edited sites in general are rarely (if ever) RS. That being said, couldn't one just use the source used in the German WP here as well?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article is also citing the Dutch, Spanish, Swedish, Norwegian and Danish Wikipedias as sources. All are violations of WP:RS. Yes, as Yaksar says, the correct approach is to verify that the article being cited on German (etc) Wikipedia is WP:RS, and states what it is being cited for, and then cite it directly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One can do that, of course, but citations enable users to verify content. As this is an English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources seem preferable. Unless no English RS is available to cover the topic, which seems unlikely in this case. Haploidavey (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, straight answer: the German wikipedia is not a reliable source. If he continues to insist that it is, action should be taken. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No source that anyone can edit is a reliable source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone through the article in question and stripped out all the Wikipedian referencing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Martin's argument, which I've seen by other users elsewhere (and which I once made myself), is that the referenced article is cited. He doesn't understand that that's not good enough - he needs to place a direct cite, directly into the article in question. It may seem redundant, but in the long run it's better that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we just need to put a banner in WP:RS to the effect of if it has "wiki" anywhere in the name, assume it is not a reliable source, even if it's Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you said that half in jest, but it's actually a good idea. LadyofShalott 02:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just an alert that new accounts, JBURNER666 (talk · contribs) and Correctrec (talk · contribs), are raising concerns at WP:BLP article, John Charles Gilkey, with words like "libel" and "slander" and mentioning possible attorney involvement. I am alerting the latest account of WP:NLT and directing him/her here. Wknight94 ^talk 01:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to notify them both; I've done so with the second one. Tht said, that diff smells distinctly of WP:NLT to me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some IP in the Philippines has been vandalizng various articles on reality TV shows, similar to how the previous one I reported (adding false results, MOS-violating modifications, and also some BLP vios [34], [35]), and does so on a much more frequent level. IPs who have been behind this vandalism are:

• 49.145.115.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.127.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.115.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.103.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.126.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.82.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.97.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.127.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.117.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 49.145.124.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 112.205.2.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 112.205.61.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 112.205.181.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

He's currently on the 49.145.64.0/18 range, but was previously on the 112.205...range. Clearly this guy cannot be allowed to keep vandalizing the pages as he does, and he looks like he's fairly contained.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There'd be collateral, so blocking the range isn't realistic. IP blocks and page protection where necessary is the best thing. WilliamH (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect BigzMMA, who is on a 96 hour ban, is using sockpuppets to continue to vandalize Ultimate Challenge MMA. Since his ban, several IP editors have started editing that page and they keep changing the links of the articles up for deletion discussion to non-existent links. I did not notify him of this since he's already serving a ban and thus couldn't respond anyway. Papaursa (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the Ultimate Challenge MMA article until Bigz's block expires (or it's deleted, whichever comes first). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like Bigz, at least from a cursory glance. BigzMMA never uses edit summaries, and never edits sections, only the whole article. Both IP editors act in different fashion. Also, 188.* edited in a completely different time range - 81.* is in the same time range of edits, though. In either case, protection will stop them.

Also, please note that blocked users can still edit their talk page. m.o.p 05:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SPA Willempramschot (talk · contribs · account creation)
• 145.18.226.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 213.10.212.48 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Talk:Many-worlds interpretation 20 October 2011

WP:SOAPBOX I used {{inappropriate comment}} to hide the various copies of his physicsforums.com posts promoting a poll of "the happy few" who responded to his emails:

• 14:16, 20 October 2011 "Sorry to put some questions on your beautifull dreams about eternal life and your infinite twin brothers. You are really really good at quoting wikipedia and fallacy's. It's such a shame you don't understand what they mean, and don't have a clue about how to apply them. This is deleted, because I probably insult you, but if that's the case then well you got insulted by the truth. … You are so obvious biased, that it hurts. I'm really serious, with all the good faith in the world. … By the way I don't really care about getting it published, I care about the truth and so should you. … I don't know if you're aware that wikipedia has influence on the opinion of people, and if you have any ethical standars what so ever. Or that you are just completely blinded by your heroes, or a idea that's not generally accepted. But please be honest to yourself. Look in the mirror, and think really hard. And ask yourself the question 'Did I do good'? … I'm affraid I speak to a conscience and a rationality you just don't posses. So I will leave you to delete all the criticism and posts by me and others you so kindly call harassment. And with a song that captures your attributions on this site perfectly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtLu"

