THC Science

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146
1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322
323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Suspected Attempt at Outing [1]

Hello. Could someone please look into and/or advise on procedure/action concerning an incident of a suspected attempt at Outing [2] a user via a possibly Uncivil comment posted by Socialmedium on the Talk Page of the Institute for Learning Wikipedia Article. Here is the text in question;

"Joel, I suggest you, ahem, get a life.Socialmedium (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

N.B. A previous comment by Socialmedium in the same Article began; "Dear anonymous contributor known as '82.38.143.36', "

Both comments can be found here [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.143.36 (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LetsDoItRight (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do suggest that an admin with a little time and some patience take a look at the article Institute for Learning and its talk page because it looks very much like some things are going on there. Specifically, User:Socialmedium appears to be an SPA, possibly with a COI, but almost certainly with a fixed POV, who is attempting ownership of the article. On the other side, I'd suggest the possibility of socking, both via IPs and throw-away accounts. The "outing" comment above also raises the possibility that this editing conflict is a real-world dispute that's moved on-Wiki. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly a dispute and some edit warring involving two named editors and some anonymous IP editors, none of whom seem to have other interests within Wikipedia. There's a long section on the "2011 membership fees dispute". I'm not sure what the dispute was about, or that anybody outside the organization cares about it. I'd suggest that if the parties involved don't stop fighting over it, someone should cut out most of that material and trim the article down. John Nagle (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also sure that Socialmedium is not being WP:CIVIL. Epicgenius (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kafziel abusing admin tools and overriding long established consensus

Absolutely zero evidence has been produced during this unnecessarily long discussion to show that Kafziel has in any way abused his admin tools, nor has any evidence been produced that what he's done in the realms of AFC is against policy (de facto AFC processes are irrelevant). This noticeboard is not for witchhunts. The editors at AFC are reminded that they do not WP:OWN the articles there, and that if an article goes explicitly against policy (i.e. attack pages, spam, copyvios), any admin is permitted to delete them. Given this, there is no possible reason to keep this thread open except for an exercise in futility. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello all. I would like to make an ANI report against Kafziel even though he has only responded to one warning message (so I presume he has only read one), because (1) it seems quite serious and may even constitute enough reason for a permanent desysopping and (2) reversion of his edits needs administrative attention anyway.

Kafziel has been making edits against consensus with articles at WP:AfC, the main issue being he deletes articles that he does not accept. The proper course of action based on wide consensus is to simply decline the article and allow the reviewee to read the comments on why the article was declined and allow them to improve the article and resubmit it. As I am not an administrator, I do not have access to the specific content in each article, but a list of articles that he has deleted can be found at Special:Log/Kafziel. Huon has also brought up four especially troublesome deletions at his talk page, namely first, A7 deletion outside of mainspace, second, inappropriate G13 deletion as it has been actively worked on in October, so that's only one or two months, not six, third, CSD of article he moved into mainspace just minutes before, and fourth, which Huon did not explain.

Kafziel then responded, citing that AfC is not policy and also IAR. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding on what consensus and WP:IAR mean. After that, User:Hasteur, User:SilkTork and I confronted him about his edits. User:Hasteur has also emailed ArbCom about this. This is his rationale behind doing his actions, but of course that is, again, against consensus and is detrimental to the AfC project, whose aims is to help a user create an article through feedback and guidance. If we need to resort to such measures to clear the backlog, we might as well not have AfC altogether. I also suspect that he has resorted to accepting every article to clear out the backlog before, but this post is getting lengthy and it's late at night for me so I'll probably add another post tomorrow if I can find evidence of that.

Ok, now for the administrative part: I request the recovery of all the articles that User:Kafziel has deleted inappropriately, possibly with an apology note to the writer's talk page.

Thanks and goodnight, I'll come back tomorrow. Darylgolden^(talk) 13:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC again, eh? Don't see much "feedback" whether the article is deleted or not. That being said, this is going a bit further beyond bounds than I've seen before. Is there a list of AFC entries which need to be undeleted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While there is some degree of good intention in Kafziel's efforts in the AfC namespace, and Crisco makes a fair point, these actions are totally out of processes and ultimately make it harder for the limited number of Wikiproject AFC members who try to offer feedback and answer help requests. I would request Kafziel to stop unilaterally deleting AfC submissions (whether he moves them mainspace first or not...). If he does so, then I see no need for this AN/I thread to go any further. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's just figure this out for a second - outright promotion and BLP violations would be subject to immediate speedy deletion when rejected, and sensibly, so would AFC's of articles that already exist. If I look at User:Kafziel's most recent deletions in the AFC space:

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Osseointegration Group of Australia (A10 - identical article already exists) ... appears to be a valid deletion
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Opsonin Pharma Limited (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ... valid CSD reasoning
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ras Al Khaimah Tourism Development Authority (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) ... again, a valid CSD reasoning
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Daniel Ninivaggi (WP:CSD#A7) ... hmmm, perhaps no proper reason to delete
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A1K9 (G13: Abandoned Article for creation – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND/G13) ... again, valid deletion reason.

So, from those 5 ... can someone tell me what the problem is (other than #4)? ES &L 16:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a bit unsettling that Kafziel would unilaterally interpret his role in a way that put him at loggerheads with editors at AfC. There is no way for regular editors to review speedy deletions. It's admirable that he would try to clear out the large backlog, but not by any means necessary. I don't blame users for being suspicious at an admin moving pages to the article space simply so he can speedy delete them under a rationale that applies only to the main space. If an ordinary user were to start moving pages and then request speedy deletion, I assume this would be considered disruptive editing. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel's conduct is cavalier and out of process. The A category of speedy delete shouldn't be used on AFC articles. The G category, of course, can be used, although normally the creator should be given an opportunity to correct the problem, except perhaps in egregious circumstances. In any event, if he wants an AFC article deleted based on a valid criterion, he should tag it rather than delete it directly. His reliance on IAR appears to me to be a self-serving justification to do what he wants. He should take Silk Tork's advice and go work somewhere else.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4 is a copyright violation of this, right action, wrong reason. AfCs are not immune to speedy deletion on blatant spam/copyright/BLP grounds, but it seems to me that the main issue here is whether it's correct to move to main space just to SD. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) EatsShootsAndLeaves With respect, there's actually consensus approved ways to deal with your examples

Decline as Exists, wait for G13 to become eligible, and then delete. A10 is not valid in the AfC project space.
AfC pages are given a little more leeway in terms of the Advertising rationalle and as such this would have been beter served by an eventual G13 nomination
Again, Advertising is given a more leeway.
A7 is for article space, not the AfC project space.
G13 perhaps, but there's already a systematic process going through and notifying creators and nominating for G13 so that there is an opportunity for review.

For these reasons, ES&L, the defense is shaky at best and outright wrong when considered by a normal editor. Hasteur (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'd say that using an "A" CSD criterion for something not in article space is a problem, no matter what else is going on. And that's ignoring that AfC is designed to be a place where failure and re-shaping of articles is allowed, which means that "nope this doesn't pass now, deleting" completely short-circuits the workflow. I'm very much sympathetic to the sense that AfC is filled with deletable crap, and to wondering why leave it all there instead of dealing with it, and I might even support a proposal that we start giving people less leash at AfC as far as things like advertisement articles, but the current process is set up to deliberately not be the "one chance and done" situation a user would be put in when creating an article in mainspace. That means not insta-deleting if an article isn't up to snuff.
I'm also sympathetic to "Wikiprojects can't tell us what to do", and Kafziel's claim that since he's not a member of AfC, he's not bound by how its members do things, but in this case I would venture to say that "don't delete declined stuff unless it meets G10, G12 or G13" is not a wikiproject guideline; it's pretty much a universal one followed by any user who touches AfC from the reviewing end. I'm not a member of Wikiproject AfC (in fact, I tend to forget it exists), but I handle AfCs and I do it by accepting or declining submissions, not deleting them. Consensus among everyone I know of other than Kafziel who handles AfCs is that AfCs are deleted upon review only in circumstances where they contain BLP violations or copyvio. "I know what consensus is, and I know that people object to what I'm doing, but I don't feel like doing it according to consensus" isn't ignoring the rules, it's flouting them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Jimfbleak Even if it was a copyright violation the standard practice for AfC is to decline, mark as a copyright violation Template:AFC_submission/comments and if it's a bulk violation, then to blank the page. Deleting is straight up out of process especially when deleting for the wrong rationale. Hasteur (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice is therefore completely wrong. It is illegal to infringe copyright, and I don't think copyright owners would see AfC as a refuge from US law. FWIW, I just deleted Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/J. Sisters for copyright infringement and blatant spamming. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation is not "illegal", it's a violation of the copyright holder's rights, and therefore a civil matter, which is a very different thing. Let's not get all hyperbolic here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright infringement is, of course, a G category and can be used outside of article name space. However, it's not that big a deal if the page is blanked. We remove copyright infringment from existing articles without deleting them. We only use G12 when it's a new article and the entire article infringes. If it's done at AfC, the problem is still fixable, and, in any event, whether deleted or not copyright infringement still took place; you don't eliminate the original infringement by deleting it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I don't agree with applying any of the A criterion to AfC but not only is it absolutely wrong to not mark a blatant copyright violation (or attack page) for immediate deletion, but those are in the instructions for reviewers at AfC (though I should qualify that I was the one who edited the project to change the former wrong process of just blanking these, when I found that that was in the instructions [4]).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an attack page should be deleted. There's no reasonable basis to think it's correctable. I still disagree with the copyright infringement issue as a lot of users don't understand the problem but could correct it if given a chance, but, at the same time, it doesn't bother me all that much if it is deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violations and attack pages can and should be deleted in AfC space. That's not at issue here. I pointed out a couple of problematic deletions on Kafziel's talk page: The A7 deletion outside the mainspace mentioned above, a G13 deletion of a non-stale draft, another A7 Kafziel deleted minutes after moving it into the mainspace himself (he says moving it was a mistake and he reconsidered, but there are a bunch of others he treated in the same fashion: Brainz, Tyrolean Independent Film Festival, Lambloch. Several of those seem to be about notable topics and could be de-spamified with comparatively little effort, making Kafziel's G11 rationales dubious. I might accept A10 for AfC drafts if we already have a sufficiently similar article, but in many cases what would be needed is a histmerge, not deletion of a draft that actually predates the article (see for example [5] and The Osseointegration Group of Australia).

In summary, trying to clean up the AfC backlog is a laudable goal, but deleting everything not ready for the mainspace yet is not the way to do it. Huon (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there have been thousands of articles accepted in Afc which started out being very promotional or having no references at all. Crisco 1492 says there isn't much guidance given, but the help is spread over many talk pages, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, on the users' talk pages and on the talk pages of the reviewers (such as mine HERE. I do sometimes nominate duplicate articles for deletion, but only after checking that they don't hold a significant part of the mainspace article's history. The submissions are not in article space, and are all marked inside the submit template with NOINDEX, so the urgency to remove them is much lower (except in the case of attack pages or copyvios of course). If Afc submissions are to be treated the same as regular mainspace articles, then Afc might as well be shut down. I proposed this on a temporary basis recently as a measure to deal with the backlog, and the response was far from positive. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted some AfC submissions as G11, and deleted some as duplicates (though I use G6 rather than A10). I know quite a few other admins who do so also, and I would not say there is a consensus never to use these criteria at AfC. (FWIW, I point out that one of the multiple defects of the AfC process is the lack of a good way of handling duplicates) However, the standards for both of these are much more liberal than for articles in mainspace, because they can be improved and are at AfC for improvement. I will delete an AfC that is an outright advertisement, or an so promotional that despite multiple submissions it appears it will never get fixed, but the criterion for articles in mainspace is merely not fixable by normal editing but requiring extensive rewriting. AfC is the place for such rewriting. With respect to the articles about, the tourism development G11 could conceivably be edited into acceptability, but the Opsonin one is something I might have deleted also. I will delete an afc that is an exact copy as A6, but not one which is merely substantially a duplicate, because it might be possible to merge some of the material. Of course the deletion as A7 is improper, and I would have considered it improper even as an article, because it makes a plausible claim to significance as CEO of a significant company.

I consider it acceptable to delete an occasional G13 out of the normal sequence, and many admins have done so, but only if it has been there considerably more than the minimal 6 months (the point which the routine backlog clearance process has reached is at about 14 months at the moment) . I will sometimes do this for something altogether hopeless. The article mentioned above was 7 months old, and is not utterly hopeless, though unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fluffernutter I don't agree with "I'm not part of the WikiProject, therefore I don't follow their rules." It's like saying you're not part of Wikipedia, therefore you can do whatever you want with Wikipedia articles - this is not a valid excuse because even if you claim that you are not part of Wikipedia, you are editing its articles and therefore must still follow rules when doing so. Similarly, Kafziel may not be part of the AfC wikiproject, but he is editing pages under the AfC project, and since there is an established consensus with how to deal with such articles, he must follow consensus. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we discuss about the articles that should be recovered? At present, I feel that this is the most urgent issue, as his actions have probably hurt a lot of newbies who may be worried about their articles being deleted and they may not know what to do. I would say recover every article deleted under the 'A' criteria, including pages which have been moved to mainspace before being deleted. Articles deleted under G11 that are promotional in tone but still contain substantial information should also be recovered. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're replying to the right person, Darylgolden? I didn't say anything resembling the words you're saying I said; my point was in fact that "I'm not a member of Wikiproject:AfC" is not an excuse to not abide by community guidelines and consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I apologise for misreading your comment, Fluffernutter. Darylgolden^(talk) 04:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, since G13s are restored in response to a good-faith request if there is no other problem preventing it, I have restored Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/A1K9/ I am prepared to restore the others except Opsonin, but I have no objection if another admin wants to restore that one also, because if we disagree, it's not a valid speedy G11. For non-obvious cases, the procedure for deletion is to list the article for a discussion at MfD. We may work out something better when we have the drafts namespace implemented.Perhaps the admin who works most with these ( User:Kudpung ) will comment. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say I'm the admin who works most on these; perhaps one who has done the largest nubers of dG13 eletions but there are dozens of admins whose names we hardly ever come across who gnome away occasionally at the CSD cat doing perhaps there or four at a time, but it still happens very often that while I am reviewing one G13, by the time I reach for the delete button - or rescue it - someone else has already deleted it. My main concern is that it appears to me that if there are too many G13 in the the queue, some admins who know how to do it may simply be doing batch deletions without looking at any of them; creating a new backlog from an old one is counter productive. Due to the huge backlog, the vast majority of G13 are over a year old, so theoretically there should be no more qualms about deleting them than an expired PROD, after all, the creators have had long enough - and many of the creations have not even actually been submitted. I've rescued a tiny few but generally the vast majority of G13 would never be let into mainspace under any circumstances. When rejecting, we should never be bitey, but the myth that was put about by the Foundation in Haifa that most content creators began their Wiki careers as vandals was obviously wrong.

When the backlog is cleared, and all new creations in the backlog of articles the creators have never returned to are a maximum of only 6 months old, it will be time to pay even more attention to the drafts, but I will not be an editor who will dedicate time to repairing many of them for their lazy creators. Providing helpful friendly feedback so they can do it themselves, certainly, but otherwise my time is taken up with the repair of hundreds of new school articles that are far more worth saving than autobios of nn rappers or mixtape DJs, or blatant spam masquerading as articles.

What we do need are some coherent guidelines that ensure that all reviewers and deleting admins are singing from the same page, and in that respect, with the creation of a set of criteria of experience for reviewers, a draft namaspace, and some new ideas how it can be used, such as perhaps cloning a copy of the New Pages Feed/Curation Toolbare for use at AfC, everyones' lives, creators, reviewers, and admins, will be made much easier. It doesn't help however when some editors who work at AfC, whether they consider themselves part of the project or not, drive others away from the AfC project or even ultimately from Wikipedia. All they are doing is throwing the babies out with the bathwater. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kafziel has not responded to this thread yet, but I would like to state that I really will have no problem if he promises to cease all activities in the AfC project and not edit in that area again. The main point of me opening this thread was actually to bring attention to the edits that needs reversion but since it involves some degree of acting against consensus and admin abuse, I posted it here instead of at WP:AN. So my ideal conclusion is with User:Kafziel agreeing not to edit AfC articles and the reversion of his deletions. Darylgolden^(talk) 12:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...if he promises to cease all activities in the AfC project and not edit in that area again"...Seriously? AFC is one of the most backlogged areas of the project, and it's blatantly obvious that Kafziel is trying to move things forward with the best interests of the project at heart, but you want him 100% topic-banned from AFC? You could have suggested that perhaps he not personally delete anything, but NO...you want to kick him in the head instead? Way to undermine your argument. ES &L 12:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I'd be inclined to support a topic-ban of Kafziel from AFC. But then again, there is a really large backlog at AfC (which some admins and other editors have mentioned above), and there would be no problem if he left non-involved admins to delete the articles, rather than himself. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) The bottom line is, admins shouldn't use their administrative rights in disputes in which they are involved. Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a dispute in progress when the pages were deleted? I thought that the dispute started afterwards. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no prior disputes. As I say below, I've just been working my way through Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago. I'm fairly sure I've never had any interactions with any of the article creators or prior edits to the pages themselves. I'm as uninvolved and unbiased as anyone else. I've moved far more articles into the article space than I've deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Kafziel

I think some editors here should take a moment to re-read WP:IAR. It’s very, very short, and very, very clear. It doesn't say, "…unless you risk angering a Wikiproject." I see some people saying IAR doesn't apply because I’m not improving the encyclopedia. Says you. I've added dozens (maybe hundreds) of decent pages to the encyclopedia in the span of just a couple of days. That’s a damn sight more than most of the tin-pot dictators running around over there, rejecting articles for not having in-line citations or proper wiki formatting. It has become apparent (and this report would seem to confirm it) that AfC has gotten much too big for its britches. So let me be very clear: I don’t care how AfC likes to do things, and I don’t have to care. I don’t need anyone’s permission to move an article from AfC into the article namespace, or do any other damn thing I want. The same goes for any other editor. I also don’t have to consult with the Military History Wikiproject before I create a military article, or with the India Wikiproject before I create an article about India. If you think you own these pages just because they are part of your Wikiproject, you are very much mistaken.

AfC does not own the pages they create. I was willing to leave well enough alone, but now their mismanaged and disorganized bureaucracy has spilled over into the real encyclopedia, in the form of a proposed draft namespace. Supporters argue that the appallingly gigantic AfC backlog requires a new bureaucracy under which second-class editors can write second-class articles, and a new set of gatekeepers can prevent users from editing Wikipedia as was originally intended. So now the backlog has become everyone’s problem, and I’m helping take care of it.

I’m not “involved” in any of the articles I've moved or deleted. I’m working my way down the list in Category:AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago. In the interest of not simply transforming the AfC backlog into the AfD backlog, I have speedied a few (a very few) of the articles I've come across. If I've made a mistake deleting something, undelete it. There are a number of simple procedures for that. Any admin is free to restore anything I've deleted; I don’t think I've done anything to stop anyone, or even argue against it. If you don’t like a deletion I made, ask someone else about it; there’s probably no point in asking me, because I give each article careful consideration before deleting it and will only very rarely reverse myself. By the same token, if articles I move into the article namespace are nominated for AfD, that’s okay by me, too.

Blatant spam is blatant spam, and it isn't protected just because it’s created under the auspices of AfC. We are not required to work patiently with spammers to help them find creative ways to game the system. I will not do that. But, again, if I make a mistake, go ahead and fix it. That's the whole point of a wiki.

TL;DR – If you disagree with a deletion I’ve made, restore it. If you want me to start obeying AfC’s little rules, forget it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel, it sounds like your position is that you dislike the idea that underlies AfC's current workflow, that one's first try at an article needn't be the only one they're allowed, and that you're taking actions to correct what you see as an inherently deficient process by holding editors to the same standard they'd experience in mainspace. Would that be an accurate characterization of where you're coming from? If so, my concern is that you're knowingly defying a standing consensus (not just a "little rule" made by "tin-pot dictators", but an actual "this is how this thing is practiced by the people who do it" descriptive consensus) to make a point about the AfC process. IAR isn't a license to do exactly as one pleases on "any [...] damn thing I want", and it concerns me to hear you say that you feel you don't need anyone's permission to do anything. I suppose that's accurate in that you don't need any one person's permission, but the community functions on consensus, and you're as responsible as any other editor for not knowingly editing in contradiction of consensus. You don't need one person's permission, but you do need the community's.

I think you could make a good argument that "if at first you don't succeed, keep trying ad infinitum, no matter how unlikely your article is" isn't the way we should be doing AfC, and quite probably convince at least some of its participants to adjust the way things are done there. But I don't think that calling people names while declining to either follow or try to change consensus is the way to go, and the fact that that's your option of choice strikes me as unbecoming of an administrator in an era where much of the community is aready concerned about administrators doing as they please too often. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not disrupting Wikipedia, I’m just ignoring AfC. The two are not one and the same. And make no mistake – this is not something I think I’m allowed to do because I’m an administrator; it’s something every editor is allowed to do because this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. I’m not moving articles out of AfC as soon as they’re created, like a crazy person; I’m moving articles that have been languishing there for weeks and weeks. AfC is rife with abuse, and the talk pages archives are full of users complaining that articles are being held back (or outright rejected) by self-appointed gate keepers who won’t pass articles until they’re practically ready for Featured status. Many editors aren't even aware that they are allowed to move their own articles out, or bypass the AfC process altogether, and I've had lots of “thank you” notes from people who had been waiting and waiting for someone to show up and do something. There’s a very simple solution for anyone who doesn't like how I do it: Stop posting here and start processing the backlog. Get it done. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel, it is not as simple for us to restore your deletions as you suggest. Non-admins don't have access to page histories and don't have a log of the pages you've deleted. You have an information and technical advantage over other users when deleting pages, and it's concerning to me that you're not attempting to bridge that gap by trying to make your decision-making more transparent. The admin tools are not designed to make life more difficult for other good-faith editors. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel, if you had said that you made a lapse in judgement, and you wouldn't violate community consensus again; I, and I believe most of the community, would be able to forgive your actions. But this continued position of I'm right and the community consensus is wrong is at best juvenile, and at worst, worthy of a desysopping. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 17:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to give it a shot. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 17:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that a petition was made to ArbCom asking for an emergency Desysop for your blatand disregard of policy, guidelines, and established consensus. That you're willing to hack through the article nursery with a dull machete is indication enough that it is time to forcably take the keys away as you're so far in the deep end of the "Consensus of One" that it is preventative of future damage. SilkTork can we agree that the messages of 17:54 and 17:57 constitute a threat to continue to disrupt and damage the project? Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, man: I have plenty of experience at AN/I – on both sides – so I know it’s usually a matter of one editor/group of editors thinking another editor/group of editors should kowtow and beg forgiveness. I don’t do that. You can rage all you want, and it’s simply never going to happen. Not because I’m always right, but because this is a wiki so if I’m wrong, just fix it and move on. I’ve fixed countless mistakes made by others over the years, and I don’t demand reparations from them. If you think you’re going to have my adminship revoked for creating articles against your will, or for making the occasional deletion error (and not arguing about them or wheel warring over them) then you’ve got another think coming. And if you think I'm going to be blocked or desysopped for some "emergency" measure, when I haven't deleted a single article in more than two weeks, I think you are also very much mistaken. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kafziel. At your suggestion, I read the WP:IAR page. It refers to improving the encyclopedia - a goal we all share. I am puzzled, though, over how deleting articles that aren't in the encyclopedia, and won't be unless the policy problems are removed, causes any improvement to the encyclopedia. On the contrary, since most Afc submissions are made by new editors, if the pages are just deleted instead of the editors being given advice and the articles improved, those editors will likely give up and not edit again, and Wikipedia will be missing any contributions that they might have made. I have interacted with many of these new editors, and even some whose articles couldn't pass notability, and were eventually deleted, have gone on to create other acceptable articles because they were drawn into the community and came to espouse its values. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess the disconnect is that I see everything on Wikipedia as "in the encyclopedia" and you don't. I'm not sure what else it would be considered; free web hosting? I admit I don't know an awful lot about technical things like indexing or whatnot, but I know if you Google a company, its spammy AfC page will be among the results. So, yes, I do think not letting spammers squat at AfC improves the encyclopedia. As does deleting obvious word-for-word duplicates and nonsense. If we're worried about losing users because they're discouraged, then, again: Go process the backlog. Because I can tell you right now, just as many users are quitting Wikipedia because their articles are sitting in limbo for months on end. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concern would be that although pushing articles into article space without giving the submitter the opportunity to fully improve it before publication seems like a way to beat the backlog, it really is relying on a handful of users through the AfD process to do the required research to determine if a page is worth keeping or not, and this probably requires a lot more net effort than allowing the AfC process to coach submitters through improving their own articles to the point no one would reasonably consider nominating them for deletion. AfD isn't at all a zero effort process, and surely AfC was created to reduce the demand on that and page patrol in the first place - that doesn't seem like reducing backlog, only shifting it to somewhere else. To hastily push them into article space to 'sink or swim... out of limbo' is surely undermining the AfC efforts. --_nonsense ferret 19:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A valid concern, except that the vast majority of the articles in the backlog need neither AfD nor AfC. Most are perfectly fine, and just being held back so reviewers can feel important. Wikipedia was created through open, worldwide collaboration. If we just move them out and let the community participate, instead of sweeping them under the rug, almost none of them need any procedural review at all. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To say that people review articles at AfC to 'feel important' seems not to particularly assume good faith, and fails to recognise the great benefits to the encyclopedia as a whole of the work done by the reviewers. I'm afraid my experience of looking at a large number of such submissions does not support your suggestion that the vast majority of them are ready for article space. On the contrary, very few new editors understand what a reliable source is, nor understand the importance of citations for BLPs. Also, as an additional point in not using the tools provided for accepting articles at AfC, you don't get the benefit of talkpages being automatically created and WP template being added for new articles etc which will surely reduce the effort for everyone. --_nonsense ferret 20:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfC was created because IP users can’t create articles, and new users might not know how. That's all. Anything else – asking for in-line citations, improving leads, establishing notability, etc – can and should be handled in the article space. I've seen countless articles being held back for things like “this is a good start, but I’d like to see more detail about X”. That’s nonsense. That’s an editor who has spent too long on AfC and has an inflated sense of authority.

It's not up to anyone to decide when an article is "ready" for article space. If it’s a coherent sentence or two that is verifiable and makes some kind of claim of importance, then it’s ready to go. Send it. Wikipedia articles require neither in-line citations, nor proper formatting, nor proper categories, nor any particular amount of content. Aside from certain special cases such as BLP, they don’t even require sources at all to begin with. And they don’t have to have talk pages, and they certainly don’t have to have talk pages with wikiproject banners on them. None of those things are requirements. If you’re a member of AfC, I can see why you might think they are. But as a member of Wikipedia, I can assure you that they are not. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This raises an important point: what should be the criteria for accepting articles. I agree with Kafziel that the criterion is not GA. But I also think it should not be as low as the ability to just pass speedy. I think the accepted standard is in the middle: the ability to have a reasonable chance of passing AfD. In particular, I think an article should establish notability before it passes, or at least have a reasonable try at it. I think an article should have key controversial matters properly referenced, though not necessarily in any particular format. I think an article should be readable--not optimal, but with enough organization that the immediate response won't be to find some way to delete it. It should have the key external links, but not so many that it will lead to a suspicion of promotionalism. Not to be certain of passing AfD --experience has shown that it is almost impossible to predict that anything will certainly pass AfD. an article coming out of AfC should be good enough to stay in WP, and be improved further. Looking at declined AfCs , a great many of them are declined for not following the details of WP style, or even the details of what the individual reviewer thinks is the sort of reference style they personally prefer. We do need to have someway of encouraging people to make better articles once they go about it, and it can be useful for an experienced reviewer to explain what to do further. But if we hold up articles for this, we will never get them at all. What's needed isa way to encourage beginners to keep going, and that has proven very difficult. I have no real positive suggestions here--just to eliminate the negative factors, and high among the negative factors is people giving discouragement to new editors.

the purpose of AfC ist ot just to let ip's make articles. It's to let people with a COI make articles= drafts, and it's also for anyone who is inesperienced enough that they feel they need guidance. What we must do in return, is provide the proper guidance. DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I totally agree with these points DGG. I think in the past a minority of less experienced AfC reviewers have really gone too far placing silly requirements in the way of reasonable first draft articles, but this doesn't mean that establishing a basic case for notability isn't a very useful function. One of the difficulties in being a reviewer is that sometimes without some further research it is pretty difficult to make a call on whether there may or may not be a case for notability, this is often the case with NACADEMIC and similar technical guidelines. After an iteration or two of review you can end up with an article full of somewhat dubious references, where it is still difficult to see a prima facie case. It is these articles with a few references that often end up staying on the backlog for a while because people can see they are not 'easy' reviews. I think they are not easy for good reason, and throwing those all into article space is not really helping - a few of them are real gems which are a delight to find, but some are just COI ridden lumps of poop bundled up in blog coverage and press release. It is the wheat and the chaff. --_nonsense ferret 22:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But we seem to disagree on who should be relied upon to separate the two. The entire Wikipedia community (which is, by definition, the whole world) or a tiny subset of self-appointed AfC gatekeepers? I say the former. And every Wikipedia policy and guideline, from WP:BOLD to WP:OWN, agrees with me. These articles are not AfC's to administer. They belong to Wikipedia, for better or worse. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 23:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward

I don't see a need immediately to "topic-ban" Kafziel from AfC. As I said before, his desire to clear the AfC backlog can be of great use to the project. What concerns me is his total lack of interest in working with the ordinary editors who frequent this area to develop a common understanding of how he should do his work. IAR is a policy guideline, but consensus is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making." Would it be so horrible, Kafziel, to work with WikiProject AfC editors to develop shared rules for speedy deletions? It's the only reasonable solution that springs to mind here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any user can view all my logs (including deleted pages) here. It's all very transparent. I can understand that it's a bit more of a hassle for you to review or undelete an article, because you have to ask someone else do it for you. But that's the same as any editor who wanted to restore any other real article I've speedy deleted over the years; why would AfC get special consideration? There are several admins working on AfC. I'm sure they can help if need be. Since anyone can approve and move a page, the admin tools aren't needed for much besides deleting and restoring articles.

