Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive671

Christina Aguilera, Super Bowl XLV and The Star-Spangled Banner

Resolved

• Christina Aguilera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Super Bowl XLV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Star-Spangled Banner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been some edit-warring going on in these three articles, but since the issue is about Wikipedia and since there is a possible hoax, I thought I'd better bring it here. The text in Christina Aguilera currently says Afterwards, the mistake was linked to a vandalized edit on the Wikipedia article for 'The Star-Spangled Banner'. The reference is to the Daily Mail article. So - is this a hoax? Undue weight? Are we covering up? StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) I believe The Daily Mail is wrong; the vandalism occurred several minutes after Aguilera's words. (2) Since when did The Daily Mail become a reliable source? NW (Talk) 21:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c, but I agree with NW anyway) Err... here's the version of the anthem on 4 Feb 2011, which is correct AFAICT, and certainly doesn't have the Aguilera mistake. By the next edit, she has already made the mistake and the article is edited thereafter to note this. Looking at the edit history of the article thereafter, fun and games then begin. So, it's not Wikipedia's fault; the fact that a Wikipedia article was vandalised afterwards in line with her mistake is hardly relevant and I can't see why it would be suitable for inclusion in any article. Bencherlite^Talk 21:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The daily mail is not a reliable source so who cares?©Geni 21:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a violation of Crystal Ball rules to state that (1) she's not likely to be asked back next year; (2) they are not likely to produce a hit single of her recording; and (3) they won't need to anyway, as it will be all over youtube? However, this could be has already been added to the "Roseanne list", i.e. the list of mangled performances by public figures: Performances and adaptations of The Star-Spangled Banner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This may be relevant in Christina Aguilera, provided its not given undue weight. I doubt it deserves more than a line in Super Bowl XLV, acknowledging that she was the singer & made a mistake. It's totally irrelevant recentism to add this to The Star-Spangled Banner. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why there's a separate article on good and bad performances of the Anthem. Here's the actual Daily Mail article to which the Guardian article refers.[1] Looks like they were confused about the timestamps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, somehow my comment managed to not edit-conflict with yours. Was meant to be a reply to the OP, not you. Sorry for the confusion! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The song's talk page says that someone has notified the Daily Mail about their error. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, the daily mail made an error!? Perish the thought. Protonk (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Impossible! That would be as likely as the National Enquirer denying that extraterrestrials in UFOs had mated with Britney Spears. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In her own apology she says, "I got so caught up in the moment of the song that I lost my place." She doesn't say, "I got the words wrong because I looked it up on Wikipedia." --B (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Which shows the trap anyone (even a semi-respected newspaper) can get into when they engage in "original research". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, the Mail isn't "semi-respected"... ;) GiantSnowman 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've always considered the Daily Mail a reliable source: if they say something, you can rely on it being wrong. ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

There were some clips on TV today of Aguilera singing the song, in that same style, and without mistakes, over a period of years starting at age 11. She didn't use wikipedia as a source, she simply messed it up somehow, on this occasion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Continued disruptive editor at Chicago

Resolved: Watching. m.o.p 07:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please handle 204.140.189.253 (talk · contribs)? I reported this incident recently at ANI but no intervention was made and the user is still continuing to go against consensus. The archive is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive669#Disruptive editor at Chicago. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I second that emotion. The user won't talk, he just keeps posting the same unsourced factoid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on the user's talk page. I've explained that discussion is their best friend. Tiderolls 05:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

One more strike and they're out. I'll keep an eye out. m.o.p 07:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edited again. Same change. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 03:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User:VJ-Yugo

VJ-Yugo (talk · contribs) POV-pushing on 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, edit-warring to deny the result was a success for NATO - see multiple changes in edit history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And he's continuing to edit-war, see [2] - he's been edit-warring on that article for over a week now. I've given him a 3RR warning now, in addition to the warnings he's already had, but I think he needs more than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He also appears to be edit-warring on other Balkans articles, like Battle of Košare. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I came to this thread via your notice on VJ-Yugo's talk page, which I was monitoring because I'd issued them with formal notification of WP:ARBMAC yesterday as a result of concerns raised by another editor at WT:MILHIST. Anyhow, I've blocked VJ-Yugo for 48 hours and recorded the sanction at ARBMAC; further disruption will doubtless result in longer blocks. EyeSerene^talk 10:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep my eyes peeled too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