YouTube won't play the song in the US due to a copyright issue, but it's "Arctic Monkeys - Dance Little Liar (humbug version)". By harassment, he's referring to an alternate WP:SPA/SOCK? who makes WP:SOAPBOX pos ts to the talk page, see Talk:Many-worlds interpretation#Special Difficulty with Improving This Article - Harrassment. Maybe they're friends, but I'd be surprised if they turn out to be socks, this WP:SPA was more his style, or this one. Anywho he didn't leave it there "I'm on the brake of being banned here, so let's just make it happen." So I'm hoping someone will accomodate his request for a nice loooong block.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 06:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know I referred to SOCK, because for me that wasn't clear. My message was ironic, because I got a warning for a block. If you see the site you will see that reasonable suggestions on the site are brushed away with really strange arguments, and are sometimes deleted by quoting all sorts of fallacy's that aren't relevant, without further clear explanation. Also my personal opinion is that this site is very subjective, but everyone of course can be the judge of that.

I posted the song because the main editors in my opinion didn't listen to reason, so I made a reference to something that may catch there attention. Of course this could be deleted. But to block my account, would be the world upside down. To say that my account of wikipedia is a single purpose is account would be a little bit soon, because I just got it. And I don't have any other accounts.

p.s. I also did a reference to a completely reliable poll I conducted that hasn't been published yet (that he quotes happy few, is just a sign of my honesty, not against it), I posted it on the discussion site (not the 'real' site), because I thought it was a useful contribution (and more reliable than the vague polls currently on the site). Of course this can be deleted (though I think the reason given aren't relevant at all).

My email wasn't a single purpose email, it was also to inform all the participants of the poll (to which I have mentioned my name explicitly) about the results.

I put it on the site to give the people that wanted to know more about the poll some information, because I put a summary of the poll on the discussion site. My poll can be refutable, because I mentioned the names clearly. Of course there could be more people who reacted, and I could have deleted those. But then again I posted my results to about 30 very prominent physics, so the risk of some prominent physicist saying: Hey I was in this poll, why didn't he mention me, would be awfully big.