If little old me can empty out a category of past-due articles in just a day, why can’t an entire wikiproject do the same? This needn't even be an issue, if people were less concerned with nit-picking and more concerned with improving the encyclopedia. Many hands make light work. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to clean out articles that fast is to do it by paying no attention to them. Except for a few special cases, the ordinary run of AfCs needs screening. The point of being an admin it to think about what one is doing, not to imitate a bot. Now, I do not think Kafziel is necessarily the worst in this respect of the people who are looking at old AfCs, and I have despaired at convincing some that 5% of 50,000 is a number work saving. However, everybody else who does it, when they do go slow enough to think about it, use correct criteria. The reason the AfCs have accumulated is that the A criteria do not apply; this is not just informal consensus, but a basic part of the deletion guideline that the A criteria are limited to articles. I would expect a affirmation from Kafziel that he intends to abide by this. That he offers to correct any mistakes people call to his attention is good, but only as a supplement to limiting oneself --as we all do-- to deleting only the ones that fall under the guidelines in the first place. This isn't a special restriction: any admin who does not follow the guidelines in a particular area should work elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I’d love to have the luxury of being more careful, but look where that has gotten us. Whatever the previous consensus may have been, it isn't working. And if process isn't working, then I ignore it. That's what IAR means.

My point is that if more than just one person were reviewing them, there would be plenty of time to look at them with all the care that AfC would like. It’s a question of man-hours, and with each extra set of hands and eyes, the work is divided up into smaller parts, and more time is freed up for careful scrutiny. One editor can process 130 articles in eight hours, or 130 editors can take eight hours to process one article each. Either way, it needs to get done. If AfC wants to handle it, I wouldn't have to. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So form a new consensus instead of writing your own rules and rejecting outside input. That's all people here want, I think. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already have consensus behind me. The editing policy says, "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect." I'm doing that. IAR, also policy, says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I am. Those pages have consensus, and they trump whatever else may have been decided by some vote at a wikiproject. Besides, discussion is not the only way to build or change consensus; it can also be done through active editing. In this case, there's really nothing to discuss (and the people who started this report aren't actually interested in discussing anything anyway). If anyone has a problem with any deletions I make, they’re welcome to restore them. If you think an article I promoted wasn't ready for the article space, get to work improving it. But I outright reject the notion that I (or any other editors) have to follow the same reviewing procedures that have resulted in tens of thousands of backlogged articles. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen people complain about the articles you move into the mainspace; it's the deletions that are problematic. Do you really want to claim you're "helping users avoid abuse at the hands of AfC" by deleting every imperfect draft you come about? I would agree the author of the OrderUp draft you deleted felt abused, but not by AfC. If you think the stale drafts are a backlog that requires work, why not work on that instead of deleting non-abandoned drafts? We have a valid speedy deletion criterion for old drafts, and you might even rescue some that had been declined in error; that would go some way towards proving your point about overly critical AfC reviewers (and yes, I'm sure some drafts were declined in error). However, I'd prefer not having to patrol your deletion log to undelete lots of dubious "G11" cases. Huon (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "deleting every imperfect draft" - that's absolute nonsense. I've moved tons of drafts into the article space, and none of them are perfect. That's the point. The entire Wikipedia community should be working on them. (But yeah, if I see blatant spam, I kill it. No apologies.) And no thanks, I'm not interested in slogging through the G13 crap - AfC made that bed, and now they can lie in it. But at least by working in the 4-week-old category, I can prevent more articles (whose creators may actually still be around and hoping to move forward) from being lost in that black hole of expired drafts. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the admin side, this seems to boil down to a few questionable speedy-deletion calls then. Doesn't seem to warrant any sanctions in my opinion. Most of Kafziel's points are pretty valid criticisms of AfC. The policy consensus gap seems to be between "more than likely able to survive if challenged at AfD", which is most reviewer's criterion, and "able to survive speedy deletion" which seems to be what Kafziel is advocating. The adoption of the latter criterion would definitely reduce our backlog, both of pending and of rejected articles. A thread like this is probably not a good place to decide on a new general consensus criterion for AfC reviewing though. Gigs (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like Kafziel is addressing a problem (a huge backlog) and editors who regularly work at AfC are upset by his approach and manner of getting work done. But he is solving a problem in a process that seems to be stuck. Is there any chance that the RfC regulars could refresh their attitude of what is required to move an article into mainspace and offer some decisive opinion to new editors so articles aren't languishing for months without being resolved? I mean at some point, if an article is unpromising, I'm sure the creator will get discouraged and give up rather than keep revising and some verdict can be rendered on these abandoned articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that deleting drafts that could easily be improved counts as "getting work done" or "solving a problem". If the community had wanted non-accepted drafts to be deleted immediately, it wouldn't have built the six-month delay into G13. Kafziel by now has stated that he actually isn't interested in working on the backlog of 40k abandoned drafts he complained about. He also is not interested in helping editors improve drafts, or even just giving them an opportunity to improve a draft - if it can't survive in the mainspace right now, it gets deleted. That makes his supposed concern for editors who "may actually still be around and hoping to move forward" ring hollow. Huon (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't know who built in that six-month delay. It just kind of appeared one day, as far as I can tell. It certainly wasn't voted on by the community. If there was some kind of consensus for it, I suppose it must be somewhere in the AfC archives. But trust me: You don't want me working on those 40,000 articles. Unless you want to come back next week and discuss my 40,000 recent deletions.

Instead, I'd rather work on the articles that do have some merit, and whose creators are still willing to work on them. Many of those editors have thanked me for bypassing the ridiculous roadblocks of AfC editors and moving their articles into the main namespace (which, of course, they could have done themselves - which is AfC's dirty little secret). Working on those articles does contribute to lessening the backlog, by not letting them get into it in the first place. Articles have four weeks to be brought up to speed; that is plenty sufficient. After that, you can get it done, or you can watch me do it. I don't much care which. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not play bureaucrat. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kafziel, if you're going to work in a space, it's expected that you're going to know the procedures and policies that are in effect for that space. [6] [7] [8] [9]

[10] [11] are just a small sampling of fairly recent discussion about AfC speedies. If you want to write an encyclopedia you don't need admin bits for that. If you're going to continue to abuse newbie editors, abuse the good will of the community, and continue to be a "I'm right and the community consensus is wrong" iconoclast, your admin bits are in danger. Arbitrators (SilkTork—Newyorkbrad—AGK—Carcharoth—Courcelles—Risker) I reiterate my assertion that we have an admin off the reservation that is threatening further disruption in the face of requests for an explanation, furhter disruption against an established consensus, and a editor who believes that they know better over multiple editors and administrators in good standing. Hasteur (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I'm right and the community consensus is wrong. I'm saying I'm right, and whatever little consensus you all might have dreamed up at AfC is wrong. The community's consensus created things like WP:BOLD, WP:OWN, WP:EDIT, and WP:IAR. So while I might make mistakes from time to time, I am well within policy to work on any page I want. If it's an article, I will put it in the article space. If it's blatant spam, I will delete it. Just because AfC decided to set up their own little magical fairy-tale land where they host spam articles on talk pages, that doesn't mean none of the other kids can play with your toys. You do not own them. You do not have the right to tell people not to be bold. You do not have the right to tell others they're not allowed to work on something. So you can go ahead and call all the arbitrators you want, and rage and shake your fists, and I will never agree to do anything differently. Sorry to break it to you, but the ArbCom isn't your little pit bull. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, your position has drifted from a "I will do necessary cleanups in AfC despite its normal policy" to what is now sounding to *this* uninvolved admin as somethink akin to "F U all, I'll delete what I want", and what appears to be a claim that you will now delete against multiple people giving you feedback that you're going too far and too fast; this is almost a textbook description of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

I understand this situation and criticism are not to your liking, but I was neutral to vaguely supportive of where you were when this started, and now am wondering about whether I should be starting a topic ban proposal here, and worrying if you're going to go off and do something that I or another uninvolved admin would have to warn, final warn, or block you over while that was going on.

TLDR: Turn back, dude... You're going the wrong way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm trying to say. Most editors here would rather not drag this to ArbCom or anything like that. We're just trying to create a harmonious editing process that takes into account numerous valid concerns. Kafziel's attitude has been combative, dismissive, and uneager to see others' point of view. "I will never agree to do anything differently" almost dares us to try the sanctions route, which would be a regrettable course to have to go. I really don't think an off-thread attempt by interested editors (including Kafziel) to form some common understanding of deletion behavior is unreasonable at all. There is nothing so urgent about the AfC backlog and so uncontroversial about Kafziel's edits that we ought to chuck every conventional dispute resolution process out the window. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what, exactly, would you block me for? I didn't say "F U all, I'll delete what I want" - you said that. What you think you hear is none of my concern. What I did say is much closer to "F some of U, I'll delete spam wherever I see it." And you're goddamn right I will. You guys seem to think this is my first time at AN/I. Or that I'm going to start quivering in fear over threats about the ArbCom. So you go ahead and do what you want as far as topic ban proposals - I'm 100% covered by policy. Not AfC guidelines that somebody made up... actual policy. The big ones. The pillars of Wikipedia. So maybe you should take a better look at what I've actually been doing, and not just what you think you see here, before you make a fool of yourself. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 04:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is not a shield under which you get to disrupt the encyclopedia project or community. The number of admins who hit burnout looking like this, threw a finger to the community and then were out, is substantial. This is not my first ANI either, by nearly a decade. I am not saying "I might have to block you" because that's desirable. You're sounding like you're about to go disrupt the encyclopedia, and saying you will. I am reminding you that any admin will block editors - or admins - who intentionally and loudly set out to disrupt.

This is not "their project can ignore wider policy and standards". But nobody can throw a finger to large sets of the community, Kafziel. It's entirely against the premise of working collaboratively and collegially with everyone else here who wants to build an encyclopedia. Is that that hard to understand?

Again: Turn back. The degree to which you're now claiming IAR covers you will get you warned, blocked, topic-banned, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I want to work with everyone on Wikipedia, not just the little clique at AfC. That's why I'm moving articles out of AfC and into the article space. I'm not required to collaborate with everyone, especially those who don't want to collaborate with me. But if a rule prevents me from improving the encyclopedia, like silly rules about posting wikiproject banners on talk pages, then I will ignore them. As Gigs and Liz point out above, this is basically a bunch of people completely losing their shit over a few mistakes from a couple of weeks ago. If I were you, I wouldn't be in quite such a rush to join the lynch mob. But if you want to start a request, you go right ahead. Stop talking about it and do it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it was a few mistakes a couple of weeks ago, I was not interested in commenting. It's your recent threats - and I use that word carefully and deliberately - which caused me to respond here.

What you are saying you are going to do now is very different in character and nature from a few mistakes a couple of weeks ago. You are more or less proudly saying you're going to disrupt things. I'm not going to preemptively do anything to you, but I really sincerely hope you're just using colorful language in frustration, and not serious about expanding your activity. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's all this business about threats, and expanding my activity, and proudly disrupting things? I haven't said anything of the sort. I will continue doing exactly what I have been doing at AfC: Moving old articles without using the tool, approving articles without giving anyone feedback, and deleting articles that are spam or attack pages. As far as I can see, looking back over alllll this discussion, nobody has said anything that would make me think I've done anything wrong. AfC users are mad that I won't follow their little rules, but I'm not beholden to them. They don't own those articles. So I will continue to operate as I have been, and when you feel like it warrants action, you go ahead and do it. Until then, I think I'm done here. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 05:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, Kafziel, if you honestly have the best goals of the project at heart, you will continue your work at AFC except that if you find draft articles that you believe need to be deleted, you will blank them (using the review tool) and then tag them for speedy deletion by someone else. Pretty simple, and you get to keep merrily helping with the overworked AFC holding pen (I did about 20 yesterday myself). Everyone wins if you do that voluntarily (hint, hint) ES &L 12:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not do that. Administrators are allowed to speedy inappropriate articles on sight, and I will continue to do so. I am not going to transfer the AfC backlog to the CSD backlog. I will continue operating just exactly as I have been. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to rephrase that last assertion. The way you have been operating is the cause of this thread in which regular editors, volunteers from the AfC project, Administrators, and Arbitrators have all told you that your actions are problematic. It would be best for you to refactor, otherwise your statement can only be taken as a threat to further damage and disrupt Wikipedia and would therefore be subject to the rules regarding blocking and desysopping. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Administrators are allowed to speedy inappropriate articles on sight" ... "I will continue operating just exactly as I have been." ... and that is about the biggest way you could bite the newbies imaginable, especially if your opinion of "inappropriate" ends up being different to somebody else's. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why I don’t pay much attention to AN/I. As I said earlier, it’s all about people demanding that other people bow and scrape and beg for mercy. That’s not going to happen here. We’re not talking about a compromise – we’re talking about a few angry wikiproject members telling an administrator what he is or is not allowed to do. Telling me it will go so much easier for me if I’ll just submit to the will of the church. Well, I don’t. I’m working on the encyclopedia. I am allowed to delete spam when I see it. All admins should do the same. If I make an occasional mistake (or even if it’s not a mistake, and you just happen to disagree) then other admins can undelete the pages as they see fit. Or you can talk to me, and I might do it myself. That’s how this all works. But if you think you’re going to do sanction me, tell me where I can work and what tools I can use to work there, then it’s going to take a damn sight more than an AN/I report. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you aren't paying much attention to AN/I, why are you making so many edits to it? The real way you don't pay much attention is to take it off your watchlist and edit articles! Our conversation is now done here, I believe. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I went to bed, slept the sleep of the just, and woke up to find that someone still thinks they can tell me what I can and cannot do. It wouldn't have been fair to ignore that, and give tacit approval of sanctions against an administrator without process. So again, I just said no. And I will continue to say no. ArbCom hasn't responded because they know I'm right. (No doubt they'd prefer I were more tactful, but just because I'm a self-righteous prick doesn't make me wrong.) So if you want to walk away, do so. If you want to rage some more, do that. But nobody is going to tell me I'm not allowed to delete spam or move articles. Not you, not Hasteur, nobody. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to indef block Kafziel

Since Kafziel has asserted loudly he will continue to do things that other longstanding editors view as disruptive, perhaps it is time for some stronger action to protect the encyclopedia. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (as if it was in question) As the user is also an admin, therefore it is appropriate to also add the desysop as I have no confidence in them respecting the block and using the admin bits to continue disruption. I have petitioned ArbCom to strip Kafziel of their admin bits for threats of clear disruption and harm to the project. Since no motion has been forthcoming, I consider it appropriate for a request on the Bueracrat's Noticeboard petitioning for an Emergency Desysop. Hasteur (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's going to happen. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, no. Certainly Kafziel's bedside manner could be better, but stepping on the toes of people running their own little fiefdom warrants neither a block nor a desysop. I would suggest that Kafziel should avoid using the A criteria since in those cases there is no harm in waiting for G13, but I am also concerned that some AFC members seem to think that hosting copyvios is okay. In those cases, Kafziel is right. Unambiguous copyvios from the start = speedy delete. If you guys really want, change your process to delete, then recreate with a template explaining the problem. Reso lute 16:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:CONLIMITED. Mojoworker (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We have lost sight of what he actually did because of his obstinacy. Nevertheless, I don't see that he has done anything worthy of an indef, especially given Mojoworker's reference to WP:CONLIMITED. Sorry, but the project is not the encyclopedia. JodyB_talk 16:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose having been on the receiving end elsewhere of abusive Admins in a clique claiming wiki-project control and ignoring WP:CONLIMITED I support Kafziel's right to defend his position. Not impressed at all by the forum shopping 'Crat board and Arbcom approaches either. Way to soon for that. Leaky Caldron 16:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to give Kafziel a barnstar and block or desysop some random other editors

Well, not really the second part, but still... So far, the only use of his admin tools that has been reverted was a G13 deletion, which wasn't wrong but was undeleted as is the standard when people request it.

So, not a single one of his admin actions under scrutiny here has been overturned for being incorrect (never mind "abuse"). But people are asking for his (her, whatever) head because they have indicated that they will continue doing these apparently correct admin actions. This leaves us with his non-admin actions, which consist of moving AFC articles to the mainspace. Isn't that the purpose of AfC? Have any examples been given of articles that were moved prematurely (i.e. articles that should be deleted as spam, copyvio, attacks, whatever)? Is there a pattern of such moves?

What this seems to boil down to is "some of the AfC project members don't like my actions here". If he isn't doing anything against policy, isn't abusing the admin tools, isn't making loads of errors with his moves, and is adding viable articles to the mainspace, then a project that obstructs this, and asks for desysopping and/or blocking, should be swiftly abolished per WP:OWN. Fram (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help but agree with Fram. Sometimes people become so enamoured of the process that they lose sight of what the process was supposed to help. It's a discussion I hear almost everyday.

A: You've done it wrong!

B: No, I skipped a few steps

A: But that doesn't follow the established process!

B: The end point is the same, no?

A: Yes, but you've violated established process!

B: Yes, but my way got there more efficiently and the end product is the same.

A: Yes, your way is more efficient but you violated the established process!

B: So change the process.

Process engineering 101, people. Blackmane (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(FYI: this issue has now been brought to WP:ARB/R, see; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Kafziel.27s_AfC_actions - ^theWOLFchild 18:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED"

Minphie (talk · contribs) is an editor affiliated with "Drug Free Australia". A participant of several content disputes with several other users, including me, he have now resorted to canvassing. Or rather more accurately, they have called out for fellow drug warriors to chime in and sway Wikipedia in their direction. This document with instructions on what to do flies in the face of most policies and guidelines. If not in words, so in spirit. I found it very troublesome and don't know what to do. So I leave it for you. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that it is necessary to try to associate the WP editor with a real name, and I redacted it, But the call for meat-puppettry here is unmistakable. I think it warrants an indefinite block. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. Pretty much WP:NOTHERE. Reso lute 21:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The target list of articles given in the how-to guide linked appears to be as follows:

Arguments for and against drug legalization (perhaps this refers to Arguments for and against drug prohibition?)
Cannabis (and all its derivative pages
Drug policy of Portugal
Drug policy of Sweden
Drug policy of the Netherlands
Harm reduction
Insite
Medical cannabis
Methadone
Needle exchange program
Prohibition
Recreational use of drugs (presumably this means the article Recreational drug use)
Rhetoric of Drugs (presumably this means the article The Rhetoric of Drugs)
Supervised injection sites
War on Drugs
Zero tolerance

-- The Anome (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --Rs chen7754 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)

Support indefinite block for meat-puppetry. I would also like to note that they denied any WP:COI here and here, specifically in response to a question about Drug Free Australia. That is shown to be false by the PDF, above. Based on that, I would also propose an indefinite topic ban on any articles involving drug treatment, drug programs, or the like, broadly construed. GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order - Minphie would only have a COI with regards to Drug Free Australia if they work for or with them, not if they were contacted by DFA as a local Wikipedian who was in support of the same cause(s). Even if Minphie does work for DFA, the COI would be restricted to a hypothetical article on DFA, not on drug policy writ large. People who are involved in a policy debate do not become conflicted in editing here. They risk WP:BATTLEGROUND violations (or WP:SOAP). As the editor was indeffed already, one could make a guess as to at least one admins' opinion on that point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The block notification says "it is clear that you are here to push a certain point of view rather than to contribute to building a neutral encyclopedia." I'm not disputing that (although there is an emphasis in the call for editors on citing sources) but I wonder whether this is any different to the Storming Wikipedia project. Why would one be allowed (even encouraged) and the other result in an indefinite block? StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because one broadly encourages expanding the encyclopedia and reducing systemic bias, while the other is a coordinated attempt to impose a specific point of view on a narrow range of related articles? Acroterion (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the "Storming Wikipedia" project should have the effect of encouraging more women to edit, some of the quotes in the article referenced above do indicate possible POV problems, and I'm sure that editors are watching for any bias that may appear. For the most part the group is trying to encourage women to edit, assuming that since they are women they will add material of interest to women. (I, for example, am into bluegrass music, computer programming and science fiction, and you all know how men neglect these topics.) This is a far cry, though, from providing a specific list of articles and explaining exactly how to gang up on other editors to shift the focus of the articles to reflect a certain POV. IF the Storming ladies did this, it would be equally unacceptable. —Anne Delong (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It might be a good idea for uninvolved admins to add the above articles to their watchlists, in case the promised meatpuppet army materializes. -- The Anome (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just reading the document, it gives a good grounding on Wikipedia participation. Hopefully we'll get some more editors out of it. We encourage all participants, and so long as we keep an eye on what's going on, where's the problem? Surely we are not running around in circles because - gasp - there might be editors with different views to our own? Mind you, I wouldn't put too much faith in the advice for slow-moving edit wars. Three reverts in a day is merely the "bright line". Reverting twice a day for a week is still going to get a block. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, besides "teaching" from a very biased perspective ("[the other side] are very good at simply deleting [your addition] and putting some bogus explanation.", etc), the document also gives wrong information. It instructs recruited editors to use template:cite journal for every ref. It tells them they need to create an account to be able to contribute. It says that if you feel your text's provenance might be challenged, you support it by commenting on the talk page, rather than saying that you should support it in-text with a citation. It says that you only need to discuss after someone reverts you if you think the other person has a "reasonable rationale", and that otherwise you're "entitled to unilaterally revert" their revert. It implies that anyone reverting your edits is "the other side" who's operating "bogus"ly. It even gives instructions for how to game 3RR (in a way that's almost sure to get you blocked if you try it).
It's possible to write a document that teaches a potentially-POV group of people the basics of editing Wikipedia well...but this isn't that document. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, it's not perfect, but we have a truckload of resources that are very good and aimed precisely at new editors. There's a bunch of people happy to steer any newcomers straight. A bunch of new editors - if we should be so lucky to get a bunch - are either going to conform to Wikipedia policy or find their time here very difficult. We've been given a headsup on what to look out for, we can do that. I'll add those pages to my watchlist and see how any newbies behave. Without biting. --Pete (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like a fake to me. Its unlikely a pro-drug activist would be that blatant about violating wikipedia guidelines. Plus if you look carefully, theres a call for emails to be sent to him/her - possibly to entrap possible wrongdoers. Just a thought. Pass a Method talk 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know some of these outfits--this one and the ones listed on their "Affiliates" document. I wouldn't put it past them. Or, why would you think such organizations would not want to try Wikipedia, just as they try to influence the media and various governmental and non-governmental organizations? It's the MO of any organization that wants to accomplish change, and these cats are quite passionate about it. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (EC) I don't see any reason to think it's fake. It's linked from [12] for example. And the website appears to be the correct website for the organisation known as Drug Free Australia [13]. I'm also in minor agreement with Pete that it's not really clear they're trying to violate wikipeda guidelines. Yes they've made numerous mistakes, but if you look at the document, it's clear they're telling people to properly respect the "rules" and to only communicate via wikipedia pages (the email bit appears to be to let them know rather than for offsite collusion, I suspect so they can disclose it if it ever comes up like it has now) etc. I also agree with StAnselm that whether or not something is inappropriate POV meatpuppetry or trying to correct systemic bias by recruiting a greater diverstiy of editors isn't always very clear. (Feminism may be wider ranging, but if you're recruiting editors to better represent the feminist POV, you're ultimately still recruiting editors with a specific POV with the belief that their POV is underrepresented which results in systemic bias and that by recruiting more editors with that POV, you will ensure it is fairly represented in discussions and articles will improve because of it.) Or to put it a different way, I can certainly see why from their POV they're being entirely proper and open about trying to correct systemic bias and help achieve NPOV by ensuring all viewpoints are fairly represented in any discussion by openly recruiting editors who's viewpoints they feel are underrepresented. It's not like this is the first time this has happened, e.g. as mentioned in Wikimania 2011. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The metadata also supports it being genuine, realizing of course that this can be faked too. GregJackP Boomer! 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User 'Pass a Method' has a point, it could be fake. I can think of some editors here I would love to see blocked. If all it takes is for me to create a pro-meat puppetry flyer, stick their name on it and pass it around via pdf to have that accomplished...
Anyway, (@Rschen7754:) why the rush to block? (blocked exactly 20 minutes after this ANI was created) The user has not even had an opportunity to comment here in their defence. It's not as if they were actively disrupting in the main or user space and a block was needed to protect the project. - ^theWOLFchild 04:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in the (very unlikely) event that they can say something to effectively rebut the evidence, they can still do so on their talk page. Meanwhile, they are semi-active, and we don't want this issue to float away. --Rs chen7754 05:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - How about we pool our eyes and make a list of any new editors showing up on the pages listed above. We can keep a gentle watch over them, raise any concerns here, make sure all is good. Minimise disruption for all parties. --Pete (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't only new editors who have POVs that should be monitored. The Medical cannabis page (and all cannabis pages) has just undergone massive changes in the past week, and has essentially been uglified (compare this with this) and apparently is closed to editing by anyone but the Project Medicine team. This same team, in the name of MEDRS, is using a rat study and a study confounded by cocaine use to prop up Cannabis in pregnancy, an article started by someone using sources from this Australian anti-drug group. Who's watching the watchers? petrarchan47 tc 19:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a most curious statement, Petra. This discussion has just come to my attention; you seem to be implying something about anyone editing (to improve) an article started by this person/group/whatever they are in Australia. What is it that you are implying, because I came to the {{cannabis}} suite of articles via the merge of a now-deleted student essay on cannabis and epilepsy, and found a walled garden of poorly sourced text, cited mostly to old primary sources. Cannabis in pregnancy is now cleanly sourced to secondary reviews, compliant with our medical sourcing guidelines. Your allegations of a "team" at Medical cannabis have been raised with you, in the appropriate forum, on your talk (where they were archived generally with no response), and you have failed to adequately engage discussion on article talk, yet you continue battleground allegations here in another forum.

Yes, I do encourage more admin eyes here, and not only because of what some Australian group might be up to; a review of Talk:Medical cannabis and archived discussions at User talk:Petrarchan47 is instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've never encountered Mikael Häggström before, but I think he should be notified that you are mentioning him here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (Not sure that as a non-admin I am ok to comment here, nevertheless) Can I ask what is different about the behaviour being investigated here and that of User:sgerbic - aside from the POV differences of the two? It doesn't feel evenhanded to me that this guy is being vilified for behaviour that on the surface simply reproduces SGerbic's. What am I missing? I'd love to know. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor is able to comment here, this is just a noticeboard to get admin attention. As to your question, the difference is that no one has brought Sgerbic's alleged actions to ANI. Admin's don't have the ability (read superpower) to know what goes on everywhere. If you find issue with Sgerbic's editing, you'd have to provide evidence of this rather than just a vague statement. Blackmane (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Sgerbic and the "guerilla skeptics" have specified that they are interested in producing a balanced encyclopedia, that they don't want to push a POV and they want to improve coverage of skepticism. If Sgerbic and the guerilla skeptics were trying to slant articles in a more skeptical direction, I'd be very concerned. They seem more interested in building up coverage of the skeptical movement though. Still I think we should definitely keep an eye on groups like them to ensure they are being neutral and fair. If they can contribute material that's fair, NPOV and productive, we should welcome their contribution even if they have silly, overdramatic names like "guerilla" or market themselves as "storming Wikipedia". —Tom Morris (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose block. Interesting discussion, thanks for mentioning me so that I can learn more about this process. I read through the letter. It is similar to what we do with GSoW, we try to teach and we encourage improvement of something we are interested in. They seem to be really concerned that what they put in the articles will be reverted which worries me a bit as we all want to stay as far away from edit wars as possible. But just because some of us do not share their POV does not mean they don't have every right to look for others to edit these pages. They state they want to stay on the right side of the rules, and we need to assume good faith that that is what they will do. If and when they do start violating the rules, then take action in an appropriate way. And trust me, the amount of responses these people are going to get is going to be tiny. The amount of people who actually end up editing more than a couple months is even tinier. Writing a blog asking for editors is one thing, getting volunteers is a totally different thing. I know after running GSoW for 2+ years that it takes tons of encouragement, training and mentoring to get people to stay involved and editing. I really really doubt that this group will ever cause any of these pages any issues. Thank you DGG for bringing it to our attention, great discussion. Also I didn't see the statement by Roxy the dog as a a challenge, but as a good question.Sgerbic (talk) 03:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to comment on my comment below regarding the actual policies at work here? I can't really see the fact that they may not be succesful in the canvassing for meatpupppets as being any kind of excuse. As you may notice from the quotes I highlighted below, the case is quite clear. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Observation – the section of the linked document authored by Minphie starts near the bottom of the second page, the part with the request for email notification and the biased editorialising etc appears to be writted by someone else at Drug Free Australia. Minphie's advice is poor in parts, no question, but alone it does not appear (to me) to be sufficient for a WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. EdChem (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose block. I think this has been done too hastily, and with insufficient evidence of meatpuppetry on Minphie's part. It appears that he was asked to give a brief introduction to editing on Wikipedia. Any of us might be asked to do the same. Certainly, we would avoid some of the things that Minphie said, but there is nothing here in what Minphie said about telling people what to write, or what biases to introduce. As mentioned above, that is a separate part of the document, written by persons unknown. This block is unjustified - if the editor is showing that he is not here to build an encyclopedia, he can be blocked on the basis of on-wiki edits; blocking him on the basis of this document is grossly unfair. StAnselm (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW while I stick by most of what I said above which was more intended to apply generally to what was going on, I think Minphie more or less screwed themselves.