AnomieBot requesting assistance

Please see this. Seems Anomie has built in a notice system when the bot runs into problems.....or it has become aware! Either way, please fix. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot has clearly developed power of thought, and so ought to be blocked immediately. In the meantime, I think I've fixed the problem it didn't like, but time will tell... Bencherlite^Talk 02:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, self thinking bots should be bloc....END TRANSMISSION. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Bad News, Skynet AnomieBot seems to have terminated User:John Connor No edits since 2006!!!! commence panic....... NOW The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Machines The Bots also took out User:Neo way back in 2007 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Way I see it Resistance is futile I volunteer to be the first to be assimilated.... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. End of line. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The only winning move is not to play. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Potential Canvassing for an AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Both of these concerns are based around the Article for Deletion discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battles in Vermont. The first is more straightforward; it's based off of this edit by User:Dthomsen8. While I do want to assume good faith, I'm struggling to in this case. If Colonel Warden had been a prominent editor at Wikiproject Vermont, for example, this would have been a different case, but I believe this request was made based solely off the fact the Colonel Warden tends to very often vote keep on articles for deletion (often even voting speedy keep on controversial ones). I'm always reluctant to accuse an editor of something like this, and I'm sure Dthomsen8 is otherwise a productive editor, but I worry that if I don't bring this up it will be overlooked and possibly repeated in the future.

The second issue is a bit more complicated, concerning the Article Rescue Squadron. I want to start off with a disclaimer: in no way do I oppose the goals or even many of the deeds of this group. There's few things more helpful than cleaning up a weak article, and so I commend any editors who have used the group effectively. However, I've noticed a disturbing trend of the rescue tag being used, not to bring quality edits to the article, but simply as a way of attracting likely keep votes. I worry that such is the case with this AfD. At 04:14, 7 February 2011, the rescue tag was added to the Battles in Vermont article. After this point, there were one or more editors who are active editors in the ARS (I'm reluctant to include names in this case, since the situation is not 100% clear and I want to assume good faith) voted Keep in the discussion, without making any cleanup edits in the article itself. Ironically, the only editor to actually make a constructive edit to the article before their vote was Colonel Warden, although this does mean the first issue should be ignored. I do worry that both of these issues have the potential to unjustly affect the discussion, so I wanted to bring it to the attention of administrators.

As a final note, I will certainly be notifying Dthomsen8 of this ANI as per the rules. However, I'm unsure if there's anyone I should or must notify in regards to the second issue (the ARS talk page itself did not seem like a fitting place) so I would appreciate any administrator input. Thanks in advance.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, seems innocuous enough to me. While the Colonel certainly opines to keep often enough, he also does a fair amount of work referencing and expanding articles, and this topic seems like something that has the potential to be rescued. NW (Talk) 03:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• • FWIW, I saw this AN/I section, and went to the AfD to give an opinion. If the intent of the AN/I notice was to discourage positive !votes, it seems to have counter-fired, as canvassing generally does. I never bother looking at the ARS page, and they send me no notices, but I always look here, to see what justified or unjustified complaints there may be about various things. . If there is canvassing abuse at AfD , there isn't a single closing admin I know of who does not take the possibility into account. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC) .

• Is this implying that I'm attempting to canvas here? If so, I resent that and find the accusation absurd. If not, then please ignore that resentment.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• As I have been the target of DGG's bad faith accusations and such in the past, particularly at DRV... accusations of collusion with others, threats to block, etc...it is safe to say that, yes, he was accusing you of canvassing via ANI. Tarc 14:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith hope this isn't true. I'm certainly not going to defend this action before actually being accused of anything.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

First "straightforward" case is clear indeed as "not CANVASS". Discussion about the ARS is, however, malformed for this board. Collect 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering why it clearly isn't. I've read through WP: CANVASS multiple times, and can't see how the first case fit any of the reasons one would likely notify an editor of a discussion.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this does not look like canvassing, so I see no need for action here.