But then again it hasn't been published, so it can be deleted I guess. So I will not go against that decision. (I do think I could post my questions about the reasons why it's got deleted, but if someone wants to delete that to. Be my guest.)--Willempramschot (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Willempramschot (talk • contribs) 10:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ironically, that was your most helpful suggestion yet. You seem to comprehend the strange and irrelevant reasons well enough. Your amateur poll is original research. Simple as that. Of course, permission to use a subject's name and email wouldn't have been necessary for an anonymous multiple choice question. Grateful Physh irony, nice. However, it remains unclear how littering the talk page with all that useless WP:OR can be construed as a sign of honesty on your part. I've never suggested it was a sign of dishonesty. Much like your speculations about my philosophical beliefs, my moral failures, my heros, my lies/fallacies, my incapacity for reason/understanding/sympathy, etc. etc., you seem to have difficulty separating your vivid imagination from your collaborative expectations. You insist that you're right, often irrationally, and while you simply dismiss objections and advice, you passive aggressively retaliate, despite being aware of the strict policy against personal attacks, you sermonize in multiple installments about imaginary aspects of my person. Your invitation to be "your guest" and delete your polls, is a bit too blasé considering how frequently you accuse me of deleting, when the truth is I've never deleted any of it, not even your polls, and I haven't touched your opinions, your screeds, your character assassinations, or anything else, as you perfectly well know, I merely hid the polls right were you left them.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Redefining_history has made it his personal mission in life to change the way Wikipedia handles "Esports Atheletes". I've lost count but he has taken part in somewhere around 15 different conversations about the same sources at this point. His edits are highly disruptive such as this one where he copied a massive wall of text into an RFC [36], the first reply here sums up the situtuation nicely. [37]. He has however not slowed down one bit, his behaviour on IRC was summed up here [38]. At this point the editor has been told the same thing dozens if not literally close to 100 times. He is arguing from ideology and out to prove us all wrong on his campaign to bring justice to the world on behalf of "Esports athletes". I would love to provide difs of everything but in a week this editor has managed to rack up hundreds of edits all on various pages all about the same sources for the same topic. Tonight he started this topic [39], he then pasted a bunch of unreliable sources into an AFD, and now has gone to a closed AFD trying to figure out how to keep arguing about sources [40], he is now back at Reliable Sources bugging them again as I type this [41]. It is clear he has no self control and will not stop on his own. I feel at this point there is little left to do but ask for a topic ban. Ridernyc (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin, but I would like to support a topic ban regarding video games for this user. He has been active in ##wikipedia-en-help ^connect several times, has posted bits of IRC logs with out consent of participants, and has been repeatedly told on IRC that wanting to know if his sources are reliable and help with notability is disruptive as answers were provided to him. When his questions were answered in a way that did not suit him, he continued to demand answers and refused to be quiet until he got them. He had to be silenced on IRC because his refusal to accept the answers by helpers and demands for his questions to be answered was disruptive and we were not able to help other new users. Beyond that, this user has been warned on the reliable source notice board and Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) that he was forum shopping and being disruptive. And today, he is back on the Reliable source noticeboard despite the warning right above. --LauraHale (talk) 07:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding my comments: Salvidrim (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Mass creation of single-topic content:
    • PROD'ed, contested, AfD'ed: Zou Yitian, Ivan Shinkarev, Jacob Toft-Andersen, Benedict Lim, Wu Sheng, Ivan Antonov (Professional Gamer), Bu Yanjun
    • Redirects to these pages: Maelk, Vigoss, Artstyle, Hyhy
    • The International (Dota 2 Competition)
    • Category:Professional DotA Players
    • File:The international.png, File:Champions navi.jpg
  • Opening multiple discussions on the same topic:
    • The AfD's of all the above articles, some still ongoing
    • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Esports_news
    • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Professional_eSports_Players
    • Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Professional_eSports
    • Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Notability_of_professional_eSports_players.
    • A number of UserTalks: User talk:Inkwiry, User talk:The Interior, User talk:Sergecross73, User talk:Ridernyc, User talk:Odie5533, User talk:Jipinghe, User talk:Cameron Scott
  • Disruptive Editing:
    • Trying to add sources to a [closed AfD]
    • On gaming forums (on one of the sites he strongly pushes to be admitted as RS), he has requested help from other players and fan of the subjects to create the articles, and most importantly to try and keep them from being deleted. This is one such thread, this is another. Also stated intent to recreate the pages as-is against deletion consensus (that's why i've saved copies of the wikicodes to post them again when the argument is over.), leading to at least one of the AfD'ed article being salted. Also admitted to having copied an article from the player's Facebook page (lol the maelk one is a copy from his facebook page). Claimed to have "admin approbation" (admins has no problem in articles for dota players, i approached them. and this is why i posted here, i wanted to let the community handle this). Made attempts at meatpuppetry, but after being warned on here, edited in his post(s) "ninja'd / "meatpuppetry" isn't allowed on wikiepdia.".
    • General complete opposite of a dispassionate approach and consensus-seeking attitude.
    • Upwards of 90% of edits done in articles within a narrow single-topic spectrum.

In addition to everything presented above and by the other commenters, I am strongly in favor of a topic ban. Salvidrim (talk) 08:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can verify, and I support, what Ridernyc and Salavadrim have been saying. Time and again, "Redefining History" asks a question, receives an answer he does not like, and either complains and carries on and on about it, or asks the same question somewhere else, gets the same response, so on and so on. He seems totally unwilling to learn (or even acknowledge) basic concepts such as reliable sources or notability, no matter how many times he's correctly informed on them. I too support a topic ban. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By this point, I think it is necessary for Redefining History to take a step back from the electronic sports articles. Not only is it disrupting the Wikipedia community with his relentless discussions, but he beginning to draw some negative attention to esports as a whole and as such, endangering some otherwise fine esports articles with deletion, due to this new negative perspective from senior editors. What I can say, however, is that he is a very passionate editor and if he were to use that to learn about Wikipedia etiquette more, as well as how to properly format pages and find appropriate sources, we could have some very positive results elsewhere.