In particular, while the general idea behind the document may be understandable and some may even consider it acceptable, the documument itself does make out the other side to be the enemy. I don't think this is uncommon in this sort of thing, IIRC it did happen a bit in the outside wikipedia responses to gender identity issues raised by the Chelsea Manning case, and I'm sure some of the response in many other cases e.g. the feminism one, ultimately when you're associated with calling others the enemy lefties, you can't expect things to end well for you. And even if we don't accept the author of the PDF and Minphie as the same person, Minphie was clearly involved in a lot of it.

And just as important, and again without having to accept whether or not Minphie is the same person as the author of the PDF (who is strongly associated with DFA), it's difficult to see how you can logically claim you don't have a COI according to our COI policies if you were involved in that document. Precisely what is a COI and how our COI policies interact with our privacy policies may be contentious but in a case like that your options really are to either declare your COI or refuse to comment because of privacy reasons. Saying 'I don't have a COI' when you helped write a document posted on an advocacy's organisations website calling for more wikipedia editors, an advocacy organisation which is heavily involved in a lot of what you're writing about, well that just dumb.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we were too hasty--we simply have blocked, as any other attempt at sockpuppettry, and there is no necessity to discuss whether the sockpuppettry was for the purpose of making trouble. It was a request to an interested community of people to edit WP to express a particular POV, and this is never correct. What makes it all the more striking to me is that it was an attempt by someone who clearly understand the guidelines at WP for how to evade the intent of our policies, by trying to edit under the radar. It was not an appeal to follow the guidelines, but how to stretch them beyond their proper meaning and hope not to be noticed. Our jurisdiction does not extend beyond WP, but when a WPedian uses his WP name in such an attempt, they must be blocked, as editing in this manner is destructive of the purpose of a NPOV encyclopedia. If someone makes such appeal without giving their WP identity, it is usually not right for us to try to detect it--all we need do is call the attempt to attention here or at COIN or wherever most appropriate, so people can be on the watch for it. We can obviously not eliminate POV editing on controversial topics, but we can at least publicize the more obvious and organized attempts at it. That the people involved have the intention of bringing their article to what they think is the neutral POV which is their own view is the very essence of POV editing. Their honesty of intentions on the topic are not the question, but their attempt to do coordinated group editing on WP. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinated group editing? <gasp> Ummm... that phrase sounds waaaay overboard. :-) WikiProject Military History... those evildoers! Or any wikiproject. Heck, I attempted coordinated group editing just yesterday. (please do not indef me!) As for bringing in new editors, I am 110% in favor of that, and am in fact writing my own "survival manual" to help beginners navigate wikipedia.

The real *meat* of the problem here is simple. "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side..." Emphasis added. That was the mistake that Minphie made, and that was precisely where pillar two was violated.

While I would not say 'hasty' exactly, indef right now is perhaps the wrong approach, since it is clearly not a proportional response -- such a drastic step might create a bitter wiki-martyr. Did they actually *succeed* in causing any disruption, or in any visible-in-mainspace injury to pillar two? If not, then perma-banhammering them seems kinda like a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Maybe somebody should talk to them about the blatant issues like using 'journal' in all refs, and mandating registration, and other such foolishness? HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing this very important part of the sentence "... of a debate."Sgerbic (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other information These discussions have happened with this user for some time. See
- ANI complaint in 2010, alleged editing warring over Safe injection site
- ANI complaint in 2011, alleged edit warring over this same article Insite
- complaint on the RS noticeboard in 2012 discussing Drug Free Australia
- and again in 2012 on the RS board discussing Lancet papers for this same purpose.

It is unfortunate that we failed to find a way agreeable for this editor to contribute to the mutual satisfaction of all involved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I meant by "hasty". If there is evidence of disruptive editing over a long period of time, then that should be brought before the community. But I notice that neither of the two edit warring reports were deemed worthy of a block. StAnselm (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Minphie has edited for four years without a single block. It seems strange to block him indefinitely with the rationale "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia". StAnselm (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if he had confined his disruption to his own editing, it would make sense to try a shorter block before escalating to indefinite. However, in this case, the user himself has already invoked the "nuclear option" by recruiting meatpuppets off-wiki. The severity of the response is not surprising. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidLeighEllis: - Riiight, so we should just indef him/her, with "torches and pitchforks", before he/she has even had an opportunity to respond to the issue? There is no evidence that what they might have done off-wiki, has led to any disruption on-wiki. This block is unnecessary and waaay over the top, It should be lifted until there is an actual reason to block. - ^theWOLFchild 05:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minphie haven't been blocked before, but there have been no shortage of reasons. Just the other week at Talk:Insite he wrote: "Do you not want Wikipedia to reflect absolutely founded fact? /.../ If my text tells the truth on Wikipedia, why do you think that you should sanitise it according to your own private sympathies?" This way of arguing is typical of Minphie. He wants the "truth" to be told. When people - of other "truths" - try to explain that Wikipedia is not about "truth", but of giving a picture of what the most reliable sources say, he call the reasoning bogus and reverts. Would this be the only problem, an escalation of sanctions from short to more severe until he understands the basic principles of Wikipedia would be the right thing to do. But I share opinion of DavidLeighEllis and other. It is to much now. It has gone to far. Steinberger (talk) 08:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose block. Per comments by Sgerbic, whose group I am not a member of, who I would not know unless woolly thinkers hadn't complained about the good work they do, and make up stories about work that they haven't done ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 08:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me you are solely voicing your opinion based on the fact that you sympathise with their cause, and completely fails to adress the matter of off-site canvassing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask Saddhiyama on what basis you make your silly conclusions about how I think regarding the cause of the subject of this discussion? What part of my contribution here leads you to make such a statement - please do tell me?. For the record, you are quite wrong in this regard, and I assume equally wrong in your comments below. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was based on the fact that you failed to adress the actual issue of canvassing, but managed to mention that "woolly thinkers" complained about "the good work they do" as a defence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired. Nevermind, I'm sure most here understood what I said. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you still did not address the issue at hand. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to second Saddhiyama in apparently failing to comprehend your "simple English," in that my understanding of what you said (and didn't say) is identical to his. Also, silly comments like "your silly conclusions" and "your comprehension of simple English leaves a lot to be desired" are silly indeed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support block. From the document: "What those fighting for a drug free world need at present is a group of around ten committed Wikipedia contributors who are willing to take the time on a daily or weekly basis to put our perspectives onto Wikipedia while keeping within its rules, and also ensure that the weight of numbers in conflict resolution forums on Wikipedia are not always on the drug-liberal side". While they do take care to state that meatpuppets should be "keeping within its rules", the rest of that sentence is a very clear breach of WP:MEAT: "Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate", thus making their disclaimer void, since the recruitment document is in itself a breach of policy. This obvious breach of policy seems not to have been noticed by a lot of the commenters above. This is not comparable to Wikipedia projects and the fact that they may have problems recruiting willing editors does not change the fact that it is a violation of policy. And regarding the comments about the document being fake: you are clearly grasping at straws here, since the link is from the official website of the group in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that quote comes from the part added as a preamble to what Minphie wrote? If so, we have no evidence that Minphie was aware of the preamble apparently added by someone from DFA. Looking at the part actually attributed to Minphie, I see some poor advice but I don't see a call for meatpuppetry and tag-team editing. I think an indef on Minphie on the sole evidence of the last two and a bit pages of the PDF is unwarrented. Other editing of Minphie's may justify it, I don't know, and I disagree both with what DFA seem to want to do and with the "truth" they wish to stuff into WP, but the evidence to date is not being evaluated in a balanced way, in my opinion. EdChem (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it an extreme stretch to suggest that the user was not intimately involved with the production of the notice. Preamble or not, this is the user's document. I do think that Minphie was trying to stay within the lines of policy but probably stepped out. A block is fine but I am not convinced it should be an indef block. JodyB_talk 12:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is as unlikely as the claims about the document being a fake. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support block This is a blatant breach of WP:MEAT. Do we know with absolute certainty which portions of that document Minphie did or did not write him/herself? Of course not. We also don't know with absolute certainty whether two different registered user accounts, voting the same way at an AfD, and sharing an IP address, are actually sockpuppets of the same person, and yet admins still aggressively intervene in these scenarios because they're all ducks. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Minphie posted an unblock request on his talk page, which has now been declined. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support block with Comment - He has confirmed the flyer is his, and therefore has admitted to meat puppetry. He has less than 500 edits, has come here with a very narrow pov focus and has a talk page full of warnings and past incidents. A block is required. But with that said, it should not be indef. He should clearly acknowledge wrong doing, give a clear indication that he understands the goals and objectives of the project, and should promise to abide by the rules. I would suggest 72 hours, followed by a topic-ban on all related articles. He should be given another chance to prove himself... if he wants one. - ^theWOLFchild 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose block of Minphie (or of Petrarchan47 on the flip side). One canvassing sentence that may or may not have been by him/her offsite does not justify any kind of block. No evidence has been presented of disruption on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the articles in question do seem to suffer from non-compliance with WP:MEDRS, as discussed below. However per the recent AE consensus we can't do anything about biased editors, so there, pound sand. (By the way, simply by coincidence I have been recently working on an unrelated article that was the product of the recently AE-enshrineed wikitheory that all it takes to get a NPOV article is enough POV pushers with opposing views. The practical results of this that I've see are more like oodles of contradictory and unreferenced statements in articles. Of course, in the drug case discussed here, it's a bit more refined than that as in "my sources are (of course) reliable/appropriate and yours (of course) aren't". I'm not saying anything new here, I've read this in a wiki essay, although I can't remember the link. Can anyone help?) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the policy on meatpuppetry (I have quoted it in my post above as well), which has no clause about there having had to be "disruption on Wikipedia". Offsite canvassing is the sanctionable offence, so yes there is indeed plenty of justification for a block. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update on cannabis suite

Adding to my previous concerns about WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:MEAT with frequent references to "our team" and "your team" (that is, distinguished by those using WP:MEDRS and those not), see Petrarchan47 comments including but not limited to: "...I have a biochemist friend who studies cannabinoids, and who has agreed to join us in working on these articles ... " and "I am also calling in some scientists/researchers in the field, and as your team also has a doctor, I don't see how this could be viewed as a problem, or as anything but a great benefit to our readers." There is more of same. Of course new editors will be helpful if they follow policy and guideline, but I point out that the off-Wiki recruiting is not limited to this Australia group.

I continue plugging through this suite of articles, attempting to replace the numerous outdated primary sources with recent MEDRS-compliant secondary reviews,[14] but the task is monumental as the suite of articles at {{cannabis}} is chock full of outdated and cherry-picked primary sources, when there are numerous recent secondary reviews available. For my work, Petrarchan47 has continued to label my edits as POV (see above in this section), and continues to fail to engage on either article or user talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to Petra's activity on these articles, I also noticed today a new editor, MarkyRamone92. [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangest removal, considering the thread above: [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Australians have so far been a no-show, but we have Petrarchan47 gearing up to train her recruits. [17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Another SPA POV-pushing and edit warring at Bukharan Jews, WP:NPA on article Talk page

Special:Contributions/Coolforschool
User_talk:Coolforschool

Maybe this user is a new SPA account of an IP recently edit warring on the same article, as he almost seems to lay claim to the latter's edits.

He has been attempting to restore the same material, after I went through the trouble of opening a thread here and then at RS/N Archive_160#Bukharan_Jews.2C_lost_tribes.2C_etc. here.

I've tried to accommodate the content related concerns of the SPA within the scope permissible by the RS here and here, but that didn't seem to appease them. Please refer to the recent edits and the article talk page, where his first edits appear to include personal attacks. I had thought to report him for edit warring, but brought this here in light of the comments on the article talk page.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted all of the recent edits to the last stable version of the article. Including yours, Ubikwit. Epicgenius (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Let's see if the editor I filed this against responds. The two edits of mine that you ended up reverting were edits that I made after deciding to look more thoroughly at the NYT article to see if there was anything there that would support some of the points of concern being raised. I think that including the POV in the edit from the Background section is important insofar as it balances the other POV (inclusion of Ashkenazi in demographics related to Bukharan Jews). The edit in the cuisine section is relevant to the cultural distinction the SPAs arriving at the article have been vehement about asserting. The SPAs are violating policy by tendentiously pushing a unilateral POV over and against RS, but there is a balance to be achieved by incorporating the various POV insofar as there are reliably sourced statements supporting them.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ubikwit was blocked by User:Toddst1 for one week for edit warring on Bukharan Jews. I feel that it is excessive: he involved the new user into discussions on the talk page and he was trying to get 3d opinion here. Maybe it would be more appropriate to protect the article for a while and give users chance to settle their arguments on the talk page? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries like this make it abundantly clear that Ubikwit knew s/he was edit warring. That was the 4th time s/he reverted the same edit by Coolforschool. Ubikwit has been blocked 4 times for edit warring and knows the drill. That's the excessive part. Classic WP:BOOMERANG.

Note that CFS continued the edit war after I warned him/her and is now blocked as well. Toddst1 (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson has extended the block of Ubikwit and removed talk page privs. Toddst1 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User: Anjooraan

I was looking at the recent changes a few days ago, and found a couple of problematic articles by the same person. Normally I'd nominate such articles for WP:Speedy, and have a quick glance at the user talk page to see if they needed help. When I looked at User talk:Anjooraan, I found a mountain of deletion notifications, and no evidence at all they had even looked at their user talk page (certainly no edits there). I asked what to do in the Teahouse, and they advised me to come here - it's certainly over my head.

In an editing career that appears to date back no further than the 23rd of November they have listed on their talk page:

24 nominations listed under WP:SPEEDY (A7 and Copyright violation)
6 Nominations listed under WP:PROD
3 other deletion nominations
At least one copyright violation

At least one of the speedies was for a page that had been deleted once under speedy deletion and recreated by Anjooraan. It's a pity because they seem enthusiastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonchameleon (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Wow. I see absolutley zero talk page edits during their short but rather busy time here on Wikipedia. I would suggest a short block to try and get their attention. If they decide to communicate after that, then the block can be lifted. Otherwise, if they continue the disruptive behavior after the block has expired, then an indef will likely be in order. Admiral Caius (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there multiple copyvios involved (I count 6 G12 deletions), an immediate indefinite block would be more appropriate. They can be unblocked if they then demonstrate understanding of the copyright policy and the other concerns. MER-C 03:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a block is in order. This editor shows no signs of competence and discusses nothing with other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with a block, but I noticed that the user was never warned, so I did just that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were, although I wasn't as clear as I might be in my article title Neonchameleon (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tedious. I've just nominated a page of his for Copyright Violation again. Worse yet he'd had SOMAN BABY deleted so he just recreated it at Soman Baby. I've also found plagiarism on an article of his that's up for deletion (but the rest are all clean according to google). Neonchameleon (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, WP:IDHT is an understatement. S/he is clearly not here for the good of the project. (And NC, sorry about the warning mix-up earlier.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given multiple instances of this nature and the precedents, a block is probably the best option. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 02:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this thread dragged on so long before getting an admin's attention. Sorry about that. Blocked indef until they start communicating. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alansohn

Alansohn is reminded of previous issues with civility (not just imagined by enemies, but fairly widespread agreement), and warned to keep edit summaries innocuous. Alansohn and Coffee both advised to dial it back a few notches. If problems persist, next step would be an RFC/U. Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well I hate to resort to this noticeboard for anything, but at this point I need some fellow admin/editor assistance before I blow a gasket. So in the interest of me not doing that, let me give those who haven't been following this issue a little back story:

Back in 2009 an editor (User:Levineps) was on a category creation/tagging rampage. This rampage was simply creating a ridiculous amount of work for others to cleanup after, and after it went on for a while it became very disruptive to the community. So, he was warned several times to stop it, and failed to listen time and time again until he was finally sanctioned by the community and formally banned by myself after this discussion. As you can see from Levineps' userpage, this still did not stop the over-categorization. Indeed, he had to be blocked several times for continuing to do so (despite his continuous straight faced lie that he thought they had expired). Then, it seems once he noticed the ban was always going to be enforced, he decided to use a sockpuppet to evade the ban (User:Oriole85). From this account he created ~1,750 categories, in a one month time span from 5 Nov to 5 Dec. He also proceeded to make thousands of rather quick edits (using HotCat) to tag several thousand pages into these categories, within this same time frame. This was noticed within a month's time (by User:Jrcla2, and then brought to my attention), and this sockpuppet was subsequently blocked by myself. I then reverted almost all of his edits, and proceeded to summarily delete all of his category creations (as noted here). Of course, during this damage control session there were several confused editors wondering why the reversions were happening, and they all (much to my obvious chagrin) came by my talk page to inquire as to the cause. Most of them seemed to understand the actions being taken, that they were done in accordance with policy, and that the reversions/deletions could be undone on a case-by-case basis if seen fit (even Purplebackpack89, an editor I've been known to not necessarily get along with, had the good graces of leaving edit summaries that pointed out why that particular category was appropriate and should be added back ['Twas appreciated pbp]). Most of them except User:Alansohn that is. Alansohn decided to go on a soapbox where he knew best, and where everything I was doing was somehow systematically destroying Wikipedia. We got into quite the back and forth on my talk page (still there) which ended in less than optimal terms considering his refusal to listen to my reasoning behind the actions, or perhaps the several previous ANI discussions that had taken place around the banned editor (including the disruptive micro-splitting of categories by the banned editor, which many an untrained eye can miss). He then took a few of the categories to WP:DRV where he was told by Spartaz (closing admin) that he was being disruptive. Well, sadly this was still not the end of Alansohn's behavior. Now Alansohn is reverting my reversions/deletions with simply wondrous edit summaries like "revert disruptive edit by User:Coffee", "undo another disruptive edit by User:Coffee", "Reverted needless edit by Coffee (talk) to last version by Oriole85", "recreate another needlessly deleted category", "recreate yet another category whose deletion has disrupted Wikipedia", or just using rollback against policy.

Now I think we can all agree that even a broken clock is right two times a day, and that likewise there are most likely some useful contributions in the heaping pile of over-categorization by Levineps (as there had been before). This is why I've stated (even at the DRV) that I was fine with my edits being undone, or pages being re-created for this purpose. But I think we can also agree that there's a difference between good faith edits bringing categories/tags back that were actually useful, and what's happening here. I will state again that I'm completely fine with cats being added back if seen fit, but I will also state that I don't appreciate being attacked on dozens of pages across the site. Anyways, that's all I have folks. Have I lost it, or am I somewhere on the right track? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Alansohn using edit summaries on hundreds of different pages to scream about how awful and "disruptive" and "destructive" you are amounts to a personal attack on you. Reyk _YO! 23:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree this amounts to personal attacks, and not appropriate as edit summary. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This calls for a temporary block if these are personal attacks. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never dealt with an administrator who has not only been rude and nasty, but has worked so hard to disrupt this encyclopedia in his efforts to spite User:Oriole85. I don't know Oriole85 (or LevinePS) nor any of his associated sockpuppets. I saw Coffee's deletions while it was going on and pleaded with him to stop, becoming the sixth of about a dozen other users who approached him on his talk page and elsewhere. The from Rikster2 and this from Orangemike asking "Please help me understand what on Earth you thought you were doing" which earned this reply from Coffee saying "You're the 5th person to not take the time to see that the user that made those edits was banned" and the edit summary "jesus how hard is this", and Coffee's response to me that "I think you're talking out of your ass." is a classic. Coffee repeatedly refused to respond to requests from multiple editors in multiple contexts to stop, take a break and listen to the community and he has repeatedly refused to help solve the problem, hiding out for a few days and failing to respond to repeated messages, but now he has time for ANI. Coffee's disruption has resulted in the deletion of hundreds of articles and left thousands of articles miscategorized. It's great that Coffee is willing to allow other editors to undo the damage he caused, but his damage is already done. I've tried to undo his edits, but the size and scope of the harm he has caused through his actions make the task of reverting thousands of edits nearly impossible to do manually. I fully support any effort to undo Coffee's damage and I am over and done with this effort on my part, and have been for hours; I can't be bothered to waste time beyond the reverts I've already made. I would have supported using ANI to deal with Coffee's abusive actions, but he has finally come to the table and if he acts in good faith to assist in the recovery from his We had to destroy the village to save it approach, the damage to Wikipedia may well be recoverable. Alansohn (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before and I will say it again: after someone has removed a blocked editor's edits, it is completely inappropriate for another editor to come along after the removal and restore them. It's a form of proxying for the banned editor. The exemption in our proxying rules about having an "independent reason" are there to allow people to restore edits on articles that they normally work on without having to jump through hoops to avoid duplicating a good edit, not to enable people to chase down reversions of a banned editor and try to restore them.—Kww(talk) 00:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I came across at least a dozen edits by Oriole85 and subsequent reverts by Coffee through my watchlist. It took me about 15 seconds to figure out Coffee was reverting the edits of a banned editor. I can't fathom how Coffee's behavior could be viewed as "worked so hard to disrupt this encyclopedia" by any stretch of the imagination or even disruptive at all. In stark contrast, it's pretty easy to see how Alansohn has been seriously disruptive and downright dickish. Not cool. Toddst1 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