I'm no fan of the way that the ARS often functions as a canvassing vehicle, but so far that does not seem to have happened in this case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The ARS issue is certainly less clear and potentially not an issue. But my comment above was referring to the User talk page canvassing issue I mentioned in the first paragraph.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note I also think it's important to note that, while the rescue tag's addition was mentioned in the AfD, it's mention on the AfD discussion page occurred long after it was added. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but I think it's important to note that some of the votes that look like they were added before the rescue tag were actually added after.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, I added a note on the AfD page about the rescue tag with this diff, within the same minute that the rescue tag was placed on the article. The tag that was added "long after" is, I assume, this one, which was added by somebody else. But the article was in fact promptly tagged in the AfD that it had been tagged by ARS, just wanted to clear that up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh, yep, you're right, I saw the lower tag and assumed that was the only one (after all, why would someone mention it twice?) My bad, I apologize, thanks for correcting me.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries! :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Asking one person who commonly works on articles in trouble, isn't canvassing. Once it was tagged for the rescue squadron, that editor would've found his way there anyway. Assume good faith. Dream Focus 19:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please look at User talk:Colonel Warden#AfD for Battles in Vermont to see how Colonel Warden did just what I hoped he would do, he contributed information to the article, with an inline citation. I invited him to look at the article because he often contributes to military history articles. I see that he voted in the AfD discussion, but I was not canvassing for a vote, I was seeking improvement to the article text. Perhaps I should have worded my invitation differently, and I will be more cautious in the future. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• this seems to be largely innocuous. "Canvassing" a party of one is hardly cause for concern even if the message were to be slanted and the recipient especially prone to acting a certain way in response to such a message. Neither of those two conditions hold completely here. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think there is anything special about this instance, and given what we normally accept about the use of the rescue tags it shouldn't be considered canvassing. However, I think it points to a much bigger issue involving the ARS and how it functions. They only attempt to "rescue" articles that are actively being discussed at AfD, and this means tagging those entries. This also means that they de facto canvass the whole ARS about every AfD discussion that involves an article for rescue. I think the ARS would do much better if they tried to tag and rescue articles, before they go to AfD. What would the community say if someone started the Article Scrapping Squadron, which tags every entry at AfD that members think should go to the junk heap, thereby brining an army of deletionists to the party? Whether one is an inclusionist, deletionist or none of the above, the best time to help entries meet our standards is before the AfD drama fest.Griswaldo (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the ARS (as well AFD, which is "articles for deletion", not "articles for keeping") by doing that? Moreover, isn't that also what we have cleanup tags for (which I know is another argument altogether but is still relevant here just to mention)? –MuZemike 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My point is that they should be "rescuing" articles from their crappy states rather than rescuing crap from getting flushed. Many articles sit with those tags for years. No one does anything to fix them. Then someone notices the article, has a look at what can be done, deems it unsalvageable and puts it up to AfD. The ARS then shows up to oppose what seems to me to be a good faith attempt to help cleanup the encyclopedia. My question is, where were they for the years when this article sat around Wikipedia making the encyclopedia look worse? It's almost like they are hoarders of content. Honestly I think its a pretty good metaphor. They are hard at work to make sure you don't throw their stuff out, but otherwise who cares what state their house is in. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

sure they should work on improving articles all the time, and so should we all--including the people who nominate them for deletion. I regard it as a very impressive argument for deletion if sometimes makes it evident that they have tried to improve an article, found it impossible, and come to AfD as the only remaining recourse. The people at ARS are divided in two groups: the few, like Col.W, who improve articles, and the others, who do very little of anything about it. It's a problem at many workgroups. It's a problem with Wikipedians in general. I've never figured out why this group arouses such anger among anyone--they're just not very effective. And I point out that we decided at its talk p. about 6 months ago to rename it Articles for Discussion, just like the other XfD processes, but the difficulty of changing some very complicated templates has kept anyone from implementing it. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, as a member of ARS I do try to improve articles nominated for deletion, but sometimes I just comment, and in a few instances I agree that deletion is the right result. In some cases, I look at the article and the discussion, and do nothing at all. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We are all hoarders of content in some respect, especially those of us that create new articles. We are finding a home for a collection of ideas or facts which didn't exist before. That term shouldn't be pejorative at all. I also think we need to shitcan this notion that some content is making the encyclopedia "look bad". It either meets the guidelines and policies for inclusion or it doesn't. Those guidelines weren't created (for the most part) with the intent of making WP look good or bad. They were created in order to provide a baseline above which we should expect an article could be written which is built around reliable sources, factually neutral and not editor contrived. If ARS wants to improve articles at the margin that is their business and how they determine what the margin is is also their business. The only serious problem with the ARS project is when it strays away from article improvement and becomes a tacit coordination mechanism for people who don't like the deletion process to throw a wrench in it. That didn't appear to happen here. Anything else that goes on under the umbrella of a particular wikiproject is frankly none of your business unless you want to help them do their job. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Protonk, call it what you want, but having poor quality entries on possibly non-notable subjects lingering around the encyclopedia is bad for the project. I didn't actually mean to stress appearances as much as I might have (it just worked with the hoarder metaphor) but I do think they matter. As a reference work we need not only to do our best to inform our readers, but we need to remain credible, and that is an image problem whether you like it or not. That said we are not all hoarders of content. Some editors are purgers and most are neither. I agree with you regarding what the main problem with ARS is, btw. I think the problem is exacerbated by the manner in which they normally function however, and that was my point. Brownhaired girl is right though, this is not the right forum so I will cease discussing the matter further. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Time to close. This discussion seems to have meandered off into general observations about the ARS, which don't belong here. Since there is clearly no appetite for taking any action on the original complaint, it's time to close this thread. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Notices on here don't last long anyway; it would be preemptive to prevent potential commenters on weighing in just because some are possibly going off topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Eliko at WP:TFD