On a side note, we should take a look at The International (Dota 2 Competition); it may be about a notable event, but it's unencyclopedic and needs to be redefined, (no pun intended), in the very least. DarthBotto _talk•cont 17:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This account is less than two weeks old. I agree with the opinion that this user's approach is disruptive. But these a rookie mistakes. I left some pointers on discussion etiquette on my user page, and RH did take them to heart, and revised his style somewhat. I would feel very uncomfortable topic banning a user this soon after they have joined the community. The user wrote several articles on gamers, and over-reacted when they were found not to meet our guidelines. They have quite a bit to learn about WP process, but they should be given a chance. The Interior (Talk) 17:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree he has not taken anything to heart. He promised three different editors that he would stop. He then went nuts again last night, he didn't even last 24 hours. He has show no abilty to listen and comprehend what is being said to him. This is not about bad faith, this about someone with a total inability to act in a rational way with others. Ridernyc (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing before the hole Penyulap is digging swallows him up entirely. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would appreciate if someone who is not involved would please review this and consider if removing it as a courtesy to the editor who wrote it. As that editor appears to be offline at the moment, and so wouldn't be able to see my request on their talkpage, they can't do it themselves. User has cause to believe I may believe in the tooth fairy [42] and therefore may not be an adult [43], and is well aware children read this page. Invitations to view graphic sexual material is therefore rather questionable on that talkpage. Penyulap talk 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] notified SummerPhD here Penyulap talk 12:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] My independent review concludes that SummerPhD has a higher-than-usual level of patience for her time being wasted in silly arguments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Maybe I should rethink the invitation, as we have so much in common. Penyulap talk 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm tempted to refer to WP:NOTCENSORED, but this situation has me scratching my head somewhat. You're proposing we remove part of his comment on Talk:Tooth fairy because it references sexual content and might be seen by minors? I really don't think that would fly, to be honest. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 12:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Um, wow. No, I did not say you may believe in the tooth fairy. I said, "Your apparently straight-faced claims that the AP article is stating -- as a fact -- that the tooth fairy is real is beyond discussion." This was in response to your seeming insistence that the article not clearly state that the tooth fairy is fictional. As for your baseless assumption that I believe you "may not be an adult", it is... um... a baseless assumption. Wikipedia is not censored. The first link in the article is to Fantasy which links to Fantasy (disambiguation) which links to Sexual_fantasy. The talk page links repeatedly to Special:Contributions/SummerPhD with a laundry list of articles ranging from Tooth fairy to Lady Marmalade to Piledriver (sexual). Wikipedia does not provide ANY assurance that text, internal and external links and images in articles are "appropriate" for children or anyone else. The expectation that all/or some articles are "safe" is akin to thinking all of the books and videos in your library are "safe". - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] The Bright line that has been crossed in my opinion is the phrasing as an invitation. However, as you are back online, the point and my request are moot. So we can return to discussing ejaculation on the tooth fairy talkpage where you feel it belongs. Maybe I should post some images to go with your links ? Penyulap talk 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] resolved for me, as SummerPhd is back online. Penyulap talk 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 192.89.123.41 added a supposed alias to the article Josh Sawyer without a source,[44] so I reverted him, asking if that alias was for real. He reverted me, claiming to have undone my "vandalism".[45] I reverted him once more, explaining in my edit summary that what I did was not vandalism, and that since a source was provided, readers could not tell that this alias was for real. He reverted me again, claiming once again that he had "undone vandalism" on my part,[46] so I reverted him once more, and left a note on his talk page requesting that he stop accusing me of vandalism, and that he needs to add any information to a WP:BLP article with a source, which was what I was asking him to do.[47]. However, he ignored me and reverted me once more, again repeating his claims of having "undone vandalism" on my part.[48] I think he is trying to make some sort of claim that Sawyer and Brian Mitsoda are the same person, as he has been doing the same sort of thing on that article, and other articles. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're also doing something similar to the Brian Mitsoda and The Age of Decadence articles. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 14:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted a major edit war on 27 Club going on -- it's now been protected by User:Nev1, but one of those involved is creating an incredibly hostile battleground. For starters, the 13 reverts is clearly wayyy over the top (and there's a notice at the edit warring board for that), but this user has been accusing others of edit warring when only on their second~ revert, seemingly in an attempt to scare them off reverting him further [49]; accusing others of harassment [50] over a notice left on his userpage [51]. To his credit, he did start a discussion on the talk page of the article, but not after far too many reverts, and is now pushing his POV instead of relying on sources to make the point: [52]. There's a serious lack of collegiality here, and he's using reverts and user talk page templates to make his point, creating a pretty hideous battleground in the process. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 17:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can tell you exactly what the deal is. There was a discussion a long time ago on whether or not Amy Winehouse should be added to 27 Club list and the community was amicably working on reaching consensus UNTIL some rabid Winehouse fans DELETED the discussion and kept adding her before any agreement was reached. Since they deleted the discussion, it apparently went dead and Winehouse's inclusion on the list went unnoticed and unchallenged for some time. From day one, the people who insist she must be included have shown blatant bias and appear to be fans of hers who are doing this as a way of mourning their idol. I understand how they feel but in an attempt to keep the article accurate and historically relevant, only unbiased inclusion based on reliable data and evidence should be considered. And because that article has been the subject of edit warring for a long time, I feel that community consensus is the only way on which everyone can at least agree that there was an agreement, or that more people voiced an opinion one way or the other. User:Muboshgu, by the way, jumped on me, not knowing anything about this issue. If he and the others would have initially taken the time to discuss the issue on the talk page in a reasonable manner, everyone wouldn't be reverting everyone else. Anyway. Now, finally, people are semi-amically discussing the issue on the proper page so it should work out fine when some time has gone by for the community to reach an agreement. G90025 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, your attitude has been completely beyond the pale. You've placed harassment notices on the user or talk pages of users [53][54] in retaliation for them placing notices on your talk page [55][56]. Then you've repeatedly re-added them even where they don't apply, saying "please don't remove warnings on user talk pages until they expire" (which is false, see WP:REMOVED). And all the while you remove them from your own -- which is, of course, fine, but evidence of you trying to apply one rule for yourself and another for everyone else. This attitude is disruptive, counter-productive and not in keeping with building an encyclopedia. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree that tempers have been flying on here this afternoon and that I perhaps could have directed others to the discussion on the talk page and possibly avoided an edit war. Perhaps I did not initially explain the situation correctly or in a manner whereas the others would understand the history of the article and what happened before, and why, at least in my opinion, that a consensus needed to be agreed upon. Because of that pre-existing condition, I do believe that some of those users were making destructive edits and one kept making edits with misleading edit summaries which is clearly an intent to deceive. So anyway, there are probably no innocent parties involved but everyone seems to have calmed down, including myself, so I don't think this will cause the destruction of Wikipedia ultimately. G90025 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what are you calling for, Buttons? The battleground mentality is plain to see. That G has been removing material against the wishes of at least four other editors (five, if you count me, but I haven't edited the article, I think, at least not for this matter), that is obvious. I've been removing specious warnings they placed on the user pages of editors they disagreed with--about a half a dozen, I think (just look at G's history). Then there's a specious warning on User talk:Wizardman and a few other talk pages. I've looked at their edits on other articles, and leaving Caylee Anthony alone, as we all should, I see the repeated insertion against consensus of some trivial and unverified internet rumor on Fred Rogers. Where is the net positive this editor is contributing to the project? We have a fully protected article and a giant waste of time and electrons. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I have clearly explained the situation and what has happened going back for months and months on 27 Club. Please see the paragraph above. I have no idea what you are referencing about Caylee Anthony. I recall making some minor edit on that article after watching and researching the trial in great deal. I would say I know more about it than most people. As far as Fred Rogers, the rumor is not trivial and I *did* verify it by citing. It is relevant because it involves an extremely common false notion that Fred Rogers was somehow in military service. That idea goes beyond the Internet and has existed for decades. People wonder if it's true. The inclusion of information, with citation, to show that it is not true is extremely relevant to the article. You are accusing me of a lot of things, Drmies, which are meritless. While I admit that the 27 Club thing got out of hand on the part of all parties, I'm a pretty well-educated person who makes valuable contributions to Wikipedia. If someone thinks otherwise, they have every opportunity to question contributions, edit them, or discuss them on talk pages. G90025 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: not "on the part of all parties"--only yours. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm surprised G90025 hasn't been blocked for edit warring yet, considering how far beyond 3RR the user went before the page was protected. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks to people like you who kept insisting on including biased material and ignoring a previously-existing discussion on whether or not to include the musician on the list. That article has been ravaged by Wikipedia dictators for a long time who have ignored any attempts at a reasonable coming together of the community minds. Maybe you should consider your own behavior also when you are accusing others. G90025 (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For several months User:Davis100 has continuously vandalized pages, adding information that simply is not true. He has been warned in January, February, March and August of this year and yet he has continued to vandalize pages. A permanent ban would be justified in this situation as it seems all he has done is vandalize pages. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Do you have any diffs pointing to this behavior, preferably recent ones? Also, you should have notified the user--I have just done that for you. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How is this series of edits worthy of having the editor banned? Drmies (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]