upon reading the recent discussion I agree with Toddst1. if Alansohn can't recognize that he is using personal attacks as an experienced editor, this should be considered for appropriate action. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I can't at all agree with Kww above. Frankly i find the idea of automaticlly reverting edits simply because they were made by a banned editor perverse and undesireable, and I equally dislike restoring them automatically. The test should be te quality of the edit, not the person who made it. But I no way does policy limit restoration to "regular editors" of a given page. Any editor who, in good faith, thinks that a given edit improves the project and is willing to take responsibility just as if s/he had made it originally is free to do so. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above said, the edit summaries quoted above are really not acceptable, whatever the merits of the edits. I'm not that much into categorization, and I have no opinion on the merits or lack of merits of any of these category edits. But I think it is dubious to mass-revert them without individual consideration (which it sounds to me as if Coffee is doing, and even less desirable to make personal attacks in edit summaries when restoring them -- the summery should explain why the particular edit is a good idea, in the opinion of the editor making it. DES ^(talk) 00:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, DES. I don't understand the reaction to revert thousands of edits by a blocked user without considering whether they were appropriate or not. It seems knee-jerk to me. I can see why editors posted alarmed messages. I can't condone the nasty comments and edit summaries though which apparently happened on both sides. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The original ban centered around Levineps making a huge amount of overly specific categories that had the effect of splitting useful, well-populated cats into a profusion of trivial, poorly-populated ones. This made navigation harder instead of easier. The ban evading sockpuppet was repeating the same behaviour. From looking at Coffee's edits, it is clear to me that the majority of the reverts improved the articles. I think we're at a strange place when we start defending ban evading sockpuppets who make a million unproductive, indiscriminate edits but condemn the administrator who reverts them. Reyk _YO! 01:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Liz/DES: I also agree that mass reversions of a banned editor are not the optimal solution and I completely agree with the philosophy behind that, but we're talking about literally thousands of edits and nearly 2,000 categories that were created to deliberately subvert a ban over a months time. It would be impossible to look at every individual edit/page and determine within a reasonable amount of time whether these were appropriate or not. So the only reasonable course of action here was to rollback everything, and wait for actually good contributors to this project to make the necessary edits. Yes this isn't optimal, but it was necessary as the community here had already told Levineps to stop doing this so actions like mine wouldn't have to be taken, hopefully ever. (Although keep in mind these edits only took place over a months time, so I find it hard to believe that returning things to the way they were a month ago is such a Bad Thing™.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issues regarding mass reverts DES raises are exactly my concerns. User:Coffee could have mitigated the confusion and frustration by more clearly indicating the reason for his actions in his edit summary and by taking more time to evaluate the risks and benefits of these mass reverts. I thank DES and Liz for their insightful remarks regarding my actions and the trout (and advice) is accepted on my part. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the issues raised by DES don't align well with policy. Bans apply to all editing, good or bad, and reverting is the only way to enforce that. It's not in anyone's interest for anyone to take the time to evaluate a banned editor's edits, and it serves to encourage ban evasion.—Kww(talk) 01:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I neither justify nor defend Oriole85's sockpuppetry. But the community had seen his categories and his edits and the claim that none of them were productive (or Coffee's "even a broken clock is right two times a day") are way off base. There was no clear and present danger. There was no ticking time bomb. With Oriole85 blocked, there was ample time to evaluate the edits and have a clear-headed rational admin take action with community input, which may likely have resulted in keeping a significant portion of the edits. As Coffee has acknowledged, there were close to a dozen editors who asked him to reconsider his actions, and he had ample opportunity to take his foot off the mass revert pedal. If a serial killer is convicted after performing a successful heart transplant on a patient, it might well make sense to give the serial killer the death penalty, but there's little benefit in removing the heart from the patient. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that by evaluating each edit, preserving the good ones and removing the bad ones, you are treating him as if he were not banned at all. While you may not intend to defend his sockpuppetry, every action in that sequence encourages and rewards it.—Kww(talk) 02:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think that the policy Kww cites is poor and I would change it. But until/unless it is changed, it does not in any way prohibit any editor from reinstating such edits if the editor believes in good faith that they improve the project. There is no restriction to 'regular editors of the page" as Kww stated above. Perhaps Coffee was correct that the number of edits involved and the judgement that few of them are useful justified mass reversion. But it seems to me that a more responsive and collaborative tome could have been taken in communication with good-faith editors on the subject, particularly when multiple editors suggested that Coffee pause in the reverts. DES ^(talk) 02:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is consensus, consensus is policy. Administrators enforce the wishes of the community as mediums for/tools of the consensus. They do not use their tools to enforce their own opinions, nor do they stop necessary actions based on the wishes of one editor. Which brings me to my second point: There weren't multiple editors asking for me to pause, reconsider, or stop. There were multiple editors requesting an explanation, but that's not the same thing. Alansohn has flat out lied by saying "As Coffee has acknowledged, there were close to a dozen editors who asked him to reconsider his actions". I never acknowledged that, as it never happened. That aside, while I understand you wish this could have been handled without mass-reverts/deletions (hey, I do too... laboring for two days clicking away at thousands of rollbacks/deletions isn't exactly my cup of tea), I don't see how when we're talking about thousands of bad edits included in that mix. I repeat: My actions did nothing more than reverse the articles/categories to how they were on 4 Nov. Saying we should have had long time consuming collaborative discussions about ~1,750 categories and ~5,000 edits, the vast majority of which were bad and all of which were created in a month by an editor banned explicitly from doing them, just doesn't seem to be a logical choice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence -- and certainly Coffee has failed to provide any -- that every one of these edits was bad. The community had seen Oriole85's edits for a month and until he was caught as a sockpuppet a minute fraction of his edits were challenged, despite the wide scope, breadth and visibility of the articles affected. Policy may be policy, but all Wikipedia policy dictates the use of common sense. No one is turned in a brainless automaton by the dictate of any policy. Taking even a few hours to evaluate the situation and obtain community input, given that the perpetrator was identified and blocked, could have saved Coffee and the entire community a great deal of wasted time and aggravation, and had the potential to save thousands of useful edits and categories. I'd be horrified to wake up tomorrow morning and find that Wikipedia had crashed and been restored to a backup done on November 4, though it seems that Coffee would be fine with that prospect.User:Coffee would be better served by indicating some small measure of self-realization of the problems caused both by his actions and his refusal to respond in good faith to the dozen-odd editors who raised issues with his actions ("You're the 5th person to not take the time to see that the user that made those edits was banned", the edit summary "jesus how hard is this", and Coffee's response "I think you're talking out of your ass."). Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only defense Wikipedia has is to apply WP:DENY. Well-intentioned but essentially clueless onlookers should stop attacking editors (Coffee) who are doing the only thing that can be done to dissuade a banned abuser from further damaging Wikipedia. If a sufficient number of the edits are good, approach the user and suggest they appeal against their ban, but please do not subvert standard operating procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing here since 2006. I do not think that I am "essentially clueless". I have long disagreed with WP:DENY. I don't think it is in any meaningful way a "defense" of Wikipedia. I see no evidence that it in any way reduces the incidence of vandalism or other unhelpful actions. Nor have I attacked Coffee's edits -- I have, however, disagreed with his tone, and with some of the (IMO) incorrect statements of policy by KWW above. I might add that WP:DENY is an essay, albiet one with many supporters. it is not itself policy. DES ^(talk) 14:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restore deleted categories. I'm having trouble working out what is wrong with Category:1845 establishments in Vermont, especially since it is populated. Either we categorize establishments by both year and U.S. State, or we don't. But Category:1845 establishments in New Jersey was created more than a year ago. And I don't think it's over-categorization to include them. So regardless of who created them, let's keep/restore the categories. StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. If the category is a valid one, then by all means recreate it. Blanket reinstating the disruptive work of a sockpuppet, whose sockmaster was banned for doing the exact same thing, is rewarding the abusive behaviour that violated consensus. Sure, a small amount of the categories may well be valid. But when the vast majority are bad, as is the case here, then blanket removal is the right procedure, before reinstating any that may perhaps be valid. Johnuiq's comment is perhaps the best summary. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through User:Oriole85's edits, I see plenty of rather noncontroversial categories being added. Category:Wooden bridges in Vermont (and several other states) appears to be an effective split of a single nationwide category. Category:1869 establishments in New Hampshire is part of a very well-established system of establishments by year and state. The deleted Category:Female models from Michigan includes Kate Upton, and I fail to see how that category is controversial, nor is Category:Sports teams in Buffalo, New York or Category:Sports teams in Boston, Massachusetts or Category:American women television journalists, all of which have orphaned articles pointing to these needlessly deleted categories. Wikipedia policy is not a suicide pact and there was ample opportunity to take even a few moments to consider the possibility of greater harm through the systematic and mindless deletion of these categories. Rather than "a small amount of the categories may well be valid", it appears that the overwhelming majority are not only valid, but their deletion has created loose ends and other problems. CfD works rather effectively to delete bad categories, and there appears to have been no tidal wave of problem categories created by Oriole85 cropping up there in the past month. If the overwhelming majority were invalid, where are they? Where are all the ones that conflict with community consensus? The observation made by User:StAnselm here (and so many other editors during the mass deletions) that we would be better off with these categories rather than with all of them systematically deleted is worthy of consideration now and should have been considered by Coffee and the community before their mass deletion. (Please note: I have changed the title of this section to more clearly reflect the discussion here) Alansohn (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to wonder if you ever read the previous ANI discussions I linked you to multiple times, or even WP:OVERCAT. Category:Sports teams in Buffalo, New York and Category:Sports teams in Boston, Massachusetts are simply unnecessary subcats (as evidenced by the lack of population). And WP:OC#LOCATION specifically calls out categories like Category:Female models from Michigan as it makes no difference what state models are from. Please review our policies before you continuously repeat yourself here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments might stand a shot at CfD, but are a poor excuse for mass deletion. In terms of policy, ~~DRV~~ANI explicitly requires that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Can you point to the diffs where you made an effort to address the problem? Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're making it clearer and clearer that you fundamentally don't understand what's going on here, or you're being deliberately disingenuous to the point of trolling. Take a look at Levineps talk page, or I don't know the umpteen ANI threads where he was told to stop producing these categories. I'm not even going to bother linking you to the dozens if not hundreds of diffs that show he was warned a ridiculous amount of times to stop doing this. Or hey, let's look at the fact that he was banned from making the damn pages. But perhaps we should have just held hands with the editor and kindly asked him to stop a thousand more times... clearly that would have been the best action here. (Also, this isn't DRV.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're making it clearer and clearer that you fundamentally don't understand basic Wikipedia policy. You came here to ANI. ANI policy requires that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." Can you point to your efforts to reach out to me to address your issue. As a stickler for following policy, I'm sure that you had dotted every "t" and crossed every "i" in ensuring that fundamental ANI policy was observed to the letter of the law. One diff would be enough, I can point to a dozen diffs where I and other editors asked you to stop your mass reverts, surely you can point to one of your own. Policy is consensus, consensus is policy. Administrators enforce the wishes of the community and it appears that you have failed to observe policy here. Alansohn (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, your continuous pattern of repeating what I've said back to me is directly disrupting the idea of having anywhere near a positive discourse here. Secondly, I'm not required to do that, especially when it's obvious that me going to your talk page wouldn't have done anything considering your refusal to listen on my talk page (and you don't get to use that as an excuse... if I had not been involved I would have blocked you for personal attacks and disruptive editing). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You not only failed to communicate with me and deleted my attempts to discuss on your talk page the problems that you were causing, you refused to communicate with other editors and summarily deleted their comments as well. I think that you are projecting your refusal to communicate and address issues raised to you and assuming that I (and other editors) would be unwilling to address your concerns. As a law-and-order, rules-are-rules-and-they-must-be-followed, letter-of-the-law admin, you have failed in your obligation to reach out to me on my talk page. This failure to respect policy here at ANI is only part of a pattern of ignoring Wikipedia policy. I understand why you are so anxious to remove your name from the title of this section. Alansohn (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link me to these so called policies. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wooden bridges in Vermont is a good example of what needs reviewing. Since the vast majority, in not all, of these are listed as Category:Covered bridges in Vermont is an additional by state category really needed? Or is including covered bridges in the wooden bridge category at some level suffucent? Not something that we should be answering here, but shows that what some think is a simple change is not really. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm: There are several ways your comment could be interpreted, so let me reply to them all: If the point you're making is that one handpicked category somehow represents all ~1,750 categories, I fail to see what logic you're using to come to that conclusion. If the point you're making is that some of his edits were good, then please make sure to read the entire thread before making a comment, especially when what you're talking about has already been addressed several times. If the point you're making is that this editor and thereby his edits (and yes, it does matter who created them) was a net positive to the site, well not only is that not true but it should mean that you'd be willing to request that Levineps be disbanned. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read through the discussion carefully, and I think you have fundamentally misunderstood the banning policy. WP:BAN has a paragraph specifically about categories and says Categories created by a banned user which may be useful or fit into a larger category scheme should be tagged for discussion and possible merging using the categories for discussion process instead of deleting them outright. This is precisely what you have failed to do. StAnselm (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph also says "Blatantly useless categories can be speedy-deleted, as well as any categories which clearly violate existing category standards." There were over 1,000 of these categories and the overwhelming majority were blatantly useless and violated WP:OCAT. Flooding CFD with hundreds and hundreds of noms would have been just as disruptive as the ban evading sockpuppet's indiscriminate category splitting. It's also interesting that you haven't considered the reason for that paragraph in WP:BAN: that deleting categories can leave pages orphaned. From I've seen, Coffee has not only deleted the trivial categories but also reverted the edits that placed pages in those new categories. This obviously has the effect of merging the minimal splinter categories back into proper ones. Has the process been perfect? No, but there were something like 1,750 categories to see to. I don't think you appreciate the size of the mess; if you did you would not be so hasty to condemn Coffee for taking on the job or so hasty to reward the ban evading sockpuppet for being an unproductive time sink. Reyk _YO! 22:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I don't really see a reason for these edits to be reverted if they are truly constructive. However, it's not the case, as Lukeno94 says above, and it is better in this case to revert first and ask questions later. Epicgenius (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could we ask that Alansohn stop changing the section title to misconstrue this discussion? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion here is primarily about the mass deletion of categories and their potential recreation. I fail to see how a title that neutrally describes the discussion misconstrues anything and is better than a link to a single user name. I still get top billing, but Coffee can have it if he wants it. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Last time I checked, this wasn't a discussion about Coffee's or Levineps's behavior. It was about yours, Alansohn. Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No one poster here can dictate what a given section is "about". All posters are subject to scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Baseball Bugs: What I have described was actually the main topic of this discussion (Alansohn's behaviour), though all comments are free to interpretation. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - (ec)You're not wrong. But the subject of this request for administrator action is User:Alansohn - so it makes sense to identify that editor in the section heading. Now, if Alansohn doesn't like that, then Alansohn should object to the section header and explain why it is inappropriate - then let some other editor who is not involved in the dispute make the change (or not make it). Edit warring over the section heading doesn't do anything other than annoy the very people who are looking at your actions. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I have seen countless times that posters here other than the "subject" end up being blocked due to what's called the "boomerang" effect. Those posting and/or commenting on the complaint don't get to narrow its scope to just what they want. The scope is decided by the admins reviewing the case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Entirely agree, but just because some cars kill people does not mean all cars kill people. But to get back on the actual topic (since what you're talking about isn't what I'm talking about), it is not standard practice here for topic titles to be changed in the middle of a discussion. Especially when that change is obviously being used to draw scrutiny away from the disruptive editor in order to derail the conversation. If you don't see that happening here, you aren't looking close enough (for instance, we wouldn't even be having this discussion). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that edit-warring over a section title is excessive. But it's clear that the topic is not just Alansohn. However, if the title were to be changed, the original title would need to be anchored, to avoid breaking links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Read the lengthy first paragraph from User:Coffee, which is all about Levineps and his behavior, ad nauseum. Coffee's actions have been the primary topic of conversation from the overwhelming majority of the contributors here, and the issues raised regarding his actions in the mass deletion, his ignorance and deletion of comments on his talk page and his failure to comply with ANI policy appear to predominate in the discussion. Again, I'm still willing to keep top billing, even if Coffee is the main topic of conversation here. I understand why Coffee wants to deflect the unwanted scrutiny he has received, but the title I have offered as an alternative is both far more objective and far more accurate in describing the actual conversation here. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic, considering that the change in the title by you is just as much of an attempt to deflect attention as the actions you accuse Coffee of doing... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How on earth is me providing the context of these events in one paragraph, something unpleasurable that has continued to the point of nausea? See folks, this is what I'm talking about. (Also a section title is not "top billing", this isn't theatre.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand the discussion here. WP:DENY is extraordinarily clear, and absolutely critical to making an online, volunteer community work. If someone is forbidden from editing Wikipedia, then they are forbidden, and we must be sure that any edits they make in violation of their block or ban are reverted. Any other stance means that "blocked" no longer means "blocked"--it means, "edit however you want, and place all of the burden on the rest of us for sorting out what's good and what's bad." Coffee is 100% correct to revert all of the sockpuppets edits. Not only does Coffee not have to sort the good from the bad, he deliberately should not attempt to do so. While this may temporarily leave an article without some category that may or may not benefit it, it serves a greater purpose which ultimately makes the encyclopedia better: it helps to persuade the blocked user not to come back, because they need to know that every time they do, every moment of effort they put into Wikipedia will be erased. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DENY is merely an essay. The relevant policy is WP:BAN. StAnselm (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both sides (and then some) have explained at length their positions. Coffee // have a cup made a helluva lot of reversions and Alansohn (and I assume others) chose to revert some of the reversions they disagreed with. And I recall reading somewhere in all of this that Coffee was okay with the fact that some of the edits from the banned editor could be valid contributions and there was a basis for a few reversions.

Since situations like this--where there is a mass rollback of thousands of edits--doesn't happen every day, and it is highly unlikely that either Coffee or Alan are going devote hours to re-reverting thousands of edits, it's not a question of what is to be done next in this situation but what should be done in the future when faced with a similarly prolific banned user. That's a good question to discuss but it seems outside the purview of AN/I which is about taking action on currently disruptive situations. I think this case can be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Someone just alerted me to this thread, and aware of similar problems I've had with AlanSohn, suggested I chime in here. Since the issue involves the accusation of personal attacks and accusations of "disruptive editing", it would appear that my recent dealing with Alan may be relevant. I'll let those assembled here ultimately judge whether they are.

Recently, after I did a large amount of work on the Secaucus, NJ aritcle, AlanSohn reverted it, accusing me editing the citation style of the article in order to on the grounds of personal preference, which is prohibited by WP:CITEVAR, and accused me of disruptive editing, and a copyright violation. However, I did not make the edits in question because of a "personal preference", but to bring it in line with what I believed were established conventions of citation writing. If you're going to accuse someone of a certain intent or state of mind, then you should provide evidence that isn't merely consistent with that supposed state of mind, but points to it to to the exclusion of other possible, less nefarious motives. That's merely empirical, and the decent thing to do. To jump to a conclusion and then attack another editor by such an accusation without said evidence is a clear violation of WP:AGF, and accusing them of "disruptive" editing (a term we usually reserve for serial policy violators, vandals, etc.), is inappropriate. Alan provided no evidence for this supposed state of mind on my part, and refused to point out to me where the "copyvio" was after I asked him. I would've tried to discuss the matter with him, but I'm not really inclined to do so with someone who speaks to me in this way, and Alan made it clear that he would not apologize for or back down from this matter. The relevant talk page discussions are on my my talk page.

This was not the first time Alan attacked me in this manner, or employed all number of logical fallacies, deception, rhetoric, or spin in an attempt to slander me or others in order to argue his case in a disagreement. In July 2012, after I did considerable editing on the Red Bank, New Jersey article, he did a blanket revert of all my edits. However, he claimed that he "tried to restore as much of the material as he could", that "some of my rewording may have gotten lost", that he "tried his best to match my photo placements", that he "was not perfect in retaining my rewording", etc. In fact, he did none of this because comparison of the version before my edits and after he reverted them showed them to be identical; That is, he simply clicked on the version of the article before I edited it and restored it. When I called him on this lie, he tried to report me at ANI for "bad faith", even though I provided the evidence that proved his description of his revert was a lie on his part. (Compare this to his attempt to gauge my state of mind regarding what my "preferences" are, for which he provides no evidence).

Then, this past May, we were involved in another on the Red Bank article, when I properly removed unsourced content from the article, which he called "malicious". I tried to report him at ANI, and in the ensuing discussion, in which he pretty much continued the same behavior with impunity, I discovered his history of attacking others ad hominem, and outlined various other ANI discussions involving him that go back six years. (Search that last link for the phrase "This problem isn’t new"). Nothing was done to him at the end of that discussion (one participant said I should take it offline and have a beer with him. Yeah, you read that right.)

Make no mistake, this will not be the last time ANI will have to deal with him so long as ANI continues to allow him to edit here without putting an end to his violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, etc. I knew when ANI refused to take any action against him for his last violations that it would embolden him to continue and possibly escalate his behavior, and indeed, that's precisely what happened. This will continue if you do not put an end to it. Nightscream (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I do find this relevant, as it seems the same pattern of spouting a ridiculous amount of logical fallacies to confuse well-intentioned onlookers isn't a new thing with him. Nor, are his personal attacks on editors inside of edit summaries. This definitely puts Alansohn's combative editing into perspective. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz: This wasn't about him reverting edits. It was about his personal attacks inside of the edit summaries, disparaging my name on dozens of articles around the site; as well as his use of rollback against policy. Neither of these issues have been addressed here, since Alansohn has succeeded in derailing this conversation almost entirely. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you edit-warring over categories? Who cares about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Coffee. The focus in this discussion has been on the legitimacy of mass-rollbacks of a blocked editor. I don't see much admin action proposed about personal attacks. Have they continued? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coffee's mass deletions and policy violations

The issue is mass deletions and the relevant policy is WP:BAN, which states that "Since categorization can impact many pages, and deletion of a category without merging can leave pages orphaned, you should carefully consider what to do with categories created by a banned user. Blatantly useless categories can be speedy-deleted, as well as any categories which clearly violate existing category standards. Care should nonetheless be taken to see if articles need to be merged to a parent category before the speedy deletion. Categories created by a banned user which may be useful or fit into a larger category scheme should be tagged for discussion and possible merging using the categories for discussion process instead of deleting them outright." User:Coffee's mass deletions left thousands of orphaned articles. There was no careful consideration. There are no "blatantly useless categories". None of the categories were tagged for discussion at CfD. Coffee failed to observe rather clear Wikipedia policy, preferring to endlessly point to WP:DENY, an essay that has no bearing on what must be done. This failure to observe policy is the issue here. WP:ANI requires that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." which Coffee has also refused to observe. This pattern of ignoring policy, over and over and over again, ignoring pleas on his talk page to stop his mass deletions and using personal attacks against those pointing out the problem is the issue here. Coffee's remark "I think you're talking out of your ass" provides a wonderful summary of his actions Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note for passers by:, What Alansohn is deliberately mischaracterizing here (for the umpteenth time with literally the same words, in his effort to derail this conversation) has already been addressed above multiple times. I would like to ask that Alansohn quit repeating himself, over and over and over and over and over again to try to get a different answer or conclusion. Not only is that very close to Einstein's definition of insanity ("doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"), but it is being used to deflect the issues being identified with his editing (and to prevent anything from coming out of this thread). Repeating something 20 billion times, doesn't make it true. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Liz and other editors have pointed out, the prime issue occurring here and now is your mass deletion of categories in violation of Wikipedia policy. You violated WP:BAN in these mass deletions and you violated WP:ANI by failing to address your issues directly on my talk page. Among my 400,000 edits I'm sure there are more that you could dredge up, but your active violation of policy is the problem here and now. As you so eloquently put it, "I think you're talking out of your ass". Alansohn (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how many times are you going to re-use that quote, and remake that argument? (And no, Liz didn't say that. Don't put words in another editor's mouth.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a by-the-book admin, you appear to have blatantly violated WP:BAN in your mass deletion rampage and you persistently refuse to address that policy violation. I recognize that you have been offended by my remarks, and I understand that, but you have failed to acknowledge the role that your policy violations have played in creating your problems here. You used it just days ago and until you come up with an even more offensive personal attack, the "I think you're talking out of your ass" remark seems to capture your attitude that rules apply to everyone else but you. Alansohn (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the violation of policy was not so blatant as you say, otherwise we'd already have gotten the trout from the cooler. You're complaining that articles were orphaned - but they were orphaned before the banned editor came in to edit, and they would have remained orphaned if that banned editor had not violated their ban by editing. Nuking the edits from orbit returns us to the status quo, at which point you can easily reinsert the useful categories and ignore the misguided ones. Or take them to CFD then, if you prefer. I'm still not seeing what administrator action you're looking for here. Do you want us to undelete all of the categories, then go through one by one? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BAN is rather clear, and I encourage you to make the determination for yourself.Coffee's persistent use of the essay WP:DENY to justify his actions has clouded the issue, but WP:BAN is policy, Coffee was required to follow it and his actions have caused the exact type of damage that WP:BAN seeks to prevent. Alansohn (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't believe so - because there is no damage, near as I can tell. These are not long-standing, deeply populated categories we're talking about. And some could easily be re-created, either after discussion or outright. while BAN does control how we proceed, DENY shows us why we delete the edits of banned editors. The concern that started this is the opposite, actually - the accusation was that you were indescriminate in reinstating some of these categories, reversing Coffee without taking the time to consider which ones were worth keeping (and using edit summaries that could be seen as personal attacks, to boot). "He violated policy too" doesn't answer questions about your edits - and we've gotten away from that a bit. Could you have handled this differently? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In rather clear retrospect, with or without Coffee's provocations (a la "I think you're talking out of your ass"), I should have failed to take his bait. I tried to address his issues by pointing to relevant policy, but in the absence of any willingness to respond to these issues, the place to address them was not by manually reverting or using edit summaries. My main regret is in not taking this here to WP:ANI while it was happening, when there might well have been an opportunity to have User:Coffee address the issue with community input. Now isn't too late to deal with the issues, but failure by Coffee to comply with WP:BAN and WP:ANI is worth discussion here. I do hope that Coffee eventually recognizes his role in creating this problem, which could lead to an actual resolution of this matter. Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oriole85 made edits too quickly. However, while most of edits probably needed to be undone, some didn't, and in general they were deleted or undone too quickly. There were a number of categories that were speedily deleted that I would have voted to keep had they been CfDed, and a number of categories that I would have kept rather than removed. While Coffee and I don't agree on anything, one thing we can agree: Alansohn is spilling too much vitriol here. (Full disclosure: I am mentioned above because I stumbled on this situation when Oriole and Coffee edited 160th Regiment State Armory, an article I created). p b p 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't defend Oriole85, but I have raised issues regarding User:Coffee's failure to implement WP:BAN properly in has mass deletions of categories. The status quo required by WP:BAN would leave the categories as they existed before the mass deletion, with discussion at WP:CFD regarding those that should be deleted.Per Liz "I see, Coffee. The focus in this discussion has been on the legitimacy of mass-rollbacks of a blocked editor." I'm sorry to catch Coffee in a blatant lie, but his refusal to take his lead foot off the deletion pedal and to stop to discuss his actions is what has caused the problem in the first place. Alansohn (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coffee's lack of candor in recognizing that his actions in violation of WP:BAN precipitated this issue and his refusal to address his violation of AP:ANI policy are the continuing problem here. Coffee has complained about edit summaries, yet his reply " further note... stop lying" not only makes a personal attack in the edit summary but is his own falsehood. Coffee needs to end his continuing effort to battle and start to acknowledge his own issues. Alansohn (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This problem with Alansohn isn’t new

I'm going to take the liberty now (since Nightscream has enlightened me to this being a recurring issue) of flooding this thread with even more examples that will show why this issue needs to be handled (most likely with a form of community sanctions against Alansohn, which this noticeboard is usually good at drafting) I'm sure Nightscream doesn't mind me partially re-using his content from the previous thread.:

In this September 2007 ANI discussion (started by the admin JzG), Alan was brought forward for using deliberately misleading edit summaries. The ANI participant who gave the most responses in that discussion, Persian Poet Gal, agreed that Alan was guilty of this, while two other editors, User:Fram and User:Wikipediatrix, observed that this was not a new problem with Alan. Eusebeus pointed to a number of recurring tendencies identified in an RFC:

A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration.
A tendency to accuse those who disagree with him of making personal attacks.
A tendency to insist upon the merits of his viewpoint without regard to a consensus or body of opinion that he disagrees with.
A tendency to reinforce his positions with nasty characterisations of those with whom he disagree
A tendency to extreme wikilawyering in discussion, often to the point of disrupting the larger debate.

Sounds like what we're seeing here again folks, wouldn't you agree?

Alan was the subject of a 2007-2008 RfC in which entire lists were compiled showing his personal attacks, AGF violations, misuse of edit summaries, failure to acknowledge his violations and canvassing (which is greatly summarized by the above list).

After these avenues still did not fix his behaviour, the Arbitration Committee placed a one year restriction on Alan for his incivility, personal attacks, violations of AGF, etc in 2008. ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23])

"Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should he make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions." Passed 8 to 0 at 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then once again, in this February 2010 ANI discussion, three editors, postdlf, Good Olfactory and Ncmvocalist observe Alan's problem with incivility, failure to adhere to AGF, personal attacks, making his accusers the subject of attacks, and stonewalling. Eusebeus concurred with this at a related Wikiquette Assistance discussion that same month.

Of course that again did not handle the issues seen with this editor, so once again in May of this year another thread had to be opened on Alansohn's combative behavior. Where I find JzG's summary of Alansohn to be most accurate: "Alansohn has always seemed to em to take Wikipedia issues very personally, and to be heavily emotionally vested in certain content. I am not sure if ArbCom will help, as he does not seem to me to display a talent for self-examination and therefore may be more radicalised by such a confrontational process..."

So, while Alansohn has continuously reversely projected the concerns editors have had with his actions onto the editors raising them (as he's done here again). I think it's obvious when editors are bringing up the same issues (time and time again) about your editing, it's not them who have the problem it's you. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've had to place this discussion back at the bottom of this thread twice now, since Alansohn is once again trying to prevent the issues identified with his behaviour from being discussed (through some cleverly underhanded tactics, I might add). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make that a third time... I would really like if other admins could help me out here, unless you just want me to lose my mind. (For further reference that this is where this should be placed, look at the timestamps.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

I strongly suspect it will be impossible to turn this ANI thread into a useful one by now, and there's too much FUD flying around to get me to try to solve anything, but I'll do the low hanging fruit. Whatever title this ANI thread has, and whatever order the subthreads are in, when I save this message, is the title and order they are going to have from now on, "fair" or not. Stop edit warring about it or you will be blocked. Also, the next time either @Coffee: or @Alansohn: says the other is being "sneaky", a "liar", "acting typically" or in "bad faith", or anything similar, they will be blocked. I doubt this thread will ever amount to anything even if you both start acting professionally, but I know for sure it won't if you don't. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen this done before, but does anyone think it would be a good idea to ban Coffee and Alansohn from this thread for 24 hours, to see if something productive can be discussed in their absence? Or close this as an irreparable mess? Or make it an RFC? Or is everyone having fun and want to just carry on as is? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Every single one of Coffee's 16 edits today has been to this lone page. I have tried to build articles today, but leaving his claim's unaddressed is counterproductive. I am willing to stay away from this thread for 24 hours (or longer) as long as User:Coffee is willing to exercise the same restraint. Alansohn (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would certainly have to be mutual. But since I've never seen this done, I'm not imposing it, I'm asking other (preferably uninvolved) people to say whether they think it's a good idea. Alternately, if Coffee agrees too, then ~~it will just be voluntary~~ I'll go ahead and "impose" it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly my concerns are being treated as bullshit by Floquenbeam, and now my stress level has reached it's max. And what the hell point was he making by saying all of my edits today have been here? I have two full time jobs (CASA/USAF) for christ sake. I didn't have time to write or build articles today because I was running around making sure that my airmen and our nuclear mission was being taken care of, and that I'm ready for court this Friday to ensure the children in the case are properly taken care of. And of course that just went unnoticed by Floquenbeam, giving credence to that comment because clearly everything's just equal here. I'm... speechless. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you take a Wikibreak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee has done the three things required in order for a problem to be dealt with on wikipedia - he has identified what the problem is, he has said why Alansohn's actions are causing the problem, and he has provided supporting diffs. Policy and general convention is clear on edits by banned editors/sockpuppets. I suggest the quickest way to deal with this is topic ban Alansohn from category related edits for a month while Coffee gets the work done. If he wants to start putting all those useless cats back after that, well then we can have another loooooong discussion. The discussion about how to treat edits by banned/sockpuppets is just a distraction. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god someone gets it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Only in death, and still feel that Alan hasn't stopped at anything to try and deflect the attention away from his own actions, past and present; be it deleting evidence of his own poor behaviour, or making clearly unfounded (or, in some cases, downright false) allegations. That said, I agree with BMK that it may be worth taking a Wikibreak sometime soon Coffee; it seems like you've had enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts, FWIW, after wading through a yucky thread and several Special:Contribs and a messy grey area:

Coffee:

Mass revert of Oriole85: Seems to be within policy; some would do it, some wouldn't, but certainly a reasonable interpretation of BAN.
Dealing with effect of mass reverts on articles: Probably not optimal, but this is a short term problem that from what I understand he is working further on as he has time, and others are welcome to help too.
Dealing with people on his talk page who questioned/disagreed: Disappointingly aggressive
Dragging in unrelated stuff, arguing about thread order, repetition of the same arguments, and aggression on this thread: Yuck
Not wanting to take a break from the back and forth: Disappointing

Alansohn:

Disagreement about mass revert: A reasonable position, although consensus is probably slightly to Coffee's advantage
Reverts of some of Coffee's reverts: Acceptable, as long as each one was thought about and determined to be a good edit, which from what I've looked through seems to be the case
Edit summaries used during some of those reverts: Not acceptable. I note that he hasn't done this again since the ANI thread started.
Claims that Coffee violated BAN and ANI rules: Incorrect
Dragging in unrelated stuff, arguing about thread order, repetition of the same arguments, and aggression on this thread: Yuck
Reverting comments here when asked: Promising

Suggested actions:

Coffee's reverts are confirmed to be a reasonable, imperfect solution because there are no perfect solutions
I don't see a need to ban Alansohn from categories for a month, as long the edit summaries remain neutral, and he restores any edits because he's looked though them, and is taking ownership of them. If a large portion of these are found to be problematic, then let's talk about that, but I don't see any obviously problematic ones.
Alan is reminded of previous issues with civility (not just imagined by enemies, but fairly widespread agreement), and warned to keep edit summaries innocuous and to, you know, not make mountains out of molehills and occasionally let something slide. Out of self interest, if nothing else.
Acknowledge Alan stopped with the dumb edit summaries, and thank him for being willing to disengage here
Someone whose opinion Alan respects has a quiet word to dial it back a few notches
Someone whose opinion Coffee respects has a quiet word to dial it back a few notches

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree -- in some cases fervently so -- with some of the characterizations, though I'm sure that Coffee will feel the same way. Though it's never a pretty sight when the baby is cut on half, and arguing about how the baby was carved up seems rather inappropriate at this point. I am willing to abide by Floquenbeam's suggestions and I hope to respect the spirit of the recommendations made here. Alansohn (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to block disruptive user Medeis

Wickwack paddywack, give a troll a bone, this old thread needs closing down--Jayron32 02:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[I posted this request here yestertday, but it dissappeared within seconds. I thought it was a software glitch so I posted it again. Aagin it was deleted within seconds. Checking history showed it was deleted both times by "AdmiralCaius". I asked politely on his talk page why he deleted it. He deleted that question there as well, without comment. Deletion here without comment is not helpful, proves nothing, and achieves nothing. Is AdmiralCaius another name for Medeis? I have posted here again. I note that others have continued to complain about Medeis on the Reference Desk talk page under heading How to answer questions. We can all do without the need to rebuke Medeis. I really cannot understand why Medeis is allowed to continue. Just from the comments by others currently on the Referance Desk talk page, he clearly has a bad reputation]

Recently, a user, SteveBaker (not the problem user), posted a flowchart under heading How to answer questions on the Reference Desk talk page, (http://en.wkipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/Science#How_to_answer_questions) with a request for comment. It attracted a disrespectful comment from user Medeis beginning "This seems a rather obvious ... way of [stopping] those who think it should be hatted ... when Baker and others really really want to answer it." Later, Medeis attempted to get the flow chart deleted.