Resolved: Template deleted. User notified about AE. Nightw 15:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble with one user Eliko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in regards to a template's deletion proposal. The issue has been going on for months, and I'd like to be rid of it.

I'll be as brief as possible with the background. Last year, the editor in question made several attempts to add what I considered personal analysis to a template that, at the time, had already been orphaned and made obsolete. An agreement had already been made on the talk page to delete it. After twice reverting Eliko myself, another attempt was made. I decided to ignore it, and immediately nominated it for deletion instead, since its content had already been moved to articlespace, two days before Eliko started editing.

The closing administrator JPG-GR (talk · contribs) ruled for a "delete", but later changed the decision to "merge" after Eliko requested this from the admin on his talk page, claiming that some content (meaning his later edits, which I had not reverted on principle) had not been merged. The admin listed the template in the holding cell and requested that Eliko notify him when he had completed the merge. I made no attempt to protest (I probably should have), but had no intention of letting his edits be pushed through, since there was no consensus for them in the first place.

Two months later, however, no attempt at "merging" had been made, so I relisted the template for deletion. I was content to let that discussion play out, hoping for a wider response from regulars about what protocol would normally call for, but Eliko has now twice removed my {{TfD}} tag on the template whilst discussion is still ongoing.

The target article is substantially different now. Meanwhile, I'm confident that none of the regulars on WP:TFD will touch that debate, so unless an administrator steps in the template is set to rot in the holding cell forever. Nightw 08:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Eliko's response:

1. As opposed to User:Nightw's claim, no "agreemnet" has ever been reached to delete the template. On the contrary, all other users made it clear that the deletion can be carried out - only "if there is no need anymore to synchronize content on both SoP and the Foreign relations articles".
2. The discussion ended up with the resolution: "The result of the discussion was merge".
3. The closing adminisrator crossed off the word "deletion", because two editors (User:Eliko and User:Alinor) supported the merge, against one editor only (User:Nightw) who supported the deletion.
4. The administrator has unconditionally requested to fulfill the final decision - i.e. to merge the article - before any admin can (conditionally) delete it. Two users (User:Alinor and User:Eliko) have been trying to fulfill this final decision - and to merge the article, however, unfortunately, the contents of the template have not been merged yet, because somebody has been trying (by violating the 3 Revert Rule) to prevent this merge, and has also been trying to delete the whole template before the final decision is fulfilled.
5. For the closing adminisrator's final decision to be fufilled, I simply propose to undo the revert - which violated the 3 Revert Rule - and which unilaterally undid the majority's version that had merged the template into the other article.
6. Although the target article is substantially different now, the merge is still relevant, because it relates to preferring more updated documents of 2007 and of 2010, to some outdated documents of 1986 and of 1998.