I contributed several posts, along with others, in what I consider a constructive way. Discussion ensued with some users supporting and/or agreeing with me, and some disagreeing with reasons given, which of couse is fine. It is clear from several posts under this heading and elsewhere that people, even if they hold different views to me, consider my contributions constructive, and they have no problem with it. Medeis deleted most of my posts, leaving the comment "Comment by banned user removed”. I am not aware that I am a banned user. I have no reason to believe I am a banned user. It seems clear to me that Medeis has deleted my posts in order to stifle or skew discussion - the same reason he wanted SteveBaker's flowchart deleted.

Another user thinks I am someone they call Wickwack. I am not Wickwack, whoever Wickwack may be. Apparently I live in the same country (Australia), and share the same ISP (who has millions of other customers) as Wickwack. This is no great problem, except perhaps that it provides Medeis with a convenient unjustified excuse without providing any proof.

I note that Medeis is very active at hatting and deleting all manner of posts on Reference Desk, not just mine, and only sometimes justified (i.e., only some are obvious trolls, provision of medical advice, and the like). It is a major contribution surely leading to a poor reputation of the Reference Desk in the community at large, along with Medeis's sometimes personally abusive posts (for example, the comment against SteveBaker above, quite unjustified). I cannot understand why sanctions have not been taken against Medeis some time ago. A search of Reference Desk project and talk page archives shows many users commenting adversely about Medeis.

Since Medeis is disruptive, a deletion vandal, and a major contributor to bad vibes, can Medeis be banned/blocked please?

In accordance with Wikipedia policy, I attempted to notify Medeis on his talk page. However there is no Edit or New Section tab on his talk page!

RJB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.87.169 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There actually is an Edit and a New Section at Medeis page. There is much discussion including a discussion of ANI issues. I am unsure about the rest although it is clear that Admiral Caius did delete the posting thinking you are a banned user. Perhaps he can supply the diff to that decision? JodyB_talk 01:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history for this can largely be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#WP:GAME violations at Ref Desks using multiple identities from multiple_IP_addresses. That section also links to a sockpuppet investigation page. I personally am completely confident that the IP posting here is, in fact, WickWack aka Ratbone. One of his favorite ways to troll has always been to pretend to be several different people. His IP changes to quickly, and covers too many ranges, to really bother blocking. Not disrptive enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although this IP is not named it is from the same pool in Australia. The evidence at Someguy's diff is enlightening. I think I may hear quacking in the distance. JodyB_talk 01:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Someguy. Other editors will note this is the third time the banned IP user has posted this in 24 (if not more, I haven't checked), it was reverted before by an editor who left a message on my talk page. His behavior has been discussed recently at the Ref Desk talk page under a header "wickwack" and throughout, with the point of his banning and the appropriateness of summarily reverting his edits mentioned repeatedly. I intend to unwatch this, and I suggest it be archived. Please leave a message on my talk page if my attention is needed agin. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liang1a not going beyond complaints of prejudice against China to discuss contested edits to ADIZ articles

I rarely if ever take the initiative to try to get help solving an issue with another editor here but User:Liang1a has refused to substantively engage on the Talk pages with regard to the particulars of what this editor wants. The editor has only edited two articles in recent years and a typical edit in recent days is to just add "The baseless carpings by countries hostile to China such as Japan are nothing more than deliberate demonization of China" to an article. Maybe the cultural gap here as to Wikipedia's norms and purpose is just so wide that the problem is rather unprecedented in my experience. May I suggest an admin either admonish this user to either discuss the objections raised on article Talk pages and address the points at issue or alternatively restrict editing to the article(s) or by the editor until such time as there is further specific content-focused engagement with other editors?--Brian Dell (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original text was: "The announcement of the zone drew attention and international criticism, especially from Japan and the U.S." It is obvious that "international criticism" is a subjective term insinuating that the whole world is condemning China. Obviously, the Chinese ADIZ is a political event that those countries hostile to China wish to exploit to demonize China. I don't know that the "norm" at Wikipedia is to allow partisans to use it for political ends. If it is permitted to insinuate the whole world is against China then surely it is permitted to refute it with :"The baseless carpings by countries hostile to China such as Japan are nothing more than deliberate demonization of China". Which, incidentally, is absolutely true. Furthermore, the term "carping" was used by an article published by Global Times which is an authoritative publication in China reflecting the sentiments of the Chinese government. "Carping and irresponsible remarks about China establishing its own ADIZ are of no value at all."^[1] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/827925.shtml Therefore, I was not merely expressing my personal opinion when I used the term "carping" but quoting sourced material. As a compromise, I will agree to "The announcement of the zone drew attention and expressions of discontent from some countries, especially from Japan and the U.S." Liang1a (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Brian Dell or somebody, has been deleting my posts as quoted below:

It is not true that US ADIZ regulations do not require filing flight plans for those aircrafts that fly through the US ADIZ but do not enter US sovereign airspace. The US ADIZ rules are as follows: ^[2] http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• In North America, the US and Canada are surrounded by an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ), which is jointly administered by the civilian air traffic control authorities and the militaries of both nations, under the auspices of the North American Aerospace Defense Command or NORAD.^[3]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• The joint US/Canadian ADIZ, which is almost exclusively over water, serves as a national defense boundary for aerial incursions.'^[4]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Any aircraft that wishes to fly in or through the boundary must file either a Defense Visual Flight Rules (DVFR) flight plan or an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) flight plan before crossing the ADIZ (14 CFR 99.11). ^[5]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

While approaching and crossing the North American ADIZ, aircraft must have an operational radar transponder and maintain two-way radio contact. (see 14 CFR 99.9 & 99.13) ^[6]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

• In the United States, the FAA handles the requests of international aircraft and Transport Canada handles Canadian requests.^[7]http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

Any aircraft flying in these zones without authorization may be identified as a threat and treated as an enemy aircraft, potentially leading to interception by fighter aircraft. ^[8] http://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

There is no justification to deleted sourced material. I hope admin will ask Brian Dell to stop deleting it.Liang1a (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original research / personal opinion in his edits are blatantly obvious, so I've given him a final warning. If he wants to grind his axe, he can do it somewhere else. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Someguy1221 an admin? Does he have the authority to give me warnings?Liang1a (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea but it doesn't matter. Anyone can give you a warning. You should take it on board and if it's deserved, make sure you stop the problematic behaviour. If problematic behaviour continues after several warnings, you may need to be blocked to protect wikipedia. (We don't need warnings before blocking if your behaviour is bad enough but it's normal best practice since it helps give us confidence we do have to block someone as they should know about the problems they are causing but aren't apparently going to stop.) Only an admin will be able to block you in the end, but who gave you the warnings doesn't generally matter. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific - yes, he is an administrator, and yes, he has authority to issue a final warning to a disruptive user. Anyone technically can issue such warnings, but admins can act upon them, and generally treat such warnings from other admins as more solidly valid than those issued by normal editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know Someguy221 is an admin?Liang1a (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See here: [24]. And then think about actually responding to the issues raised about your editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Liang1a to Georgewilliamherbert: So, someguy1221 is actually an administrator. That scares me to death - NOT! If this is the quality of Wiki administrator then my opinion of Wiki is much less. I've attempted to give a balanced view of the issue. But it is obvious that Wiki is adament to block me. So go ahead and block me. Posting to Wiki is not the crowning achievement of my life as it seems to be to someguy1221. I've read and refuted the confused and arrogant bigots who keep lying about what third party evidence is. I'll try again to refute them and then I'll stop wasting my time. It's Wiki's loss if it is seen as partisan.

If you stole a car then your testimony is first party. If I witnessed your theft then my evidence is third party evidence. The car itself is just the stolen property and not evidence to prove innocence or guilt. By the same token, the issue is about whether US ADIZ requires filing of flight plan. Therefore, what American media said are first party evidence. And the US ADIZ rules posted by FAA is like the stolen car and is neither first nor third party evidence. It is simply necessary to be shown so that people know what the issue is. How can you talk about what the US ADIZ rules are without looking at them?

I've wasted enough time. It is not worth my while to waste any more of my time. There are plenty of other forums for me to express myself. This also reflects the situation in E. China Sea. After decades of seeking Americn approval and support, Chinese leaders have finally come to the realization that it is pointless to waste its time to gain the support of the US. Hence its declaration of the ADIZ in E. China Sea as a way to tell America that it is no longer important to China.

Keep your precious propaganda mill. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you just serve as a mouthpiece for American propaganda. For me to give a balanced view to your articles helps you and not me. I've not done much editing at all in the past. So not being able to edit Wiki articles is no loss to me. And I have many other things to do to give me more satisfaction than arguing with bigots. Liang1a (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liang1a, you cite to the same source seven times here, but you could cite seventy times and it does not resolve the matter if your source is disputed. Calling attention to a source does not resolve the issue if contradicted by other sources or if, as here, the sources don't in fact conflict but the devil is in the details as opposed to the broad strokes one finds in the Powerpoint show your repeatedly refer to. Just why your source, or more precisely how you are using it, is problematic is laid out on the relevant article Talk pages. It requires more patience all around to work through more complex material and frequently more discussion as well. There is actually a certain logic to how Wikipedia works but to appreciate it one has to stop and analyze the nature of the resistance encountered instead of just taking another charge at it. Veteran editors are less likely to be treated as hotheads than newcomers not because their temperaments are fundamentally different but because they've learned over time how to tiptoe through the turnips and get things done. Just speaking as another editor, while I'd see your proposal to change "international criticism" to "expressions of discontent from some countries" overly wordy, this sort of proposal is very typical of Wikipedia's day-to-day editing and continuing down this lane represents the way to go here.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Liang1a: - I see that you are very new here (86 edits), which may be a factor in some of the difficulties your facing. If no one has told you yet, let me then assure you that one of the prime objectives of Wikipedia is neutrality. If you feel that the article in question has a bias toward China, just post your concern on that article's talk page, and allow for a discussion (like Brian has suggested). There are many people who will immediately evaluate the article, to ensure it is neutral. While that means it will not be "anti-China", it will not be "pro-China" either. There are plenty of experienced editors willing to help you, if you will let them. Just be willing to talk and work with others. Do not edit war, and don't get defensive when somebody says something you don't agree with. There is now plenty of attention on the article in question. It will get fixed where needed. Just watch, and maybe you'll learn a few things along the way. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 00:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no interest in editing the article, but having seen this ANI on my watchlist and having had experience with Chinese government sources on other matters, and with the special logic of the Chinese government viewpoint being held forth upon here, here is an example of genuinely neutral coverage by a major Chinese paper not actually in China, whose goals are expressly neutrality...even though it is very pointedly hostile to the government of mainland China...on exactly the same issue. IMO sometimes a neutral presentation of the facts of a situation is very often seen as POV by one or more sides in the equation; this applies as much to domestic politics as to international politics; the reason being that, in politics, a full representation of the facts is all too often not conducive to "fairness" because......the truth is very often not fair, but swift and obvious in the condemnation a neutral presentation of the facts of a case clearly show. Politics is not about being obvious and clear, rather the opposite.Skookum1 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:ColonelHenry more personal attacks and outing

ColonelHenry has agreed not to repeat the behaviour. AfadsBad questions the quality of some articles. Tea was made, and biscuits were eaten, and the admins went off to have supper. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:ColonelHenry was warned a couple of times, inluding a final notice, against making personal attacks against me and the community as a whole.

a NPA warning

a NPA final warning

Apparently he's a bit obsessed with me, and is stalking and spying on me off-Wikipedia and recently used information so gathered to out me on Wikipedia, oversighted, but, this edit.

No illusions that rules have any meaning on Wikiedia, even the most sacred cows, as OUT is supposed to be, and particularly since it turns out that editors continue to churn out bad science, knowingly, then, instead of correcting it, out me for writing about it. Verifiability is a joke.

No follow up from me, outing is outing.

--AfadsBad (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous, WP:HA#NOT. I corrected one of the matters you brought up on your blog about errors in science content. So what, I read your blog. I've corrected three or four things you've complained about in several of your blog rants about how Wikipedia's science content is bringing about the end of the world. You should appreciate it...someone actually reads your gripes and on occasion acts accordingly to correct the griped-about passage. I didn't mention you by name or mention other identifying information, didn't mention any contact information, and neither did I direct anyone how to find your anger-releasing soapbox of a blog. All I did was mention in my edit summary that I was responding to your recent blog rant and mentioned vague information that you've already volunteered elsewhere publicly but nothing that linked you to it. Rather disingenuous to claim you were outed when no one could have identified you from what was stated, and I only stated what you've mentioned on Wikipedia, or at public events connected to Wikipedia, to tout your credentials. Sorry, but you know what they say about people in glass houses and throwing stones. If you want to rant anonymously about other people (and out them on your blog) and then complain when someone vaguely alludes to you (but not in a way that leads to you or your front door)...pot calling the kettle black. I guess you'll just write about it on your blog as yet another reason why you hate Wikipedia. Sorry, if you feel attacked, not my intention. But your hands aren't clean in this. Perhaps Adorno said it best: "The splinter in your eye is the best magnifying-glass available."--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm not certain where you're coming from User:AfadsBad, considering you literally outed yourself with this edit. That took all of five seconds to find, and without ever reading your blog I immediately came upon it. If you don't want people being able to track you back to your off-wiki activities, then perhaps you should take the necessary steps to make sure they can't. It would be no different than if I told you that my name is Chet Long and I'm stationed in Louisiana, and then started screaming when someone else alluded to this at a later time. Which also brings into question the choice of oversighting ColonelHenry's edit, if it was no more than he claims it was (I don't have OS, so it would be helpful if another OS could inform ANI as to why that oversight was done). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee - Check your email, I emailed you privately regarding the content rather than repost it publicly here. I didn't think it possible to out someone who already released that information on several occasions on Wikipedia and at Wikipedia-related events (Q&A sessions, etc.) in order to condescendingly establish "these are my credentials, I'm a scientist...you're all idiots."--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, now you're trying to out me via Wikipedia e-mail. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- It's not what he says it is; the oversighters are not idiots; it was a no-brainer oversight containing information not on en.Wikipedia and not in my blog. And, no, it wasn't oversighted because ColonelHenry mentioning my blog on Wikipedia; the blog is mentioned and linked in a couple of places on Wikipedia, and I tag it with my Wikipedia name. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a less than constructive edit for AfadsBad to blank a section claiming (unsourced) plagiarism, even when he recognises that it was a rewrite rather than an addition (and I can't see this section having been added in recent edit history). This is an editor more concerned with grandstanding their linguistic skills above others, rather than working to improve articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Less than constructive? It's utterly contemptible. This editor blanked the entire section on Flora, a subsection of "Flora and Fauna", rendering the main section title nonsensical and removing necessary and useful content. This is classic WP:NOTHERE. It seems our Literary Genius copied the section on his blog, and then posted his rewrite - to prove his ability to improve Wikipedia. He didn't just go ahead and improve it, oh no. He showed how badly written it was, and then showed how a Real Writer would do it. An editor apparently innocently believes that AfadsBad genuinely wanted to improve Wikipedia, and so posted the "improved" section to the article. AfadsBad proves he has no interest in making any improvements, by deleting the whole section. He does not even restore the "bad" version. He just blanks it. Outrageous. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the instructions say. And, really, you can't throw an obligation to improve an article on someone just because Wikipedia editors plagiarized from them. Copyright violation instructions are clear: remove the material, post on the talk page. Don't like them, change them. But, as a volunteer encyclopedia, I am fine with choosing what I do. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Unsourced plagiarism?" It wasn't a rewrite by a Wikipedia editor; I posted an example rewrite on my blog, which is copyrighted, and I own the copyright; Wikipedia editors did the usual, they copied from the internet, from my blog, and pasted my work into Wikipedia without crediting me as the author and without my permission--there's no ticket for this one. So, not only plagiarism, but a copyright violation. But, I will be glad to take care of that through Wikipedia's official channels to make sure my copyrighted work is completely removed from Wikipedia. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, grandstanding linquistic skills with this? " No illusions that rules have any meaning on Wikiedia, even the most sacred cows, as OUT is supposed to be, and particularly since it turns out that editors continue to churn out bad science, knowingly, then, instead of correcting it, out me for writing about it. Verifiability is a joke." That is the most comma soaked, spagetti plate of grammer I have ever seen. I agree with the WP:NOTHERE and think this might be a case for WP:BOOMERANG. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, once more, following the instructions on Wikipedia is a complete bomb; so, maybe User:Andy Dingley can correct this to whatever he thinks people should do when a copyright violation is found:

"If you have strong reason to suspect a violation of copyright policy and some, but not all, of the content of a page appears to be a copyright infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the discussion page, along with the original source, if known. == Copyright problem removed ==

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: insert URL or description of source here (optional). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. AfadsBad (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC) has been created for this."[reply]

At least I've learned that following any policies or guidelines on Wikipedia is not an argument for having done it correctly.

--AfadsBad (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets get back to the outing issue. If any user self identified but no longer wishes to have their real life ID known on this website then no one should repost it, ever. I would like to make sure this is clear.--MONGO 16:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I don't care if it's something AfadsBad mentioned somewhere at some time that ColonelHenry picked up on... mentioning it in an edit summary is a real dick move. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great blog, Afads. Of course, one might suggest that it would take the same amount of effort to correct the problems you complain about as to complain about them... but just pointing the problems out is also helpful. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tried to improve, but some editors, such as ColonelHenry and Cwmhiraeth, made it clear to me that rules and procedures trumped everything, including verifiability. Both of these users fought to keep bad science in article space, in spite of the information being made up nonsense. It would be more fun to write accurate articles than to post about nonsense, but the former is not welcome here. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I would have been glad to work with you had you approached me initially with a little less of the aggressive "bull in a china shop" swagger. In fact, I aim to improve Dent corn in the next few months, and if you could get off your condescending high horse, I would probably enjoy your opinion and expertise as that work proceeds. But as long as you continue to be belligerent, I would never waste my time attempting to collaborate with you.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he's condescending or if you don't like the attitude on display at his blog. Any of us should be able to post any kind of blog we want that's critical of Wikipedia material without being attacked and outed on Wikipedia. I can't see what you posted in that edit summary, but I don't think it would have been oversighted unless it was serious. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight, from my experience with it, tends to remove just to play it safe whether there isn't a problem or not--and if it isn't a problem, it's no big deal. Knowing what I wrote, I don't believe it was serious and it wasn't anything more than AfadsBad already released in tooting her own horn to lord over others she thought inferior intellects--and it was nothing that would have led an average, unknowing Wikipedia user to know I was mentioning her. So, there was no "outing"--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are cautious about not removing material they don't consider outing. I wrote twice about material I was concerned about and both time oversighters made the effort to discuss with me why they felt the material was not outing; I disagreed once, and agreed the other time. When we disagreed, the oversighter asked another oversighter to investigate, with my permission, and this additional oversighter agreed with both of us in part, and removed some of the information. Very civil. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No you wouldn't have. You went ballistic because I offered some minor suggestions while you in a good article nomination. In an AN/I thread, and a subsequent de-GA'ing, many other editors posted about your hostile attitude. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not material from my blog; and oversighting it didn't even require discussion. It was personal information about me not available on Wikipedia. And now, ColonelHenry is using his Wikipedia account to e-mail this information to others. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I mentioned what I wrote to an admin above who joined considering this matter...would you rather I repeat what I said here, publicly? (2) Rehashing four month old battles that were already litigated and resolved is not good form, AfadsBad. And you do me a disservice in thinking I can't kiss and make up. I work and collaborate with several editors who I've disagreed and argued with. If you could calm down and be a little less aggressive and little more reasonable, it could be a worthwhile collaboration...but your attitude here shows such a collaboration wouldn't be a fruitful use of my time. I respect your expertise, I have no respect for your attitude.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your inaccuracy will always be a problem. "these are my credentials, I'm a scientist...you're all idiots." That's not what I said at all; and I don't know if you purposefully misread or misquoted it, or you just couldn't see what it said because of your preconceived notions; either way, it would make you impossible to work with. And, the geology Good Article where you didn't care that the science was completely made up, since it had been procedurally promoted to GA, the fact that it contained made up, non-verifiable science didn't matter to you, so that, instead of removing ridiculous science from Wikipedia, you insisted it be kept, since you badly promoted it to "Good Article" status due to your lack of knowledge of geology. It's the Randy from Boise syndrome; I can't find common ground that lets you see how bad the science was, even thought it was a mistake at high school level. Won't work. --AfadsBad (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not rehashing a old grudge you still have that has already been resolved, that I learned from (i.e. I don't do GA reviews anymore because I couldn't dedicated the needed time, and I made an error in assuming good faith on sources and content), and that I've moved on from. You spend more time rehashing and complaining and then rehashing again that could more positively add toward contribution, and condescending or not. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has User:Cwmhiraeth removed from Wikipedia any of the made-up science that I discussed in my blog posts? No. She complained about my blogging about her, on my talk page. But, verifiability is beyond her. So, as long as it keeps going on, she and others keep making up science and putting it on Wikiepdia's main page, my rehashing pales in comparison to the wiki mirrors copying made up WikiScience. Rehash that. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sniping from the perimeter does nothing to fix it. If you want to correct it, be a WikiGnome and correct the errors. There are plenty of users correcting small things here and there, so instead of complaining and writing jeremiads criticizing other users who can only do their best, show up, drop the smug attitude, fix things, make your case if someone asks why without biting their head of, and get your hands dirty. Most of the articles you complain of have no one working on them. I'd be the first person to endorse and support the removal of your block if you came back, focused on correcting a few things, and played well with others. You don't play well with others. I don't either, but at least I try and I do work with several other editors. Imperious swagger doesn't build collaboration. If you came back and dropped the attitude, I probably could learn something from you (I'm always open to learning) and we together could probably do excellent work. I would assert you would make one hell of a good FAC and GA reviewer--something both projects need. Hey, ball is in your court.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blocked you know, never have been, other than an error early on. You can see an editor's block by looking at their contributions and hitting block log or something. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how anyone can do anything, in either direction, if we can't see the edit summary for ourselves. Perhaps if ColonelHenry, who knows what it said, just agrees to not use that type of information on-wiki anymore, whether or not he thinks it should be considered outing, then this would solve itself? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to that.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(edit conflicted while discussion was being closed) I'd like to see something a bit stronger from ColonelHenry, because of the enduring consequences of outing, which was obviously serious enough for the oversighters. Considering the discussion above, I'd like to see stronger confirmation from ColonelHenry indicating s/he really understands outing. I also find many of his/her comments above unhelpful, particularly considering the seriousness of the issue. And following copyvio instructions is everyone'e prerogative-- we don't all have time to fix every copyvio we find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(earlier comment someone rubbed out in an edit conflict)

Involuntary outing is bad, yes. But maybe someone could explain this to my feeble brain: (1) the OP claims his own blog's content was plagiarized; (2) how is it possible to prove that claim without "outing" oneself by providing the citation to the blog? and (3) a blog is not a valid source on Wikipedia anyway. Hence, the OP should never have posted that content in the first place. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blog was not being used as a source. The blog showed an example of bad prose copied from a Wikipedia article. The author then rewrote the "bad" prose on the blog, creating what (s)he evidently believed to be brilliant prose (saying the same things, cited to the same sources) to show how it should be done. Another person then posted the rewritten text to Wikipedia to replace the "bad" prose. AfadsBad then deleted the section, claiming that their blog was being "plagiarised", thus, in effect outing themselves. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Wikipedia editors thought it brilliant enough to plagiarize without credit. And, not only did I remove it, I followed the directions at WP:Copyright violations, and I linked to my blog on the article talk page, so there was no "in effect outing," I posted a link to the blog on the talk page, a place where some editors discuss articles, and where one is directed to post a template with a link to the URL that was plagiarized when removing the text. Read WP:Copyright violations some time. It's enlightening. The outing has been oversighted. The blog link at the article has not. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, as has often been said here, if one is concerned about being outed, complaining about it on this totally public page is not the best strategy. So the complainant needs to decide what's more important: Staying anonymous here, or protecting a copyright on a blog. On the other hand, if someone was deliberately trying to draw attention to their blog, this could be a good strategy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, should I thank the Colonel for obsessing about the blog? It certainly has driven my stats up for the day. However, it's still not outing me, like ColonelHenry did, so I don't really care about it being or not being posted here, the article where I posted it, other places where others post it. I care about editors posting personally identifiable information about me that is not otherwise available on Wikipedia in a retaliatory move, as clearly stated by the Colonel in his properly oversighted outing edit summary. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key question might be then, is it possible to discern from your blog what your real-life identity is? If not, how did he figure it out? (And no details, please, just "in general". We don't need any reruns of such outing.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a recent ArbCom case that's going to go against you on this. He did a hell of a lot of sleuthing, but not from my blog. I should probably feel honored, as I had to search for where I interacted with him, while he was devoting a lot of time to finding out off-site information about me.

"Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." On Wikipedia. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one outed me by linking to or citing my blog, which is not a secret. Outing is about revealing personally identifiable information on Wikipedia that does not already exist there. My blog is already posted in a couple of places on Wikipedia. I'd be glad to post it even more places, but that's not really the purpose of Wikipedia. To repeat, the blog is not how ColonelHenry outed me. It would not be oversighted, anyhow, because it is already linked all over Wikipedia and tagged with my Wikipedia user name. It's not outable. Read WP:OUT some time. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he went way out of his way to find your real-life identity and post it here (or anywhere), then that's malicious and should be dealt with. Although there's a lesson in there for you as well: Be extremely cautious as regards your "internet footprint". If one bad-intentioned citizen could find it, others could too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what he did, what was oversighted, and what I am reporting about ColonelHenry and off Wikipedia personal information about me. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also Streisand effect. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Except that she cared that her property not be on Google. I want my blog all over the place, and, to help Wikipedia readers find me, I add my Wikipedia user name to my posts' tags. So, what Streisand effect? --AfadsBad (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, how can we do anything, even warn or counsel someone, without knowing what the edit summary said? The fact that it was oversighted does not definitively prove it was outing. AfadsBad and ColonelHenry are describing the contents of the edit summary in different ways, and we can never know who is more accurate. I'd say an email to ArbCom is the only practical solution, so they can either caution ColonelHenry, or block him, or tell AfadsBad he's over-reacting, or something. But we can't do that here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about a disclaimer, although I realize that after following the instructions for copyvios, and for other things, and being told I was wrong to, in all probability, it will be incorrect, or simply used as all guidelines and rules are on Wikipedia: outing is a crime if others do it, but just another bother to be given the run around if it happens to outsiders. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're intentionally attributing opinions and statements to me that I'm clearly not making. It makes me suspect (absent any evidence to the contrary) that you could easily be misrepresenting the contents of the edit summary too. So thanks, you've beautifully made my point for me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I haven't attributed anything to you, I'll let you own your own comment. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless unintentional and non-malicious (for example, where Wikipedians know each other off-site and may inadvertently post personal information, such as using the other person's real name in discussions), attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block."

And, how about some of the admins in this thread reading the oversight policy? From interacting with oversighters on behalf of others, I know the policy better than you. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A keyword there is attempted outing. That's a blockable offense, whether the attempted outing information is accurate or not. There is no obligation to prove that it's the real info. The attempt is sufficient to put the attempter on ice, either for a short stretch or permanently. However, here's what you need to do, based on experience: Find a trusted admin and communicate to him offline (i.e. via e-mail) if your privacy is ever compromised. Don't bring such a sensitive matter to a public forum. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Navigating Wikipedia is a nightmare, and always, no matter what you do, you're in the wrong. Read much of ANI, or spend any time here and the conclusion about "trusted" admin is limited. As for Wombat, WP:TLDR, ESSAY, RANDY, DICK, DIVA, WHATEVERJUVENILE essay necessary to not take responsibility for problems on Wikipedia, like making up information and passing it off as science and leaving it on Wikipedia, etc. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to feel like a case of WP:DIVA. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sent to ArbCom

As usual, in spite of the plethora of guidelines and policies and admins there are none. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sending it to arbcom was probably the smartest and fairest course of action. It's very difficult to deal with something when you can't actually see with what's being discussed and there appears to be disputes over what it was. There's a reason why most cases where there are strong privacy issues involved are dealty with by arbcom. You can't blame administrators for being reluctant to deal with something when they're not sure of the details of what they're dealing with (and since administrative actions are subject to review by the community the fact that couldn't explain to anyone querying even if they were doesn't help either). Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"There's a reason why most cases where there are strong privacy issues involved are dealty with by arbcom." And what's the reason it says nothing about this on the policy page? --AfadsBad (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

70.120.95.221 - continued disruption and possible sock

Master blocked indef, and 70.120.95.221 hard-blocked 1 year per the SPI.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The IP account 70.120.95.221 has been on a long-term pattern of changing flag icons, changing boxer nationalities from British to Irish, and adding in unsourced ethnicities in the ledes of articles despite being against WP:MOSBIO. This follows the exact same patterns of two other editors previously blocked for this pattern of disruption (User talk:70.115.253.212 and User talk:River City Boy). They have been reverted by several different editors and yet carry on regardless.

Examples of changing flag icons: [25],[26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35]

Examples of changing nationalities or removing Britain or trying to impose that they are Irish: [36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43]

Examples of adding unsourced ethnicities into lede: [44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52]

The IP has been cautioned, warned and given a final warning [53], and has also had a SPI initiated against them on 2nd December, with the two other accounts above listed. Unfortunately due to a backlog the SPI has not been dealt with yet.

Despite this they once again make another edit changing "British" to "Irish" on 10th December [54]. So it is clear that this editor doesn't want to defend themselves and wishes to carry on seeing if they can get away with their disruptive behaviour.

For me this is clear block scrutiny evasion. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rakeshkraja and All Things Nice

It seems a recently created article, All Things Nice, was created by someone who was paid by the subject of the article to create it, as he has acknowledged himself in the article. In light of the recent WikiPR scandal I think this may be a violation of WP:PAY and am posting here to see what administrators think should be done. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 14:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't acknowledge that, that was vandalism by another user (see the history.) You can't make that assumption. Canterbury Tail talk 16:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, and thanks for pointing that out. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There probably are advertising issues with the article though, I haven't had the time to go through it, but a quick glance looks like yes it is advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 16:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail: Not only is it advertising, but it's unfit to be a Wikipedia article in any way—it's (1) unsourced, (2) promotional, and (3) conflict of interest. I would suggest a nomination for deletion of this article. Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's at AfD now, so it should probably be handled there. The editor in question probably doesn't merit administrative action otherwise at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Vandalism report

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello,

As I was reviewing new uploads on Commons, I was brought to this page: Joe Hockey. It has been vandalized by TheRamblingNarcissist and is still under fire. Could a sysop take action there. Sorry if this isn't the right page or if I missed something, I come from fr.wp. Thank you, Letartean (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Indefinite block. In the future, you can report vandalism on en.wikipedia at WP:AIV. --Jayron32 14:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! Page noted. Have a nice day, Letartean (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Sepsis II and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography

Sepsis II (talk · contribs)

User:Sepsis II has a history of POV-pushing regarding the Israeli-Palestinean conflict, POV pushing that has amounted to two blocks, and sanctions as well.

Anyway, earlier today, he went to Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography and moved Palestine from unrecognized states to recognized ones, his first edits to anything VA/E related. VA/E has rules, namely that you don't make controversial moves, adds, or drops without discussing them at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded, so I reverted him on that basis. He then posted on my talk page, where I told him he needed to discuss the edit. Recently, he reverted me back to move Palestine back to recognized states, accusing me of ownership of the page. This revert seems to be in violation of his sanctions. Could something be done about this, starting with undoing his actions and reminding him of his sanctions? I don't really have the stomach for getting in an edit war with this, and I take no position on the recognition of Palestine, merely that such a clearly controversial edit should have been discussed first p b p 15:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Question: Wasn't Palestine officially recognized by the UN last year? - (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121129)
We also have an article about it. - ^theWOLFchild 16:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still say it should have been discussed before the move was made. VA/E has rules. Discussing things before you do them is one of them. Again, I take no position as to whether Palestine is or isn't recognized. p b p 16:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the fact is, he is correct. So, instead of helping him to add info we know to be correct (and supported by RS), you are fighting to keep it out on a technicality? Meanwhile, now the article still has incorrect info and you are seeking to drag him here to ANI? Have you tried discussing this on his talk page? Have you considered any other means of dispute resolution? What admin intervention are you seeking here? - ^theWOLFchild 16:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Further note; I don't see how the initial edit was "controversial", and therefore required you to revert it. But that said, once you did, he should have discussed it with you, per WP:BRD. But I see he has instead reverted you again. You guys should be careful, you don't want to end up in an edit-war. - ^theWOLFchild 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) It's not an article, and b) He has the last edit p b p 16:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) Whatever. Let's not get hyper-technical. b) I noted his last edit with my previous comment above, (it was caught up in an edit conflict). - ^theWOLFchild 16:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sepsis's only current sanction appears to be a 'civility' one. From the Palestine-Israel log of blocks and bans for 2013: Sepsis II (talk · contribs) officially restricted to 1RR/week and put on a shorter leash for personal attacks.[225] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 18:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC) curtailed to a civility restriction only [226] Magog the Ogre (t • c) 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC) ← ZScarpia 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's gotten messier since I withdrew it

User:Thewolfchild, FWIW, a new editor undid Sepsis II's edit in his very first revision. This is well on its way to becoming the next Arab-Israeli conflict battleground. User:Sepsis II needs to start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography, and avoid edit-warring further. This may even need to be added to the ever-growing list of articles under sanctions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict (at least the portions of the article related to Palestine and Israel). p b p 22:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I agree with you that these areas are very sensitive and prone to conflict. You may have felt I opposed your ANI, but if you noticed my last edit (I'm not sure, first it was tied up in edit conflict, then the thread was closed), I pointed out that once an edit was reverted, that should have activated the WP:BRD cycle, which means should guys should have had a discussion. I know you tried, and I was saying he should have tried discussing as well. Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 22:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Sepsis undid that guy's edit. I guess I'm going to have to start the discussion myself... p b p 23:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get followed by banned editors a lot, sorry for bringing them along with me. I was unaware the list was a special article under different editing rules, i only noticed it due to a bot edit - [55]. I hope everything is well now. Sepsis II (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who began the discussion. Sepsis II (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who followed me is probably the same racist as [56]. Sepsis II (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) VA/E isn't an article per se, b) The discussion should go on at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded. As it plays out, you may consider reporting those users as socks or SPAs, but you gotta stop edit warring! p b p 23:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Sepsis II:, with very few exceptions, there is basically no edit that "has to be reverted! right away!!". If you are not familiar with WP:BRD, please read up on it. You should try engaging others in discussion when you want to make contentious edits or edits to controversial subjects. Or, when other editors want to discuss an issue with you, and... always before making that 2^nd revert. (unless it fall under those few exceptions I mentioned). This will help you avoid edit-warring and being brought to ANI. FYI/Cheers - ^theWOLFchild 23:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to discuss PBP's revert before my second edit; I mistook the VA cabal as a violation of wp:own. As I am constantly followed by new accounts reverting my edits I have discussed the issue with admins who state that when it is clear they are banned editors their edits may be reverted freely. Sepsis II (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, here's an opportunity for the two of you to resolve any outstanding issues. If the two of you can pick a talk page to chat on, then PBP can close this up (withdraw it) again with no further action required. That way, you don't have to deal with any admins... - ^theWOLFchild 23:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild (talk · contribs) is not new, just sporadic - actually started over 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me Sepsis II (talk · contribs) looks like another reincarnation of Cryptonio (talk · contribs), which was blocked indefinitely for nationalistic behavior, specifically Personal attacks or harassment: General persistent disruption and attacks. I've opened a SPI report, based on behavior and technical evidence, which was not seriously reviewed. Oh well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prod a little harder on that, User:AgadaUrbanit. The main thing that concerns me now is that editors will be showing up to change the status of Palestine away from what we decide to call it at VA/E, and we end up with a (slow-moving, perhaps) edit war. I don't want VA/E to turn into another Arab-Israeli battleground. What can be done to avoid that, User:Baseball Bugs? p b p

The same way you keep a wave upon the sand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible this thread might end with an offer by User:Sepsis II to wait for consensus before reverting again. If he does so, that's good. If he does not do so, one option would be to raise the issue at WP:Arbitration enforcement for consideration under WP:ARBPIA. Longer term, there is a question as to which states ought to go in the section 'Unrecognized or largely unrecognized states' in WP:VA/E/G. We already have an article at List of states with limited recognition. It might be reasonable to use inclusion in this list as the criterion for the 'Unrecognized' section of WP:VA/E/G. It would be even better to change that header to 'States with limited recognition.' That way our terminology would be consistent across articles. This is up to consensus, but it would save having to conduct the same dispute in more than one place. At present the State of Palestine is included in List of states with limited recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wran – continued disruption

User indef blocked by Drmies. Jus dafax 03:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This editor has been engaging in highly disruptive editing since 2011. His latest editing activity primarily consists in reverting attempts at improving articles about Ancient Greece. He blindly reverts edits by other editors without ever justifying his actions. Even when the previous versions are in error, he follows an agenda of 'preserving' the content of those pages no matter what. Whenever other editors ask him to provide sources he either resorts to circular sourcing [57] (citing books which primarily consist of articles available from Wikipedia) or replaces reliable academic sources with notoriously unreliable sources such as http://www.justanswer.com [58] or http://quizlet.com [59]. When being reverted he never discusses his actions; he merely resorts to edit warring, personal attacks (including baseless accusations), and playing up into flame wars on talk-pages (one can check his talk page and edit summaries to verify this). He also frequently engages in original research [60][61][62][63]; when reverted he dubs other established editors' activities "vandalism", and then demands that others find sources for his own statements. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that at Know thyself his 3rd placement of material(he's at 4 now) removed for not being reliably sourced had the edit summary "you may think it's unreliable but you need to PROVE it wrong in this instance". Attempts to explain policy on his talk page don't seem to have had much result. I don't have much hope for this editor. If he doesn't have an adequate response a block will be in order (or rather another block). Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if [http://quizlet.com/28600012/greek-and-roman-thought-plato-flash-cards/] is the sort of thing he still thinks meets our criteria, I don't think I want to see him editing anymore. His comment in June 2011 "Stop interfering with the rights of readers to any publicly available info, it's totalitarian" still seems to be the way he approaches sources. I suggest that everyone reads User talk:Wran to understand the issues with this editor. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My interaction with Wran was limited to the Great books edits which started at diff 85. I opened a discussion on the article talk page and posted on Wran's talk page. It was not a productive discussion, but at least the addition of unsourced material to the article stopped. Sorry to see that Wran is not learning. It's unfortunate that multiple editors must take time to explain, revert, and, now, engage in this discussion because of Wran's efforts. Perhaps another leave of absence from WP will help. – S. Rich (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to do this, because I love when people are interested in these topics and I want to support each of them. I started to fix up the article Socratic problem (it had misdefined in the lede what the problem was, only mentioning that it dealt with Plato's writings) with [64], which was all sourced with a citation to W.J. Prior's article in the Blackwell Companion to Plato. Wran removed part of this, saying it was "subjective and untrue" [65]. Discussion moved to the talk page and Wran elaborated his position that "it's a wildly speculative claim, far from the mainstream" [66]; I asked for evidence of any of any of this, of any source which contradicts the Prior source, but none was given by Wran. I even provided more evidence that Prior's view was mainstream (as if being published in a Blackwell companion was not prima facie sufficient): [67] and [68] showing that Louis-André Dorion also shares the view, both in the Blackwell Companion to Socrates and the Cambridge Companion to Socrates; and Debra Nails shares the view in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And then Wran will cite Nails solely as a source later (even disregarding contradicting views): [69] (which itself became a spat with Omnipaedista [70]). So Wran will favour Nails' view at one time, and disregard it as non-mainstream at another, and no evidence is presented to establish why. There needs to be some way to require that one does not remove reliably source material (at least when it is not contradicted by any other reliable source), and neither re-add removed material which does not have a reliable source. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block - Highly actionable case and way beyond the warning stage, what with multiple blocks and warnings. Topic ban would be the only alternative, but likely just kicks the can down the road. An indef is overdue. Jus dafax 06:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite block - Well, enough is enough. We should not accept this type of disruptive behavior. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've called it "disruptive editing", which in this case combines edit warring, a consistently combative attitude, and frequent incompetence in the business of reliable sourcing. That they weren't blocked indefinitely over their DSK edits was a show of good faith, but that cup is empty. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nathan Johnson

After disagreement about the use of the WP:Dummy edit feature, Nathan Johnson (talk · contribs) predictably took it upon himself to alter the WP:Dummy edit page by removing a sentence that the feature may be used to briefly communicate with other editors...despite many Wikipedia editors having used this feature for brief communication with other editors in a variety of ways for years, and despite objections to its removal, as noted at Help talk:Dummy edit#Don't message thru edit summaries. Nathan Johnson decided to WP:Edit war with me to remove the material. He then templated me with an edit warring notice when he was also edit warring (this is typical behavior of him). He did all of this while refusing to stay off my talk page. He is still refusing to stay off my talk page, even though I made it clear that I no longer want him posting there. And he is demanding that I retract my statement that he has committed vandalism to prove a point, even though I pointed to a previous discussion that clearly shows he did indeed commit vandalism to prove a point. See here for backstory. Flyer22 (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) FYI - you hadn't notified him of the ANI. I have done it for you. - ^theWOLFchild 20:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As shown in the aforementioned post on my talk page and this post on his talk page, he already knew that I was going to start this WP:ANI. He was well-notified. Flyer22 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having read through the links you provided and looked at the diffs when you mentioned vandalism, I don't see vandalism, I see an edit war between you two which is not vandalism. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Epsilon, I'm talking about a different matter with regard to the vandalism; that's why I pointed out a discussion that talks about this and this. He vandalized that article and an editor noted that it was vandalism. Nathan Johnson responded in a rambling, mocking manner. His vandalism to that article is what I called vandalism and is why he will not be getting a retraction and/or apology from me for having stated that he committed that vandalism. Flyer22 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just protected Help:Dummy edit for three days due to the edit warring. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good move Mark, it needed that. It seems that Nathan has suddenly taken exception to it, and wants to arbitrarily change it, despite established consensus. Along with that, he did template an experienced editor, warning of a potential edit war - that he was on the other side of ^(wtf?). Also, Flyer did clearly, and repeatedly ask him to not edit her talk page, which he ignored, and continually posted there anyway. She definitely has valid complaints here. - ^theWOLFchild 23:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the other allegations, WP:Don't template the regulars may be good form and good manners, but in the end is only an essay and not an actionable offense. Also, I suspect this would hardly be the first time an involved editor gave another editor an edit-warring warning; it wouldn't surprise me if that was the norm. DonIago (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Doniago: - This is not so much about "templating a regular" as it is misusing or abusing a warning template, which is not permitted (just ask twinkle). - ^theWOLFchild 04:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but that's not the point that was originally made as I read it. If that's the thrust of the argument then whether Flyer's an experienced editor or not is irrelevant. Anyway, I wasn't trying to nit-pick or anything...editors not infrequently confuse essays with policies or guidelines, so I try to point it out to be helpful when I see it happen. DonIago (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And there is WP:TTR, also. I should probably push that back into project space someday soon. DES ^(talk) 19:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arsten, is there a way that the page could protected so that only this user's edits are rejected? Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a technical feature that would work that way, no. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since editors have decided to focus on WP:Don't template the regulars instead of the serious matters at hand here in this discussion, such as an editor refusing to stay off my talk page and therefore attempting to force me to read what he has to state and to retract a valid accusation, let me state this: I brought up WP:Don't template the regulars because I see no valid and/or good-faith reason for Nathan Johnson to have templated me; I see Nathan Johnson as having used it to intimidate me and make it seem like his efforts to remove the wording were correct while my efforts to retain it were wrong. He templated me to make it seem like the WP:Edit war was on my head alone. I am familiar with his editing, have had past conflict with him before, and I know how he operates when it comes to editing. Every very experienced Wikipedia editor knows that WP:Don't template the regulars is an essay, but it is an essay that very experienced Wikipedia editors generally follow. It's not the norm at all for a regular to template a regular, unless the regular being templated is an editor who has been registered with this site for years but is significantly inexperienced with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, unless both regulars are not very experienced Wikipedia editors...or unless it's an administrator issuing a block on a regular Wikipedia editor. Yes, I'm also well aware of DESiegel (DES)'s less-followed essay arguing why it's good to template the regular; I generally don't agree with that essay, as should be clear. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has yet to have a single pleasant interaction with Nathan Johnson, I understand Flyer22's concerns. Nathan's approach is frequently crass and when he thinks he's right about a guideline or policy, he doesn't hesitate to edit war. I've also seen some questionable editing such as adding a blatant BLP violation to the Dan Savage article. Then there was this unfortunate tirade. The bottom line is, if Flyer22 wants him off her page, he should honor it except for required templates (noticeboard notifications, final edit warring notices, etc.). If he can't exercise that minor level of self-restraint, then blocks are always an option. - Mr X 02:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My impression of Nathan Johnson is that he has a bit of a temper and tends to shoot from the hip. (See this archived thread from my talk page for an example or two. In that case, he quickly apologized and everything turned out fine.) If he'd choose his words more carefully, he'd be likelier to avoid this sort of conflict in the first place. Sometimes it would be better just not to say anything at all; earlier this year, Newyorkbrad gave him some good advice about avoiding stressful discussions. Having failed to avoid this one, he turned stubborn and declined to honor a fellow Wikipedian's request to stay off her talk page. That is disruptive behavior. Edit warring to remove relevant content from a help page he's citing when criticizing that editor . . . well, that's disruptive, too, to put it mildly. One would hope this could all be resolved with an assurance that the disruptiveness will stop. Rivertorch (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing all that out, Rivertorch. It seems to me that an editor who disregards Newyorkbrad's helpful advice is skating on thin ice. On the other hand, vandalism has a very narrow meaning here, Flyer22. Please use that charge with great care. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I always respect your input. However, did you not review the exact situation that I and another editor referred to as vandalism with regard to Nathan Johnson? Look at what Nathan Johnson did there, and, if willing, explain to me why you do not consider that WP:POINT edit to be WP:Vandalism or rather why you consider it a narrow interpretation of it if you mean that I have interpreted WP:Vandalism narrowly? Being very familiar with WP:Vandalism, it seems to me that you are stating that it's that policy that defines vandalism narrowly and you mean "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism." However, keep in mind the first line of WP:Vandalism; it states, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." Who is to say that Nathan Johnson was not doing exactly that? Flyer22 (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a serious WP:COMPETENCE issue with regards to Nathan. Having looked at the talkpage discussion with regards to the BLP violation, it's clear that he has a very limited, if any, grasp of policy. For someone who has been editing for over five years to have a totally improper interpretation of WP:BLP is utterly unacceptable, and I wonder how long it'll be before he falls through the trap door that is an indefinite block. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without at all suggesting that Nathan is in any manner in the right, it would certainly be nice to hear from him here. That said, he hasn't edited for the past couple of days either. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User: 78.156.109.166 again

See User talk:78.156.109.166. Blocked user is using talk page to continue trolling. Suggest revocation of talk page access. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a diff? - ^theWOLFchild 23:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[71] — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 00:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly "trolling". It's just a simple question (which I have since answered). If that's all this is about, then this ANI is a waste of time. - ^theWOLFchild 01:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor is blocked, they should be engaged in discussion about the block and how to behave better once the block is over - not posting junk about "end of the world November 2014" or whatever.[72] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That's trolling. I think that post resolves the question of whether the user merely has competency issues or is a troll. The user is a troll. In any case, the user is not here to build the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 23:06, December 10, 2013

It takes two to "troll" @Robert McClenon:. I suggest removing the page from your watchlist. John Reaves 04:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Why would anyone care about what a blocked ip user posts on his page? If it was something that needed to be removed, that's one thing. But this is just harmless nonsense. It's between him and any admin who might unblock him at... some point. If he wants to waste space there, so what? But why waste space here complaining about it? - ^theWOLFchild 06:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you care so much? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, and neither should anyone else, which is my point. I didn't create this ANI, I'm just questioning the need for it. What admin action is the OP seeking, and based on what? Blocked or not, users are allowed to post on their own talk pages. As long as his posts don't violate a policy, who cares? - ^theWOLFchild 14:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that IP question is on the very mild side of trolling. Some people should go back to writing an encyclopedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked twice within a week. His current block will be up on the 15th, so we'll see if the IP in question is interested in "writing an encyclopedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly trolling, though the IP is using the talk page for requests other than unblock. That's the only thing that is of concern right now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tempest in a teapot. The user is not going to be an asset to the project. Extend for 12 months, ignore the user's talk page (unless it is an unblock request because of a changed or shared IP), and move on. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella~four 3.6

User blocked 24h by Vegaswikian. Epicgenius (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gabriella~four.3-6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has, recently, created huge numbers of very short pages which consist of the text "Monster High link", or something similar. She is clearly intending to create a redirect, but she doesn't appear to know how. So I posted this on her talk page, to try to teach her to create proper redirects so this won't happen again. But to no avail; she has continued to create such pages, which, as Neonchameleon pointed out, does nothing but "make work for everyone else," who have usually tagged these pages for speedy deletion rather than redirecting them as I have usually done. This seems to fall into the realm of disruptive editing, and I would like an admin to decide if this is in fact true and whether any action is needed. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't even the first; a week earlier User:Jni had tried the same thing. And after you, User:Howicus also made a valiant attempt to no avail. Kolbasz (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She does read her talk page - or at least has blanked it. Twice. Also looking at her entire talk page past the times she blanked it, she's had more than two dozen articles nominated (and mostly deleted) under wp:Speedy in a one month edit history. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone care to email this user, since talk page messages aren't working? Epicgenius (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: She has been blocked for 24 hours. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to post here with the block. I hope that will get some attention from the editor. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She was still doing it, though, right up until when she got blocked. See here. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put an "advertising" tag on the article. Most of the article content comes from promotional sources, not third parties. The article could use some non-fan attention. John Nagle (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLP concerns?

Shouldn't this edit be a BLP concern? It is an unsourced claim and does not appear to be talked about in the article at all. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it. There are several in that category, so you might want to review them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial categories in BLPs are difficult to deal with. It's important that we do mention controversial things, if they're covered by sources, but you can't put an inline ref next to a category so the technical problem of verifiability joins the human problem of putting labels on people.

In Ortaylı's case, the article's only actual source - that isn't a dead link - is the Turkish government, and that's definitely not going to call him an Armenian genocide denier, but on the flipside the article is unlikely to be neutral without independent coverage. I realise that Ottoman history is neglected on en.wikipedia, but there's no shortage of English-language historiography out in the real world... bobrayner (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Sourcing is vital. There was no source for this, someone just stuck it in there. From the sourcing standpoint, it was about as valid as categorizing him as a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, this borders on a violation of a restriction on a sensitive topic. Unless the info is sourced, it should not be added. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Got it. thanks guys... Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

magickirin11 socks

Socks have been blocked by Ponyo. Epicgenius (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

for example this rowdy.--Severino (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is making constant BLP-breaching edits; for instance, repeatedly calling Jesse Jackson a "racial hate mongrel"[73][74] and describing Amy Goodman as a "terrorist supporter"[75]. The unwarranted personal attack on me[76] makes it clear that thgis person has been editing under another IP or account previously; all the signs point to User:MagicKirin11. RolandR (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly User:MagicKirin11. The preoccupations and terminology are identical. Special:Contributions/70.183.160.105 Special:Contributions/74.104.159.130 are other IPs used by the same editor. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI could be in order, to at least have a digital trail of characteristics and a sock trail :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP, and given their penchant for personal attacks and racist trolling I have preemptively pulled talk page access as well.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pramukh Swami - Controversy - Alleged Sexual Assault Allegations by Pramukh Swami and BAPS Senior Monks

There is a cabal of wiki-editors who have a conflict of interest regarding pramukh swami and won't let any controversy to be posted.

I have attempted to post sourced controversy regarding the figure in question and the same profiles have changed the record back.

The page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj&action=history

I've added to the talk page and there is no comment. The editors monitoring that page are trying to stop the truth from getting out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShantilalSodom (talk • contribs) 20:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the above user and RevDel'd the username from the history for being offensive and a BLP violation. I, unfortunately, don't have time to investigate the content additions at the moment. @Mark Arsten: seems to have been there recently however. John Reaves 20:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Just looking at the history at Pramukh Swami Maharaj, it looks like there's been persistent edit warring and sockpuppeteering (including by the OP, above) to add a section to this article that may not comply with BLP. @Materialscientist:, @George Ho:, @Mark Arsten: ("the same profiles" noted above, none of whom were notified about this thread)
I suggest semi-protecting the page against non-autoconfirmed (not just using pending changes, as is current) and blocking every SPA/sock puppet. postdlf (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've changed PC to semi. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN and RSN should probably weigh in on this. The allegations have been posted in the media. Is it out-of-line to just mention that these allegations have been made even though they haven't proven to be demonstrably true in a court of law? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the username offensive? --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say absolutely not to posting content about allegations. I'd suggest doing so is inline with posting gossip, no matter the source. And imagine if we posted every allegation made in a newspaper. Once there is some definitive information, and if its deemed significant, I assume it would be , but I'm not in position to judge, then that info could be posted. Remember that what is posted on Wikipedia does not necessarily disappear once it disappears from our articles. It can posted on other sites using WP, and be there a long time, long past the time the allegations have disappeared.(Littleolive oil (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

@George Ho: The username is the subject's birth name plus the word "sodom" , as in sodomite or sodomy. John Reaves 04:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody's username is "Sodom" or something and not blocked for that? George Ho (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George, I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. John Reaves 07:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Sodom" ain't offensive, is it? George Ho (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be, Sodom was a city in ancient Jordan. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the content that was inserted involved accusations of sodomy so I believe it was intended to be. 14:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

William Kelly (Olympian) probably needs speedy delete

Speedily deleted per G3 by User:Bencherlite. (NAC) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I'm not sure what the best route here is but William Kelly (Olympian) needs to be deleted as far as I can tell, the sooner the better.

I've not been able to verify any of the relevant details, meanwhile the article claims drug use, outs the possibly person (if they exist), and the entire article may be a hoax. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a hoaxed copy of Jason Kenny, so I have deleted it. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it, thank you! Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rivatphil's multiple BLP's and Copyvios.

I had this up at AIV, but was told to report it here. User:Rivatphil has created numerous BLP articles either unsourced or direct copyright violations from other sites. I noticed this after the New Pages utility was flooded with numerous BLPs, which were all then speedily deleted, so please check the deleted contribs of this user. Also came upon this while notifying user of discussion. 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 05:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user is also non-communicative, with exactly one user talk edit in seven years. Given the copyvios, an indefinite block is in order. MER-C 07:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Active DRV short-circuited by an apparent super-vote

Jclemens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Henry Earl DRV

I had sworn of ANI a month or so ago, but IMO this is something that at least needs to come before the community to review. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Earl closed as a delete 18:19 Dec 10th, an editor files a Deletion review (inked above) at 20:31 Dec 10th, and the DRV is closed as an overturn 1:44 Dec 12th. Usually discussions that are closed after so short a time are done so via WP:SNOW, when the consensus is overwhelming. However, here, the discussion stood at 6 endorse & 5 overturn or relist; the closing admin invoked not Snow but WP:IAR, claiming essentially that the endorsers were wrong and that he is right.

Jclemens is a noted inclusionist, regularly taking a conservative stance in regards to how policy such as WP:BLP1E is applied in deletion discussions. That's fine, we're all allowed to hold opinions and argue them. What is IMO very not-so-fine is using one's position as an admin to essentially clobber an active and ongoing discussion because they disagree with both it and the initial AfD result. There are no hijinks at the DRV; no severe civility issues, no socks, nothing untowards; all who had weighed in at that point are regulars and veteran editors. The article Henry Earl should be re-deleted, the DRV re-opened, and Jclemens' closing statement may be converted into a discussion entry if he wishes. We appoint admins to, when needed, weigh the consensus of a discussion and act according to the project's policies and norms. We do not appoint admins to delete or restore articles on their personal whim. WP:IAR is to be invoked in the rarest of circumstances, and I do not believe that the project is harmed by its omission if that is what the consensus of editors decides. Tarc (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Tarc, I undid the out-of-process close before I saw that you had posted here. As I said to Jclemens, let's just be patient and wait for a proper close by a neutral editor once the traditional 7-day discussion period is complete. 28bytes (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you thought it appropriate to post here, I'll point out here that as the original AfD closure, your undoing of my IAR (IAR is not out of process; IAR is a pillar) closure is a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. I'll further note here that I've invoked special BLP enforcement to keep the article undeleted and unhidden while the discussion continues. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Consider it an IAR invocation on INVOLVED, just like you invoked IAR to attempt to supervote and shortcut this DRV. We're back at zero again. — Scott • talk 10:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this statement from WP:INVOLVED is applicable here: "In straightforward cases ... the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." The close was obviously improper - one of the most blatant supervotes you'll ever see.