Eliko (talk) 10:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this to degrade into another back-and-forth, but I will ask that you refrain from claiming to know the reasoning of another other editor. I'd expect that JPG-GR would use far better logic in his reversal than what you claim, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. I'll let him speak for himself. And while I have been (regretably) guilty of reverting 3RR on that particular article in the past, I have not been so in this instance. The discussion was closed on 17 December, and no attempt to merge has been made since. Please, correct me if I'm wrong, or retract the accusation. Nightw 11:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, but its resolutions are reached by concensus. Second, when I talked about "somebody who has been trying (by violating the 3 Revert Rule) to prevent the merge", I didn't mention any particulat name, so I don't have to retract any accusation. Anyways, that revert - which violated the 3 Revert Rule - really did unilaterally undo the majority's version that had merged the template into the other article, so I still propose to fulfill the closing administrator's resolution by simply undoing the revert - which violated the 3 Revert Rule - and which unilaterally undid the majority's version that had merged the template into the other article. Eliko (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin) I've reverted the removal of the TfD tag as these should not be removed while the discussion is in progress. I've also dropped the user a note that is no such thing as a "final decision", that WP:Consensus can change and that in this instance the re-nomination is reasonable as a new reason is given - namely the merge no longer makes sense. No comment on the wider issues. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightw 11:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about, because the situation is the other way around! As opposed to what you've claimed, the merge does make sense and is still relevant, because it relates to preferring more updated documents of 2007 and of 2010, to some outdated documents of 1986 and of 1998, so as I've stated, the situation is the other way around. Anyways, I'm not going to remove the {{Tfd}}, because two editors, namely User:Nightw and User:Dpmuk, think that the re-nomination is reasonable. Eliko (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Continuing this bit of the discussion on User talk:Eliko. Dpmuk 13:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This whole situation is complicated hugely by attribution requirements, see my comments on the TfD for more on this, but essentially I'm no longer sure we can delete the template anyway. Dpmuk 13:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Can another person take a look at this

Please could another person take a look at this please. User:Eliko seems insistent on keeping two versions of this article going, one in the template, one on the actual article - more discussion is on the users talk page. I've tried discussing things with them but seem to have hit a brick wall. Could someone else try? Dpmuk (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We desperately need some further imput here. Nightw 02:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's now gone beyond my patience. He's decided to edit the thing now. He won't stick to WP:BRD, and frankly, in my view, he's being deliberately disruptive. I need an administrator to step in, and sort this out... Any takers? Nightw 11:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't mislead the admins, by mentioning WP:BRD. No revert has been made. I've just fixed undisputedly obvious mistakes. Do you really want this template to contain undisputedly obvious mistakes (like outdated figures) that have already been fixed in the article? Eliko (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you call this and this? You've been reverted twice by two different users, and you've just repeated the same edits after you've been asked to stop. I don't care what your template contains. It'll be deleted. Nightw 12:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Again you mislead the admins, because your two diffs involve three different users (me you and Dpmuk), each of which had reverted once only, so how does all of that relate to WP:BRD? My edits are not the same edits, although both of them fix undisputedly obvious errors. Any deletion will be made only after a consensus is reached. Eliko (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

With the template deleted, this is pretty much done and dusted for me. Dougweller has warned the editor in question about relevant Arbcom sanctions, so there's nothing much else that needs to be addressed as far as I'm concerned. Many thanks to everybody for their assistance. Nightw 15:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Not actually a warning, it says "This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions." It's a notification. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User Kanatipo, bad faith, again.

Kanatipo was blocked for 24 hours by uninvolved admin, Moonriddengirl, for personal attacks and not assuming good faith including within the report. Unfortunately, it seems that nothing will be different as his first action, upon leaving the block, was a violation of WP:AGF, whereas he failed to assume good faith on the part of admin, WillBeback here. It seems a progressively harsher block may be in order, or perhaps a topic ban from abortion related topics. _WM^O 02:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You aren't very funny, wmo. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see where that isn't AGF, but it isn't a personal attack. Kenatipo should be advised that sarcastic language probably isn't the best way to go when it comes to being AGF. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an amusing example of how wmo shows good faith (from a WQA against me):

I asked him whether he could remove my postings from his user page, he answered sarcastically. I, obviously, would like them to be removed.

_WikiMan^One 18:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-issue. It is up to each individual whether or not to retain postings on their talk pages. I don't see any sarcasm in his reply to you. My suggestion would be, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. BTW, you didn't inform Kenatipo about the discussion here.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, coming from you who agrees with him on various issues, you would try to defend him. Sorry, I did forget to notify him, thank you for going ahead and doing so. The posts in question were not posted on his talk page, they were posted on other pages and were the "Quote" was quickly corrected, it is posted there deceptively and in an attempt to undermine my editing. Obviously, you would like me to "get out" because I provide a necessary check to activist editing/pov which you seem to support. _WikiMan^One 20:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's get something straight right off the bat. I don't "support" anyone on various issues, nor am I "defending" anyone. Now, what I see is you gettiing bent out of shape because your move proposal on Talk:Pro-life is being vigorously debated (and as I see it, will probably not pass), and rather than going on with life, you would rather continue instead to badger someone who doesn't have the same views that you do. I suggested that you drop the issue as there are more important things in Wiki-life to worry about. An admin reversed your earlier actions of WP:NOTAVOTE, so that right there speaks volumes about your particular behavior in this case.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 21:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC) --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