The utterly frivolous invocation of special BLP enforcement is also very concerning. There is no way that deleting a person's article is a BLP violation. The idea that we are required to keep articles on people we've decided don't meet our notability guidelines and policies if we think the subject might miss out on financial benefits is one of the most preposterous I've seen on Wikipedia. Neljack (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here I think is the biggest question I have for Jclemens as well. I'd like to see him expand on the topic. As I see it the reasoning is dubious at best. Jus dafax 04:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note ~ Not an Admin) Since I somewhat benefitted from this, I do not know if I should support the closing by Jclemens, but I would like to say that the article should NOT be re-deleted. Instead, it should be as it is now, with the content being {{temporarily undeleted}} as it should have been when the discussion went to Deletion Review. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; I have no objection to leaving it restored while the discussion continues. 28bytes (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion needs to continue, Jclemens supervote action in the DRV was disruptive. Yes there was canvassing involved by a third party and some suspicious keep voters, but that is, if anything a case for relisting, not automatic closing. WP:TROUT for Jclemens and remember when it reopens DRV is not AFD round 2. Secret ^account 13:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is anywhere within the letter or the spirit of WP:BLPBAN (as invoked above by Jclemens), or of WP:BLP policy in general, to say that the deletion itself of an article is a BLP violation. This is regrettably becoming a case of an abuse of admin tools. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep calm. The DRV discussion is ongoing and will eventually be closed by somebody totally uninvolved. There are not current problems with the situation. Whatever happened up to this point, just let it go, and focus on content building. Jehochman ^Talk 13:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, the invocation of BLPBAN, which Jclemens has even dared to formally log here [77], is so obviously ludicrous and abusive ("deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income" – by that logic any deletion of any self-advertising promotion piece would be a BLP violation!) that this cannot possibly be allowed to stand. I am finding there is already a pretty solid community consensus against this attempted ban here, so I will soon strike it from that log. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. That wasn't just frivolous, but outright bad faith abuse of process on JClemens' part. Reso lute 14:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a bit of a problem with "Whatever happened up to this point, just let it go, and focus on content building". I suspect that if a non-admin committed a similar violation he would get either a stern warning or a short block, not a call to "let it go". See User:Beeblebrox/The unblockables. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I promised myself I would never mention Jclemens again, but this is too egregious to ignore. It is most definitely an abuse of admin tools, and if it ever happens again, I'll open an ArbCom case to have them removed. I can accept that people might honestly think that BLP1E doesn't apply, although I would disagree. But it is not possible for someone who understands BLP to claim that restoring the article was "protected" from reversion by BLP. Falsely claiming a "BLP" trump card when you are actually going against the only possible BLP aspect undermines the respect of the BLP policy by others, and its use by honest admins who are actually trying to enforce it. The consequences of doing it once should be community censure. The consequences of ever doing it again should be tool removal. Since 28bytes is OK with leaving it open during DRV, and ANI can't do more than criticize an admin for abusing the tools, I guess that's all that can be done here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a desysop discussion on Jclemens should happen sooner rather than later, since this is not the first time he has abused tools to push his inclusionist agenda. Creatively misinterpreting policy and using his admin bit to abuse process is nothing new with this editor. Reyk _YO! 15:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that Jclemens has now continued to edit-war on the restored page attempting to uphold his invocation of the BLP exemption [78], even after I had formally stricken it from the enforcement log as having been overturned by consensus [79]. He has also attempted to file a "warning" against me in the name of that same invalid BLPBAN claim [80][81]. I would seriously propose blocking him if he continues in this vein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It ought to be noted that also holds checkuser and oversight permissions. John Reaves 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could everybody please take one big step back from the fight? Jclemens, please stop taking further actions here. Let's just let this article resolve itself through the normal editorial process. Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" Deleting or in any way hiding this article will deprive Mr. Earl of publicity, causing him direct harm." What? John Reaves 15:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That, and Jclemens' similarly-worded BLPBAN rationale, are mind-boggling. I was willing to take the attempted supervote closure as merely ill-considered, but the bizarre invocation of BLPBAN is giving me serious pause. — Scott • talk 16:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked 24 hours so community can decide whether Jclemens should continue to hold admin privileges. Based on his response to Fut Perf, he refuses to see the problem and has NOT promised that his behaviour will not continue, thus he should not be given the chance to continue unless the community decides he was somehow correct. Abuse of IAR and spuriously imposing sanctions upon another editor are unacceptable to see in an admin, and I am of the opinion that Jclemens has violated the communities' trust to the point that they should not retain admin privileges at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone remind me what it takes to remove tools an administrator on account of their abuse. Can that be done in this venue or does the matter have to land at ArbCom? Carrite (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally speaking, only ArbCom can remove the tools from an admin for cause. Jimbo technically can too, I think, but I doubt we'll ever see that happen again. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights and Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship pretty much covers it, even though they could do with being more clearly written. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the community would be allowed to restrict his use of the tools. Basically, it would be like imposing a topic ban. Something to the effect of "Jclemens is indefinitely banned from using his administrative tools where it concerns the policy on biographies of living persons, with the exception of vandalism and obvious violations" would suffice. We would have to enforce it with blocks.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- My understanding is that ARBCOM exists for situations where the community cannot come to consensus and/or resolve the issue themselves. ANI is not a method listed at DESYSOP, but if community consensus exists there's no reason to involve ARBCOM, especially if it is likely that the behaviour will continue, as here. If consensus exists in this thread that Jclemens has seriously abused their admin privileges (IMO, such consensus exists already and several people have said exactly that), all it would take would be to flag down an active Buro to press the button. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken, there is no precedent for a community based desysop (please correct if I'm wrong) and it is unlikely that a 'crat would act on it. Also, how would revocation of the admin permission affect the checkuser and oversight permissions he has? John Reaves 17:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need a steward to remove checkuser and oversight. And you responded to the wrong comment. Dark Sun (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the community could (theoretically) ban him entirely, but can't evoke removal of the tools (a far lesser sanction) even with clear cause and consensus to do so? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and if true it should be changed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Community desysop has been proposed many times and failed many times. I'd agree that it should be available, but that puts me in the minority. As of now, all a consensus can do is motivate Arbcom to act. Arbcom is currently the only venue for forcing tool removal, like it or not.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I'm discussing only community desysop as a principle, I'm witholding comment on the specifics here, at least for the current time.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)He hammered in the final nail be invoking BLP because it would deprive him of publicity. This is saying that it should be kept to promote him, which is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX and there is a possible COI. Dark Sun (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a lynching....not concurring with the recreation or rationale, but this "get a rope" mentality is overkill.--MONGO 18:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Despite being an outspoken inclusionist myself, and despite thinking that Jclemens opinions on the matter are mostly correct, I have to admit the behaviour he displayed is disingenuous at best. Perhaps not much more of whoever closed the AfD trusting arguments like "multiple events sum up as BLP1E", but still. I hesitate in calling for desysopping because 1)I am not well informed of previous Jclemens history 2)out-of-process actions on the opposite side have instead usually given a free pass or even cheers (do you remember the old unsourced BLP deletions of a few years ago, before the BLPPROD process was put in place?) 3)some arguments here seem to show the same degree of disingenuity (what COI has Jclemens with the subject of the article?!?) 4)Jclemens is being badly outed/cyberbullied off-wiki, and I am suspicious people just waited for him to make a wrong step to tar, feather and kick him away. In short, I don't like this discussion, I don't like the tones and the witch-hunting: but I must agree the behaviour of Jclemens on the case in point (especially calling for undeletion for BLP reasons) is highly questionable. I'd prefer ArbCom to look into the matter. I also would ask to unblock Jclemens so that he can participate to the discussion and explain himself. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think in light of the above information (thanks to all for that) that this would indeed be a good matter for ArbCom to handle rather than having a hissy fizzle here. I share the view that the actual substance of the DRV ruling is arguably correct, although it was done prematurely and with what I see as abusive threats of retribution in order to enforce a favored content outcome. Administrators threatening to use the stick are in fact using the stick. Carrite (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs to calm down. Let's have a discussion about what to do with the article, decide it according to policy, and move on. There's no need to attack anyone. Everyking (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that his advocacy for promotion of corporations was a little beyond the pale, but this BLP invocation is pretty stunning. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised at Jclemens's reactions of invoking WP:BLPBAN and signaling an Arbcom case. He has a pattern of digging in and doubling down when confronted. Examples include defending his use of rollback on Snottywong's AfD recommendations at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#User:Snottywong/userboxes/ARSbackfire (June 2010) and clinging to one sentence in the lead of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion until a RfC was filed at WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#G4 and subsequent XfDs (September–November 2011, but stretching back before WT:Deletion review/Archives/2010/November#G4 (copied from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 4#Carli Banks)). (I have a few more recent examples, but the disputes are smaller and more obscure.) Regarding his invoking WP:BLPBAN, he should review WP:Crying "BLP!". This is deliberate irony. If I remember correctly, this essay has been cited to downplay legitimate concerns. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think an ArbCom case is a terrific idea and I hope he pursues it. Carrite (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens restriction

Jclemens is indefinitely banned from using his administrative tools where it concerns the policy on biographies of living persons, with the exception of vandalism and obvious violations. Violations of this restriction would be enforceable by blocks.

Support as proposer. We may not be able to desysop him, but we are able to restrict his use of the tools. It would mean that he is to act like a non-admin when dealing with any contentious BLP issues. Failure to adhere to it could be used as the basis for the Committee to desysop him by motion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What? No. Calm down. Everyking (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually quite calm and don't even disagree with Jclemens with regards to the deletion of the article, but his invocation of the special enforcement regime in this case is so absurd and abusive as to warrant some sort of action regarding that issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Absolutely too broad, and we're not talking of BLP violations here, we're talking of out-of-process discussion closures. I could understand a temporary ban on closing AfD/DRV discussions, but not this. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have no confidence in Jclemens using administrator tools in the BLP area. P.S. Everyking: please don't tell people to "calm down" because you disagree with them; that's patronizing and unhelpful. — Scott • talk 18:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second that P.S. I'm getting very sick of people telling others to "calm down" here. It's smug and offensive and always has the opposite effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per proposer. He has abused administrative tools and edit warred against consensus, claiming a BLP violation when he just wants to promote the subject. Dark Sun (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support p b p 18:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as overly harsh, too broad and likely way too soon to even consider. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. This is a lynching, is absurd and is Wikipedia at its worst. Period.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Support as reasonable emergency restriction to resolve current situation until a full desysop can be decided by ARBCOM. The original DRV supervote was problematic, but the subsequent actions and attempting to invoke IAR as a catch-all defence is completely unacceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens very reasoned calm comment on his talk page indicates he will be away for 12 hours. How is this an emergency?(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Support Jclemens views on BLPs is unacceptable Secret ^account 18:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unacceptable? - How so? Also, who is going to be determining what is an "obvious violation" - there are shades of gray in many "obvious" situations. This is too broad and out of place as well. Start an RFC/U then act on anything determined there. MarnetteD | Talk 18:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "ban JClemens!" Wikipediocracy canvassing thread is [linked removed].—S Marshall T/C 18:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're not shy about linking to an "outing" thread, which has gotten people threatened with blocks and oversighted before. Kudos for your cojones, I suppose. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait - until the block has ended and he has had a chance to calm down. For what it's worth, placing such a severe editing restriction on an Admin is very serious, should it come to that, and it is my opinion (again, if that is the consensus reached here) that if they cannot be trusted with BLPs then they cannot be trusted with the tools full stop, and the matter should therefore be escalated to ArbCom for consideration of a de-mop. Giant Snowman 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is not an acceptable use of the bit, and is the reason why there needs to be some form of oversight on administrators, other than other admins / ArbCom (which is all admins). GregJackP Boomer! 18:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now It was wrong headed, but we've had wrong headed admins do things in the name of BLP before. I think a warning from the community should be enough. Hobit (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the formal reversal of the abusive threats and unilaterally imposed non-policy-based restrictions — and its implied warning to the Administrator to knock it the hell off — is the path forward rather than this perhaps overbroad and certainly unfocused approach. Carrite (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now - but if he violates the BLP rules again in anything approaching this manner, then he should be fully desysopped rather than just restricted. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have surely advanced so much since the era of Grace Sherwood...ah, I oppose unless we can prove Jclemens is also made of wood.--MONGO 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if he weighs the same as a duck........ Carrite (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, moving way too fast. Legoktm (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Jclemens has clearly demonstrated that he is unfit to administer such topics. Frankly, I see little reason to consider him fit to administer anywhere else, given such blatant abuse of his admin status to enforce his own point of view. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This feels a lot like a lynch mob. I'd want to see a properly diffed request with evidence that can actually be reviewed before making this kind of determination. --El onka 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This sanction on Jclemens is, I think, a little too much. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Jesus guys, I really hope I don't ever screw anything up around you all. Given that JClemens specifically said that they would be offline for ~12 hours in their last edit (5 hours ago), and given that the block is only for 24 hours, I really think we need to back down and cool off for a bit. There is no urgency to this. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Jclemens has made a series of mistakes in this sorry business, but we ought not to rush to judgement so rapidly. I have criticised his actions in the past, but he's been a good servant of our project for many years and I don't accept that he is unable to learn from mistakes. The block hopefully will bring home the seriousness of how the community has viewed his actions and may yet bring about the desired outcome: that he doesn't make the same mistakes again. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase, "Jclemens is not now and never has been a Wikipedian". Time he learned that the rules apply to him just as much as they do to everyone else. Eric Corbett 21:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some (fellow) admin decided to temporarily revoke his "Wikipedia citizenship". ZOMG. ArbCom to the rescue (see below). Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Look, he's blocked, and has not yet had a chance to explain himself. Is he now brutally aware that he f'ed up? I would expect so. Does he agree that he f'd up? We don't know yet. Blocks and restrictions are ONLY to be used when the editor is unwilling to follow the rules ... now that he knows the community consensus is that he f'ed up the rules, let's see what he has to say ES &L 21:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has posted a statement on his talk page. Nick (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Does he agree that he f'd up?". The answer is an astounding "No, ArbCom shall vindicate me" (paraphrasing) [82]. If filing ArbCom cases weren't such a pain in the ass, I'd file for emergency desysop myself. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think a further restriction is merited at this point. Let's see how he handles situations like this in the future before concluding that the block isn't enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mark Arsten. This is an overreaction, and at best premature. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - and let him talk. I believe his use of admin tools was quite blatantly wrong. But he should have a chance to explain himself. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on this, but I'm --> <-- close from blocking the next person who refers to this as a lynching. NW (Talk) 22:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're near the end of your rope.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with GiantSnowman. Administrators have to be able to use their tools to deal with BLP violations when they see them. If they can't be trusted to do that, they can't be trusted to be an administrator. Either Jclemens will act properly in this area in the future, in which case there is no problem, or he won't, in which case he will surely be desysopped. Neljack (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Drop the pitchforks and let tempers cool. Please don't block me NW, I didn't refer to lynching (with apologies to Dr. Strangelove – gentlemen you can't use levity here, this is the Dramah Board). But yes, as GiantSnowman says, "placing such a severe editing restriction on an Admin is very serious". Ultimately, I don't think it would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. Mojoworker (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that it would be even more beneficial for Wikipedia for this person not be an admin at all, lest we want to transform it into Spampedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support "deleting the information on Mr. Earl could deprive him of attention and income" ?!. Since when is that an argument to restore an article. Wikipedia's purpose is not to ensure a subject receives "attention and income". I am shocked and dismayed at such an attitude. Dloh cierekim 23:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I agree entirely with AndyTheGrump. Pushing such a ludicrously wrong-headed interpretation of policy is one thing. But he's using his admin bit to override established process against consensus. It's not the first time he's misused his tools to try to rule by fiat. Frankly, I think his admin bit should be removed altogether. Reyk _YO! 23:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose. Except in the case of an emergency, only ArbCom can desysop someone. A community restriction on the use of an administrator's tools is an end run around the rule. I understand that an admin may be topic banned or blocked, but this proposal is not in line with those sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, your conflation of (1) community control of an editor's use of a tool with (2) desysopping is self-serving and misleading. This is not desysopping (he'll still have the user right), it is the community exercising control over an editor in one precisely-circumscribed behaviour. I get it that you don't like that. But we can do it, and we should do it where appropriate. Your (and many, many other admins') position, that only ArbCom can deal with poor admin behaviour, is a is a frank misrepresentation of the facts. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in that I can't imagine a restriction like this being compatible with holding adminship. The arbitration committee is the place for review of tool use, which is where this should go. I have just stumbled over this so have not digested the whole story. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - needs to go to ArbCom. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but only procedurally. There is very strong consensus that Jclemens' action was inappropriate. Significant concerns have been raised as to his continued suitability for adminship. This should (and IMO must) be heard at Arbcom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wrong venue, and far too messy and vague. Needs to go to ArbCom (which I note Jclemens has said is his wish on his talkpage anyway). Black Kite (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is exactly the right venue to restrict the behaviour of an editor. Admins are not special cases in that regard. Personally, I'd ban him from editing or discussing BLPs broadly construed. But this is a good start. He's not fit to deal with BLPs on any level, but I'm sure he can block obvious vandals, socks and spammers, protect pages under vandal attack, make technical page moves, etc., etc. - so desysop would be overkill and against the interests of the project. This limited restriction is useful and definitely within our power. If this proposal doesn't pass - largely on "procedural" grounds or "admins are special" grounds - the next step should be an RFC. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ah yes, an admin is accused of abusing his powers, complicated by a questionable block of him that at first glance appears punitive. As others note, ArbCom is the place to make a big-ticket review of this sort including but not limited to a judgment on a proposed restriction on some uses of the admins tools. As for the article that this is all about, I've read it and it seems notable to me. But this matter has gone way beyond the article now. I see numerous facets that require scrutiny. Jus dafax 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree with Jclemens' actions or views on this at all. The agenda seems to be some sort of bleeding-heart action to help out a homeless man, and I empathize with that but it's not what we do here. About the accusations of lynching, I'm not sure these quick polls are the best way to handle admin misconduct. How many people here !voting are like me and just took a quick glance at what happened? How many mistakes should an admin get? As a general precedent, this sets up a situation where those who feel abused by administrative action could pile in and overweight the discussion (doesn't seem to be the case here). I lean towards leaving it up to ArbCom. II | (t - c) 05:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There's no pattern here, no proper consideration either. I don't know what he was thinking but it did no particular harm. Additionally, the controversial edit of restoring the appearance of the article occurred prior to full-protection - anyone, myself included, could have done it, so there is no admin tool usage issue per se. Wnt (talk) 06:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed: Reverse BLP sanction in this case

21 supports to 0 Opposes makes this a WP:SNOW vote without question. This is essentially just upholding Future Perfect's earlier action to vacate the sanction so no more needs to be done.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Irrespective of the ultimate fate of the article in question or of Jclemens, his declaration that "Henry Earl is placed under deletion, redirection, or blanking prohibition, since hiding Mr. Earl's history could deprive him of charitable contributions during the holiday season." is not within the spirit of WP:BLP policy and should be officially considered reversed. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as proposer. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support although the sanction was never official anyway. Dark Sun (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Formal setting aside of the abusive action is desirable; further action along this line by the Administrator after such a result would open the door for an ArbCom case with a clearly foreseeable outcome. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - self-evidently misguided. WJBscribe (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support reversal as an obvious incorrect application of BLPBAN. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as much as I feel the article should stay in WP space, and even that the article could indeed help Mr. Earl, the prohibition is ridiculous. --cyclopia ^speak! 18:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support I'm with Cyclopia here. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have nothing to add to what has already been said.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. Nothing more needs to be said. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Jclemens' invocations of WP:BLPSE and of WP:BLP here are obviously incorrect and at odds with both the letter and the spirit of the relevant policies. Without comment on the rest of this mess, this particular action by Jclemens is so far removed from the realm of reasonable administrative discretion that reversal should be a slam-dunk. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jclemens' declaration is so loopy it sounds like somebody doing a parody of a power-mad admin, and is exactly the sort of thing that (quite rightly) gets Wikipedia criticised and fosters mistrust of admins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support regardless of the merits of the original AFD. Not a reasonable reading or application of policy at all. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support in order to avoid establishing any precedent for this kind of action in future cases.JodyB_talk 19:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, so BLP now is used to protect the financial "rights" of panhandlers? Maybe Jclemens needs to explain if he wrote that in jest or not... Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. And because WP:BLP policy cannot be overriden by admin fiat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This was an absurd mis-application of WP:BLP. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This was not within the spirit of BLP policy. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above - JClemens' interpretation of policy is incorrect, on this point. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Absolutely ridiculous interpretation of our BLP policy. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I really can't see this as anything but an attempt at entrenching a supervote JClemens must have known would be viewed as controversial. Reso lute 21:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no right to a Wikipedia page, and it cannot be construed as "harm" for a person or entity not to have one. That a business, or even a worthy charity, might gain income if such a page existed, and might fail to gain it if the page is blanked or delted is irrelevant. If a page exists primarily to increase anyone's income, that is a clear violation of WP:SPAM, and in and of itself grounds to delete the page. DES ^(talk) 21:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Support I can't add anything to this part of the discussion other than that I can't see any way to the BLP sanction. And this part of the discussion is unanimous. Neonchameleon (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oppose. If the spirit of BLP policy is "do no harm" and deleting Mr. Earl's nearly nine-year-old article would hurt him financially, then Jclemens's actions are indeed in the spirit of the policy, in a refreshingly counter-intuitive way. Merry Christmas! --71.163.153.146 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that might be the rationale but there is no evidence or apparent reason supporting the reality of such a personal financial loss, and according to policy the article does WP:NOT exist for that purpose, nor is it a recognized basis for inclusion, under the inclusion criteria. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways to help people who are homeless and struggling with alcoholism. But creating a Wikipedia article detailing their arrest record isn't one of them. The fact that some people need this explained to them is incredible, and Jclemens' claim on the moral high ground here is sickening. MastCell ^Talk 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should address your concerns to the creator of the article, MastCell. It wasn't me and I doubt if it was Jclemens (I haven't looked). --71.163.153.146 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was addressed to anyone who defends the existence of this article on "humanitarian" grounds. I apologize for the confusion. MastCell ^Talk 00:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you, MastCell, for playing games with you, because I knew what you meant. My opinion is that the article doesn't need defending on humanitarian grounds because it already conforms to our policies. I see Jclemens's "humanitarian" defense as a novel approach wholly within the "do no harm" spirit of WP:BLP. I am willing to AGF when he says his concern is the welfare of Henry Earl and as far as I'm concerned, Jclemens does have the moral high ground here. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I debated with myself as to whether this warrants a reply, as the IP appears to be trolling in the spirit of Jclemens, but, for the record, I can't believe someone is taking that BLP argument seriously. Are we going to transform this site into the encyclopedia of panhandlers whose biographies cannot be deleted because it would be causing them financial harm? Really? What about not deleting any spam whatsoever, because deleting spam also causes some living person financial harm?! Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article meets the letter of our policies. There was no reason to put it up for deletion in the first place. Yes, some alcoholic panhandlers are notable. Get over it. Spam, on the other hand, is specifically forbidden by policy. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wiki-wise notability is determined by WP:CONSENSUS or we wouldn't have WP:AfD & DRV, and not by pounding your fist on the table invoking the financial losses of the subject in case of deletion. But I suspect you knew that already and are here to serve us red herrings. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability should first be determined by policy, then if there's a grey area, by consensus. I'm only trying to understand Jclemens's reasoning, since he's not here to speak for himself, not to serve you red herrings. Unlike many editors, I understood what Jclemens was saying when he opined that someone who doesn't embrace all Five Pillars is not a true Wikipedian. A simple, logical statement that seemed to enrage many—to the point where many start frothing at the mouth when they see Jclemens's name. That surely is a large part of this current drama. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says the spirit of wp:BLP is "Do no harm"? As I understand it the spirit of the policy is first "Don't do anything that might get us sued." Do no harm is a distant second. Especially after a certain recent Arbcom ruling. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone should edit Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and add Keep. Deleting this would cause financial and attention loss to the subject (and BLP prohibits that!) Sometimes reality exceeds what people might have a priori conceived as examples of bad arguments... Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it take an experienced attorney to know what could get Wikipedia sued? I'm not an attorney. I think the spirit of the policy is more general, as I've said, something like "do no harm". (Neonchameleon, I don't know what ArbCom decision you refer to.) WP:BLP says ". . . the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Jclemens apparently understands this to mean more than "don't put anything libelous in a BLP". --71.163.153.146 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens blocked

First, do not rush to unblock Jclemens. The usual pattern in these ANI's is (1) outrage, (2) motion to sanction, (3) block, unblock, reblock, (4) ArbCom, (5) desysops all around. Could we please not do that this time?

It has never been Wikipedia policy to block for abuse of admin tools. One bad action does not justify a second bad action. I urge the blocking admin to reverse. Jehochman ^Talk 20:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Jehochman: we can block admins for tool abuse, or anything else for that matter. Your constant pleading for your class as a special case, beyond the reach of community sanctions, is false and self-serving. There is nothing in policy or precedence that implies misuse of admin privileges can only be dealt with by an arbcom case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, apparently his BLPSE action was not in jest and he thinks ArbCom will clear him. [83] Good block I say. He can appeal to ArbCom if he wants, preferably without disrupting more Wikipedia pages in the meantime. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose his resigning tools would shorten the process. That or acknowledging a mistake and moving along without further theatrics. Carrite (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not concurring with original block but no unblocking please...everyone chill out a bit.--MONGO 20:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bad block. I echo Jehochman. This was a bad action made in response to a bad action. There was no obvious risk of Jclemens disrupting the project during this time. Reso lute 21:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this block. I do not see it as in any way preventing harm. It looks punitive to me. I also urge the blocking admin to reverse. This block clearly does not have consensus support. DES ^(talk) 21:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good block He was engaged in disruptive editing by edit-warring and threatening to use BLPSE against another admin where it clearly did not apply even as his actions were being strongly criticized by the community. Should he come back and file an unblock request acknowledging his wrongdoing or otherwise signaling such actions will not be repeated then the block can be reversed. If he is unwilling to do either then he can sit it out for the next 18 to 19 hours.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock now. Enough lynch mob. Reverse purely punitive block. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blocked The edit warring (and really wheel warring—even if no tools were used, special permissions were used/threatened to be used). Let's not unblock until we figure out if ArbCom is the place we need to be going and/or until Jclemens promises to disengage and refrain from such behavior in the future. NW (Talk) 22:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock As far as I can tell there was no potential for harm when the block was made, as the admin had said they have no intention to block anyone and were going off-line. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock I really don't think there's much prospect of Jclemens trying anything at the moment, and if he does there will be lots of people watching him and ready to block him. So the block isn't preventative. Neljack (talk) 22:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blocked- by his words and actions Jclemens has indicated that he intends to carry on in this manner. Reyk _YO! 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unblock needs to be able to take part in AN/I discussion. Dloh cierekim 00:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He can do the same thing that I had to do. Post his response on his talk page and get someone to cross-post it here. GregJackP Boomer! 00:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and keep blocked. He was using the tools in an edit war / edit dispute, and has given no indication that he will stop. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blocked: This is a 24-hour block, people. He deserved it, probably more. It will be up before this discussion is over. Voting on whether a block should be reduced by less than a day is kinda a waste of time. p b p 00:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blocked. There was no indication that Jclemens was intending to stop using tools in a questionable manner; this was a good, preventative block. — Scott • talk 01:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock. I don't like the way this is being handled. Everyking (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blocked unless he promises to stop. Now that I've had time to review the situation, I think this was a very questionable block by Starblind, but I'm also very concerned by Jclemens' insistence that he's right and everyone else is wrong. I think that TParis, the admin who reviewed the unblock request, has got it right:[84] If Jclemens promises to moderate his behavior and let the discussion play out, then go ahead and unblock. So far though, his reply to TParis (in my opinion) is not sufficient.[85] If Jclemens decides to accept the conditions wholeheartedly though, I would have no objection to unblock. As for whether to de-sysop, I think those calls are a bit premature at this point. From reviewing Jclemens' contribs and admin actions, this seems to boil down to: He made a premature controversial close of a DRV, and used his admin tools to undelete an article. It appears to be a decision that is not supported by followup discussion and consensus, but he wasn't acting against consensus, he just made the wrong decision to begin with. I don't see that as a reason to de-sysop. As for the followup warnings and invocation of BLPBAN, those are a different matter, I'm still looking into that part. --Elonka 02:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed that he edit warred during the DRV to restore the article's contents [86] [87] after his premature closure of the DRV was reverted by another admin and he took note of it [88]. That's not fair to characterize as "he wasn't acting against consensus, he just made the wrong decision to begin with", but more like: "he was told by a fellow admin (several in fact) that he is persisting in actions contrary to policy, but he just sought new ways to get his way (like threatening his colleagues with WP:BLPBAN)". Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep blocked for the moment, but remain open to Jclemens's unblock request(s). Right now, the best assurance he's willing to give is "the idea that I would be disrupting the encyclopedia if not blocked or restricted is ridiculous". Unfortunately, the whole reason we're here is that that isn't ridiculous. If/when he agrees that he won't continue the edit warring, DRV-closing, or BLPBANning that led us here - even if it's just because he intends to file an arbcom case instead, to get the whole thing sorted out - then I would be fine with the block being lifted prior to its original endpoint. Until he can tell us that, though, the assurances he's willing to give are too little for me. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock now - How can we have a discussion about sanctions without the accused? This sure looks punitive to me. Jus dafax 04:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock provided he agrees not to edit Henry Earl or block anyone for doing so. He's a good admin, not a vandal; he's not going to go back on his word, and he deserves the right to speak in response. Though he's going to have a lot of convincing to do with this BLP idea. Wnt (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

How does an article that's been around for almost 9 years suddenly become a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE I suppose. Someone discovered it. Wasn't there some big bruhaha about "unwatched BLPs". Somebody decided to watch/read that one, I suppose. Didn't we have hoax articles that were around for years? Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because we're a bit rubbish at keeping on top of BLPs. There are thousands of similar articles out there, unwatched, unloved, some will be particularly egregious violations of the BLP policy, but they just sort of become accepted, a reference might be added here or an update made there, but without anybody really thinking "should WP have this article - maybe I should PROD or AfD it and see what happens". Nick (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't BLP what the "living people" category was supposed to help accomplish? I note the admin's comment, "Deleting or in any way hiding this article will deprive Mr. Earl of publicity, causing him direct harm," seems highly unusual. I have to say that while the admin's heart may be in the right place, his sense of what's appropriate on Wikipedia seems to have made the wrong turn at Albuquerque. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JClemens' argument was invalid, but so was the argument made by the AfD closer. JClemens' idea would lead to keeping random articles because you decide the subject needs the publicity, say, because he is homeless. 28bytes' idea would lead to deleting random arguments because you decide that despite passing GNG their subject somehow makes them 'indiscriminate information', i.e. that you should discriminate against information you don't like. Of these two ideas, the latter is the more dangerous, because it cuts into the encyclopedia. If JClemens were to be penalized, 28bytes would deserve worse. Wnt (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

User:Tobby72 is vandalising this article: [89], [90], [91].It is not political site but i added short info about current human rights issue, and this user started to vandalise the article.He is trying to prove that the Mongols are bad people but Russians and Chinese are innocent people.It is impossible to justify such serious human rights violation: 4, 5, 6, 7. Khereid (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(NA) Vandalism should be posted over at Wikipedia:AIV 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 08:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't obvious vandalism so would be referred here from AIV. Khereid you need to engage User:Tobby72 in discussion, because at the moment I can't find anywhere where anyone has told them that there is a possible problem with their edits. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added short info about the human rights issues (9), because human rights violation is continuing in China and Russia.But this user is adding irrelevant materials on the article.The article is about only one ethnicity, not about whole world.Khereid (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper-aggressive editor, Roccodrift

I'm not interested in drama, and since there's clearly no consensus to block Rocco yet, and the article has been fixed, there is no purpose to keeping my report open. I do reserve the right to refer back to it if Rocco repeats this sort of behavior, and I will insist upon a block.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm dealing with an editor, User:Roccodrift, who is edit-warring, making false statements about sources, making false accusations, refusing to discuss article content and repeatedly templating my talk page even though he is banned from it.

These are big accusations, so allow me to back them up with diffs.

I simplified the language of Ted Cruz to use the summary from the source instead of quoting Cruz. Roccodrift immediately reverted, with an edit comment claiming I'm not sticking to the source. He also templated my talk page, accusing me of vandalism. Both of these accusations are unquestionably false.

I politely explained on the talk page, quoting the part of the article that directly supports the change, then reverted exactly once. He edit-warred back, falsely claiming a BLP violation. At this point, I stopped at 1RR to avoid even the appearance of edit-warring.

(There's more -- he's edit-warring against a few people on Economic inequality andtemplating User:EllenCT. A visit to his talk page shows that he's edit-warred over this page before and said some non-factual things about BRD.)

At this point, Roccodrift has violated a number of key policies and is extremely guilty of WP:TE. I am requesting that he be blocked for a suitable period of time, taking into account that this is not his first offense. MilesMoney (talk) 09:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About being banned from your talk page. You recently gave a general amnesty to all who had been banned from your talk page. Has Roccodrift received a clear note of being re-banned from your talk after that? Iselilja (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you have. You don't seem to have excused yourself from their talk page, though. Iselilja (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping a notification on a user's talk page when an ANI has been posted about them is required as per the big orange header at the top of the edit page. Roccoshdrift hasn't banished MilesMoney from their talk page so dropping a notice was the right thing to do. It would be a courtesy if MilesMoney had refrained from posting to Roccoshdrift's page but in this case it's not really relevant. Blackmane (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ANI notifications are required. But what I noticed was that at the same time (10 Dec) that MM notified Roccoshift about being banned from MM's talk page ban, he made himself two other independent edits to Roccoshift's page. 1 2. Iselilja (talk) 11:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point, but like I said, banishing someone from your page does not have to be reciprocated. It's a courtesy to not post on the banished editor's page but no policy requires it. Also, apologies to Roccodrift for misspelling his name and have corrected my previous posting. Blackmane (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Miles should probably be trouted.

At Ted Cruz, he made a bold edit [92] and his edit got reverted[93]. It's all well and good that he started a discussion, but then he reverted again [94]. That's edit-warring, any way you slice it.
Immediately after this, Miles felt it necessary to revert my next-most recent edit. At Economic inequality, Miles re-inserted unsourced material (right along with 3 "citation needed" tags, no less), completely ignoring several edit summaries and messages on the Talk page that make the problem clear. Apart from anything else one might say about it, this is disruptive editing.
I've recently tried to explain BRD to Miles [95], but I think what just happened at Ted Cruz shows that he still doesn't get it.
We have UW templates for a reason: they help us communicate. Collaboration is impossible if there is no communication.
I'm not going to have a fit about it, but I will just mention that this accusation of TE follows close on the heels of another accusation gratuitously made in an AfD nomination [96]. Miles was cautioned by an uninvolved editor [97], but apparently he doesn't think there's a problem with this sort of thing.
Miles' complaint about "aggressive editing" appears to be projection. Truly aggressive editing looks like this [98], or this [99], or perhaps like this [100], or maybe this [101].

It seems to me that Miles' angling for a block is an attempt at gaming the system. Roccodrift (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that started this by MilesMoney was correct, Roccodrift should have taken the time to read the source before reverting (twice) Nonetheless MilesMoney should have waited for editors to engage in the discussion he started in the talk page before reinstating his edit, that's how WP:BRD works. The original edit has been re-instated by another editor so I say everybody drop this.

A minor comment: I've recently had a similar issue with Roccodrift regarding his use of templates. I pointed him to WP:DTR and I'll once again repeat my recommendation: instead of impersonal templates that can be taken as somewhat aggressive, a polite message in the editor's talk page will always be better received. Roccodrift should perhaps ease up on the templates a bit. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point WP:TTR. If you feel that the templates can be taken as aggressive then they should be done away with. If regular editors find them aggressive, what do you think new editors think of them? 155.178.6.19 (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint isn't about content, it's about behavior. If my initial change could be considered Bold, then his Revert should be followed up by Discussion. He did not discuss; he just communicated with comments that are factually incorrect. He violated BRD, among other things.

For my part, I did follow BRD by opening up a discussion, but there was no reason to wait for others because the stated reason for the revert ("source does not support") was demonstrably false. There was nothing further to discuss. Now, if Rocco had stated some more general basis for disagreement -- for example, if he admitted that it was sourced but thought the ambiguous direct quote was somehow an improvement -- then I would have discussed it with him before my single revert. Of course, he communicated only through vulgar gestures: reverts, false edit comments, and templates modified with false accusations. In simple terms, he lied and bullied.

Rocco:

Aggressively reverted without discussion.
Left edit comments that were false.
Made false accusations of vandalism.
Repeatedly templated a talk page that he was banned from.

I don't see how these issues have been resolved by someone else reverting Rocco's changes away. Do you? MilesMoney (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Lied" is pretty strong language. Most view it as a personal attack because it is an intentional deception. As for your talk page, why don't you just delete it? You seem to have banned just about everyone from it anyway. Arzel (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to use some other term for saying something that you know is false. He knew that the source supported the edit. He knew that changing the article to match the source isn't any sort of vandalism. If he didn't know, then he's guilty of reckless disregard for the truth, which is no better than lying.

Do you also support the rest of his behavior, including the edit-warring, the templating where he's not allowed, the refusal to discuss the content? MilesMoney (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesMoney there's no point in opening a discussion if you're not going to wait until other editors comments. Was the matter so urgent that you needed to revert again before anyone commented? No it wasn't, so you should have waited at least a little while before reverting again.

As for the rest of the issues you mention: I don't particularly agree with the way Roccodrift handled the issue (specially the vandalism template which was completely out of place, hence my request to Roccodrift to ease up on the templates) but there's no real reason for blocking here as far as I can see. I understand you are upset but you'd be wise to follow Arzel's advise and tone down your comments. As much as I could agree with you, WP usually regards comments on how another editor "lied" as a WP:PA. Both of you should continue editing as usual and if something like this happens again, well then perhaps some sanctions will be necessary. Not right now though. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 16:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about whether it was ok for me to revert exactly once after I completely refuted the stated objection, but this doesn't in any way offer Rocco a defense.

As far as I can figure it, there are exactly three explanations for Rocco claiming the source didn't support the edit (and therefore claiming BLP violations, vandalism, etc.). They are:

Rocco read the source, saw that it supported the edit, but intentionally lied.
Rocco did not bother looking at the source, but pretended he knew what it said, which is a different lie.
Rocco read the source but failed to understand the direct statement, which is gross incompetence.

No matter which horn of the trilemma you grab, Rocco should not be editing Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you shouldn't either.--MONGO 20:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration Miles. Just try to ignore Roccodrift if the opportunity presents itself. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular interest in dealing with Rocco, but he's made a point of accusing me of violating BLP and of being a vandal. That's hard to ignore. He's also edit-warred to remove cited material while falsely stating that it's not cited, which is very, very bad.

My hope is that Rocco takes a hint and dials down his aggression. I think that a suitable block would prevent further article damage during the block and perhaps even motivate him to dial down afterwards. After all, even Rocco's most ardent supporters here can't deny that his actions are beyond the pale. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesMoney, if you have such a severe problem that you have to ban people from your talk page, maybe it's time to go on a short wikibreak. Epicgenius (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. The only editor who is banned from my talk page is Rocco, and this is motivated by the fact that he has made a habit of leaving false templates on my talk page. Sounds like my only "severe problem" is that Rocco keeps misbehaving. As such, it is not so much my problem as his; he controls his own behavior and is responsible for it. Don't you agree? MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potentially disruptive class project?

No idea what to do or what our policy is, so I guess I'll drop this in your guys' laps before I AFK.

There seems to be a class project to add content to Wikipedia, possibly regardless of weight or notability, some of whose edits may be disruptive. I wonder whether they're being graded on whether their content remains up, in which case it's an invitation to unconstructively edit-war.

Class project noticed here: [102]

I'm asking them what's up here: [103]

Sample edit that I would classify as disruptive: [104] (Edit: that was a weak example. Better example is one OlYeller21 was complaining about: [105])

I'm not sure how to follow "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." as it's not about a particular editor, but rather a group. I would take to SPI but I'm don't know whether it qualifies as meatpuppetry per se. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this should be cross-posted to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents? EdChem (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a notice at EN/I (in this section) which links here and to the NPOV noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified two of the editors involved - Stellaiyeo (talk · contribs) and Midgeholland (talk · contribs) - about this ANI discussion. Giant Snowman 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. My name is Tavi, and at the risk of having my name added to the list of "Potentially disruptive class project" participants; I am one of the people who was in that class. I just had a few questions.

Is Wikipedia to be edited by anyone?
Were any students in the class willfully adding trolling, incorrect, or otherwise misleading information? Can you point to those edits?
Was it "disruptive" solely because we are all new, and make tiny errors here and there? Or is our actual information incorrect?
In fact, this whole incident seems very amorphous and unclear. Can you cite multiple examples with explanations as to why the edits do more harm than good?
If you'll see updated pages such as H. J. Mozans, and new pages such as Woman in Science, you'll see that we are doing our best to make sure that the new information is correctly sourced and cited. Or, are you also frustrated with these edits too?

Thank you for your time, and I hope this to be expeditiously resolved. TaviWright (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest is to copy the contents of the article and put it into your user sandbox. And yes, everyone can edit Wikipedia, but see WP:COI. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, I agree that GiantSnowman should post the articles there, and I would be willing to use my sandbox for such offending articles.

As far as Conflict of Interest goes, I do not know how there could be any. The class was graded on accuracy of content, and NOT graded more favorably if the information stayed up indefinitely - only that there was a discussion, and learning about how to edit wikipedia happened.

Again, just claiming things as a "conflict of interest" or "disruptive" without giving reasons doesn't help us reach a conclusion. TaviWright (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TaviWright: The reason why I am mentioning COI is because you seem to know a lot about the sources needed for the article, and about the topic for said article. Please exercise caution when you are working on articles on topics that you are familiar with. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I can see how that could be an issue. However I think you may be misinformed - we did not have prior knowledge of the article or topics. Most of the information was gathered while, or just before, editing. At the same time I understand that it is within interest to keep articles fair and unbiased.

Okay. I see that you are editing with good faith, rather than tendentious editing. Anyway, good luck with your project. Epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are scores of disruptive class projects every term, and the fit hits the shan from mid-November to mid-December, and then again the US spring term. For the incident at WP:ENI, what is the outcome here? Sandbox? These kinds of incidents happen by the boatloads, and eventually something will need to be done, but for now, at least they are being tracked at WP:ENI. Do we know the course? I'd like to fill out the incident report at ENI for future ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TaviWright and Midgeholland are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Students, whose instructor may be Wadewitz. With student editing, if you just keep following back all of their contribs, you eventually can sometimes find a course. Rarely. Most of the time we just never hear anything and the articles end up merged or deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Boone

Lately, the self-declared official WP account of champion eater Dale Boone, User:Worldchampiondaleboone, has been persistently making unverified changes to his own article and spamming it with promotional links to an Indian eating competition which he dominates. Such behaviour should not be tolerated... Can he please be barred from touching his own article? Read, COI! 218.186.193.101 (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the editor. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 14:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a section move (It was posted in the wrong place)

Can an admin move THIS discussion from the WP:AN to the WP:ANI? The reason for the request is that WP:AN states "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators", while WP:ANI states "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." But, since neither User:Ahnoneemoos (the affected user) nor User:Caribbean H.Q. (the posting user) are administrators, the posting at WP:AN couldn't possibly be affecting any administrator as intended by the directive and, as such, it has not followed the requirement for posting there. On the other hand, the posting made by user User:Caribbean H.Q. is asking for the intervention of administrators and experienced editors, which is what this page --WP:ANI-- is for. Thanks. Mercy11 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was posted here due to the SilkTork/Ahnoneemoos ArbCom issue, but I don't really have any objection against moving it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um moving that very, very long section to here will achieve nothing other than the section being closed very fast. If there is still something that remains to be addressed, may be someone could open a new brief discussion (preferably taking in to account anything learned from that thread) explaining what that is with appropriate evidence. And Caribbean~H.Q., Ahnoneemoos, you Mercy11 and the IP could refrain from discussing the issue amongst each other, at most perhaps including one response to the original request and further followups to be limited to responding to other participants. Alternatively, may be accept no action is forthcoming and let it drop. You could always negotiate with each other in an appropriate place over whatever the problem is. You seem either very very good at it (or very very bad but I'm hoping it's the former) after all. Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. While topic bans (or site bans) can be discussed at either desk, AFAIK it's preferred to discss them at AN. Particularly when they are the intention of the thread and primarily arise from a long history of problems rather than in response to a recent incident (even though you will usually also take in to account the history). AN does mention this: "Issues appropriate for this page could include: ....ban proposals ...". P.P.S. I've been wondering whether to mention this and have decided I should particularly since Blackmane said the same thing. Before opening anything further on AN//I, you should consider whether or not it's likely to be rejected due the absence of a WP:RFC/U. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that if a RFC/U is going to be open, then the civility concerns presented by Mercy are more serious and should take precedence. The idea of the thread was not to "punish" Ahnoneemoos (and as such I did not want to enter into the whole "desired outcome" debate), but rather to stop an issue that has been spreading through several of the articles within scope. If a RFC/U is opened, I have no problem in participating in it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:22, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean HQ, have you heard of the WP:Wall of text disruption tactic? Notice the comments by User:Blackmane at this place HERE. You know my position regarding User:Ahnoneemoos, and I am not after "punishment" either, but neither banning nor blocking are punishments but instead means to avoid further disruption (as well as opportunities, hopefully, for soul-searching and/or rehab). Unfortunately for him, Ahnoneemoos is playing the going-in-circles game HERE. You are better qualified than me at summarizing and submitting petitions to forums. Perhaps you could open up a petition for review WP:RFC/U, I could then contribute. Hopefully an uninvolved admin via community consensus of whatever, can then help this matter to a fair closure for all. Mercy11 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't lay the blame solely on Ahnoneemoos. It takes two to tango, and if Ahnoneemoos had been the only one causing the massive wall of text in the AN discussion (in other words, replying to nothing), people would likely have more easily seen the problem with Ahnoneemoos's contributions. It's perhaps fair to say that Ahnoneemoos contributed the most text (although they were the one who's behaviour was most at issue and for which there was a topic ban request) or perhaps the IP. And you Mercy11 contributed the least amount of text of the four primary participants. But ultimately that discussion only got the messy way it was because despite the fact it was supposed to be a request for outside intervention, existing parties to the dispute namely those four I've already named seemed held extensive back and forth with each other. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, you seem to be assuming that having a topic "closed very fast" is somehow not beneficial. What's not beneficial about that? Is closing "very fast" somehow inherently better or worse than having an item sitting endlessly without closure? I am sorry, friend, but your "very fast" comments above are not objective at all and, thus, quite elusive, and as such not beneficial to reaching any understanding. You don't seem to have squarely provided any resolution or alternative to my section move question above. Perhaps you could be more precise? Mercy11 (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing beneficial to having a discussion closed very fast because no one can be bothered reading the extensive back and forth between existing participant parties (from before the discussion was brought to AN or ANI).

The topic in AN will be archived when people stop replying. If you want, someone can close the discussion at AN without the pointless moving, but I don't get the reason why you need someone to close the discussion nor why you would have to bring such a request here rather than at WP:AN, when the discussion could be simply to left to die a natural death.

And I have provided four alternatives before you replied. Either open a new concise request probably at WP:AN; open an RFC; continue the discussion among yourselves (which is more or less what is going on in the existing discussion) in an appropriate place (perhaps one of your talk pages) and try to reach some sort of accord; or finally, just drop it.

I don't get what you mean by 'not objective at all' or 'elusive'. I feel I have been fairly clear. And I have no connection to any of the key participants I'm aware of so whether or not my comment was right or wrong, helpful or not, I don't see why I would not be objective.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion seemed to be heading in a bad direction, I did close the AN discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP removal of sourced info

94.180.37.119 constantly removes a sourced information from Lachin. 3 times already:

The RIA Novosti (Russia's state agency) article clearly states that

"The council also voted in November to establish a sister city relationship with the city of Berdzor [the Armenian name of the city] in the territory."

First time he called RIA Novosti an "Unauthoritative source" and then claimed that "After protests in Azerbaijan, the agreement was canceled" and provided no source to back it up. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content dispute/edit war. I advise you to bring this to WP:AN3 if you believe edit warring here on the IP's part is problematic. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Constantly" amounts to 2 edits. If it persists, post a complaint at WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is using a dynamic IP. There are a number of reverts from editors using the same dynamic telecom service from the same country—highly suggesting that it is the same user. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that to me. Blocking won't work, so semi-protected for 3 days. Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:AleexxAlcala issuing severe personal attack

Resolved

User:AleexxAlcala issued a severely hurtful personal attack, attacking my sexual orientation, on my talk page because I removed unreliable information from online blogger Josep Vinaixa that (s)he user keeps insisting be added to Pulses, the upcoming album by Karmin. The editor called me a "faggot" and insisted that gay people like me are annoying as f**k, also entitling the section as "Idiot". This user is clearly unable to work respectfully with other editors, and their severely bad attitude is not what is in the best interest of this website. And they're severely upset, due to my issuing the first-level Disruptive warning to the user, due to continuous addition of the content back into the article after its removal, claiming they're done research and that it is fact. However, no other reputable source has confirmed their claim(s). Their behavior should be looked at, as it is extremely disrespectful to hurl homophobic slurs at someone, no matter of their sexuality. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been blocked indefinitely by Bwilkins. Mike V • Talk 01:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat and repeated blanking at Raúl Cuero

Greetings -

I frequently patrol WP:SPER, and one of the recent edit requests is a bit over my head. Raúl Cuero was semi-protected earlier today following repeated content removal and blanking by IPs. A few hours later, User:200.114.28.224 posted this edit request to the article talk page. Since it involves a legal threat and potential BLP issues I wanted to bring it to the attention of someone a bit more experienced than myself.

Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 22:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that's a legal threat simply because I can't exactly tell what the IP is trying to say; it's clear that s/he does not speak English as a first language. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis back again

I'm sorry folks, but he's back again. You know who: Dolovis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

Background: in April 2012, Dolovis was blocked for six months after some serious and repeated gaming of the system, and general failure to abide by consensus, specifically when diacritics were involved. He volontarily (?) prolonged his absense until this spring. I noticed that, as his name started showing on pages I have on my watchlist, but I didn't follow his edits around as I assumed he had learned his lesson. There were also no new controversies (at least none that I noticed).

Now, however, after I have moved a handful (recently), or several (over time), articles on various Russian sportspeople to follow WP:RUS, at least one of them apparently created by him, he is going back in my move log, and is reverting them all, as it appears – I'm getting plenty of notifications (the count is now double-digit).

That's all good and well per WP:BRD, but obviously, I did ask him (politely) on his talkpage why he did that. His response was this: "Hi HandsomeFella. Please stop moving biographical articles to names not supported by English-language sources as you did at Dmitri Akimov, Andrei Akimov (footballer), Sergei Akimov (ice hockey), and others. Wikipedia is not for testing or experimenting with your skills as a translator from Russian to English. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Naming conventions (Russia), please follow the general WP rule WP:UE policy when naming articles. That is, when possible, we use the conventional English name (as used in verifiable sources) instead of the WP:Romanization of Russian rules."

That's the worst assumption of bad faith I've seen in a long time. I have around 29000 edits under my belt. I'm not "testing or experimenting with [my] skills as a translator", and I can read the Russian alphabet. I'm no newbie, and Dolovis knows that very well. (Besides, names are not "translated", they're transliterated.)

As if that weren't enough, he then went on to place the same inflammatory text as a "warning" on my talkpage, adding as clarification to his previous response: "I will also place the above message on your talk page as notice to others that you have been warned about your page moves. Cheers."

Those with a good memory recall that Dolovis has had frequent run-ins with several editors here, and (disclaimer) I was one of them. Without being too paranoid, it's hard to avoid the thought that this might be an attempt to get even, when given the opportunity. It would appear that he is trying to frustrate and/or infuriate me with his formal, but inflammatory, choice of words – but I'm not taking the bait. Be that as it may, this is highly uncollegial behavior, it assumes bad faith, and I think he at least deserves a slap on the wrist for it.

The issue at hand – the notion of WP:RUS generally being in conflict with other guidelines (mentioned above) – I intend to start a discussion on with an RM. (It's not pointy, "D" comes after "BR" in WP:BRD.)

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis notified. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Dolovis: I replied to HandsomeFella's concerns on my talk page here, but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue, he has brought it to this ANI. HandsomeFella accuses me of not acting in good faith, but it appears that the exact opposite is true. I only became aware of HandsomeFella improperly moving articles to new names apparently based on nothing more than original research (i.e. no verifiable sources) because one of his article moves showed up on my watch list. It was only then that I realized that he had recently improperly moved several biographical articles, including Sergei Akimov, Andrei Akimenko, Sergei Akimov (footballer), Andrei Akimov (footballer), Dmitri Akimov, and Sergei Akimov (ice hockey). It is proper procedure to warn someone, even an experienced editor, if they appear to be running afoul of Wikipedia policies, which is the case with the above listed moves. Dolovis (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not proper to "warn" somebody as a first step, if one is really assuming good faith, and not just pretending. The proper thing is to take contact and start a discussion on the other editor's talkpage – which happens to be exactly what I did. If the editor then fails to listen, then it's proper to issue a warning. First making a lot of reverts, then, after being contacted politely by the reverted editor, issuing a "warning" - and placing it on my talkpage! – is anything but assuming good faith. There was absolutely no ground for assuming that I would continue moving pages after realizing that they were contested. Still you assumed exactly that – i.e. you were assuming bad faith. The sequence of events exposes you.

Your claim "but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue" falls flat on its face, considering I was the one contacting you – politely. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As further explained at WP:UW, talk page warnings also serve to notify other editors that you have already been notified about the disruptive editing. Given that you had recently moved several articles contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, I thought it proper to place a warning on your talk page so other concerned editors could see that this issue had already been addressed. Dolovis (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

self admitted sock

Formal Appointee Number 6 (talk · contribs)

From their first comment they admit that they have communicated with the user before. Blatant sock. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom:, AIV then, rather than here? Just looking at the guy's edit pattern I could tell he was a sock without even reading the edits p b p 00:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

will do. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously an alternate account, but unless you can point to an actual violation of WP:SOCK (which posting talk page comments normally is not, unless it is to appear as multiple voices in a discussion) or unless there is good reason to think this is al already blocked or banned editor, I see no reason for a block. DES ^(talk) 00:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviorally, there is very strong evidence that the account is being used by Arnhem 96 (talk · contribs) for block evasion. I've just blocked him indef for that reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why was Arnhem 96 blocked? And their talk page access withdrawn? No-one has pointed to an editor (blocked or not) of whom they are a sock. Their only crime seems to have been embarrassing Werieth, in the SPI of Betacommand where Werieth had just admitted to 9,000 edits under another identity. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley the edits where not under a different identity, Please review Wikipedia:Unified login Werieth (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And its not like I was hiding them, commons:Special:Contributions/Werieth and see the link on my user page. Werieth (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Betacommand, you still haven't learned the grammatical use of "where" vs. "were" (although per both of your usual practice, you'll now edit your grammatical error to hide it). Andy Dingley (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake, Andy. This is a previously checkuser identified blocked editor ([109]). Regardless of the result of the other SPI, this is a block-on-sight issue. Black Kite (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has a CU been run on Formal Appointee Number 6? Or on Arnhem 96? Because if they haven't, then that's a pretty serious accusation for you, a heavily involved admin, to be making on zero evidence. We have much better behavioural evidence than Werieth is another of Betacommand's accounts than we do to link Arnhem 96 to another randomly picked account. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...apart from the fact that this account admits it ... I give up on this one and won't comment further. You're obviously not a stupid person, but if you want to continue to ridiculously defend an obvious sock of a blocked/banned user seemingly on the basis that they agree with you, well knock yourself out. Black Kite (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

Well its nice to meet you too! i always enjoy meeting socks impersonating other editors. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.globaltimes.cn/content/827925.shtml

[2] ttp://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

[3] ttp://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

[4] ttp://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

[5] ttp://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

[6] ttp://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

[7] ttp://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

[8] ttp://www.faasafety.gov/files/gslac/library/documents/2011/Jan/49877/ADIZ%20TFR%20Intercepts%20w%20answers.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

@@ Line 1,343: / Line 1,343: @@
 :It's definitely not proper to "''warn''" somebody as a first step, if one is really assuming good faith, and not just pretending. The proper thing is to take contact and start a discussion on the other editor's talkpage – which happens to be exactly what I did. If the editor then fails to listen, '''''then''''' it's proper to issue a warning. First making a lot of reverts, then, after being contacted politely by the reverted editor, issuing a "warning" - and placing it on my talkpage! – is anything but assuming good faith. There was absolutely no ground for assuming that I would continue moving pages after realizing that they were contested. Still you assumed exactly that – i.e. you were assuming bad faith. The sequence of events exposes you.
 :Your claim "''but rather than engage in further discussion with me to resolve this issue''" falls flat on its face, considering I was the one contacting you – ''politely''. [[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
+:: As further explained at [[WP:UW]], talk page warnings also serve to notify ''other editors'' that you have already been notified about the disruptive editing. Given that you had recently moved several articles contrary to [[WP:COMMONNAME]], I thought it proper to place a warning on your talk page so other concerned editors could see that this issue had already been addressed. [[User:Dolovis|Dolovis]] ([[User talk:Dolovis|talk]]) 06:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 == self admitted sock ==

Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 06:26, 13 December 2013

Suspected Attempt at Outing [1]

User:Kafziel abusing admin tools and overriding long established consensus

Comment from Kafziel

Looking forward

Proposal to indef block Kafziel

Proposal to give Kafziel a barnstar and block or desysop some random other editors

Minphie and Drug Free Australia's call "WIKIPEDIA EDITORS URGENTLY NEEDED"

Update on cannabis suite

Another SPA POV-pushing and edit warring at Bukharan Jews, WP:NPA on article Talk page

User: Anjooraan

User:Coffee's mass deletions and policy violations

This problem with Alansohn isn’t new

Stop it

Request to block disruptive user Medeis

User:Liang1a not going beyond complaints of prejudice against China to discuss contested edits to ADIZ articles

User:ColonelHenry more personal attacks and outing

Sent to ArbCom

70.120.95.221 - continued disruption and possible sock

Rakeshkraja and All Things Nice

Vandalism report

User:Sepsis II and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography

It's gotten messier since I withdrew it

User:Wran – continued disruption

User:Nathan Johnson

User: 78.156.109.166 again

Gabriella~four 3.6

BLP concerns?

magickirin11 socks

Pramukh Swami - Controversy - Alleged Sexual Assault Allegations by Pramukh Swami and BAPS Senior Monks

William Kelly (Olympian) probably needs speedy delete

Rivatphil's multiple BLP's and Copyvios.

Active DRV short-circuited by an apparent super-vote

Jclemens restriction

Proposed: Reverse BLP sanction in this case

Jclemens blocked

Question

Vandalism

Hyper-aggressive editor, Roccodrift

Potentially disruptive class project?

Request for a section move (It was posted in the wrong place)

IP removal of sourced info

User:AleexxAlcala issuing severe personal attack

Legal threat and repeated blanking at Raúl Cuero

Dolovis back again

self admitted sock

Leave a Reply