My advice is to just back down. Stop trying to find a reason to block him again. That's rarely a productive enterprise. --Jayron32 03:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Jayron, I have 2 stupid questions: 1) how am I supposed to know that you are an admin, and 2) does your comment here as an admin effectively end this discussion? Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you have pop-ups enabled, simply hover over his name and it will tell you the permissions of a specific editor. It does say "sysop" for Jayron, so he is indeed an admin. I also have added js code that highlights the names of any admin so I can easily pick them out in my list of changes.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 05:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ArcAngel, my popups say User:Jayron32 and User talk:Jayron32 when I hover. That's all. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In this specific case, WTH does it matter if the person is an admin or not? Good, wise, sage advice should be heeded no matter the role of the person who provides it! Dropping the WP:SARCASM, and learning to WP:DGAF will go a long way in helping you go forward as an editor 'round here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

bwilkins, my second question to Jayron was 2) does your comment here as an admin effectively end this discussion? --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The contributor seems to have dialed it back considerably since before his block, and I think that the most productive approach at this point is to encourage him to dial it back more. I've left him a note at his talk page about interacting with others. It's nowhere near as succinct as your note, BWilkins, which conveys more or less the same idea with far less bandwidth. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: I strongly suggest that both editors drop their sticks and disengage from each other. The previous ANI thread bordered on significant WP:ABF. Just don't interact with each other and your Wikipedia experience will be better. Hasteur (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

IP 71.63.157.178

This IP is vandalizing several articles as their history shows. It would probably be wise to simply block this IP for a period of time. Arzel (talk) 04:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Arzel. I think you should take this to the vandalism noticeboard. There's a link at the top of this page, under "Are you in the right place?" --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Or don't bother, the edits appear to be stale. I would decline a block unless they start back up again. Protonk (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Stale? February 9 is TODAY! --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Begging your pardon, Mr. Administrator Protonk, sir. (I didn't know you were an admin either.) Are edits from today stale? --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(Kenatipo - you might wish to stop making comments when you don't actually know the correct answers) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

IP edits are under a narrower time frame than those of registered users. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bugs. You are CIVIL and you AGF. I didn't know "stale" was a term of art here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No reason to get snotty about it. The last edit from that IP address was 5 hours ago. Blocking that address for vandalism while there is no activity is pretty pointless. Protonk (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not being snotty. I was trying to seem obsequious. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(←) By stale it means that the IP hasn't edited in hours (2 hours before your report and about 5 hours ago at this point). However, considering that the IP appears static as it was warned for vandalism on the same article over a week ago, I've given them one fresh final warning.  7  07:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comcast addresses are actually one of the most static ISPs out there and hardly reassign. They're basically accounts. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 14:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't/can't Template:Palestine foreign relations be deleted?

An issue with an editor involved in this is being discussed above - WP:ANI#User:Eliko at WP:TFD - but I want to raise the wider issue. This template is basically an article within a template. It was meant to be deleted after any relevant material was merged, see [3] (the closing Admin has been contacted but hasn't replied. The current TfD discussion is a bit of a mess [4] and I am not happy with the removal of the TfD template. It's suggested that we can't delete this because of attribution but I'm not all convinced that is a problem.

This also seems to fall in the area covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been asked on my talk page to take a look at this and recommend that this ANI thread be closed. The matter of the deletion of the template is the subject of an ongoing deletion discussion and should be discussed (only) there. Should any misconduct issues arise out of that MFD, they can be raised at WP:AE or another appropriate forum. I don't think that opening a third discussion at ANI is likely to help much.  Sandstein  11:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I was going to mark this resolved but realised there is a technical issue here. One argument is that we cannot delete this (not should not) because attributions would/have be/been lost during any merge. It's been suggested that if the decision is to delete, that it be blanked and fully protected to preserve the history. This question was one of the reasons I started this thread. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If we have to do one or the other the second sounds better to me. There are many references in the template that should prove useful for anyone writing on the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to keep this thread open if only to consider the attribution issue. I made the statement at TfD that I wasn't sure that deletion was possible but I'm still reasonably new to areas like this so would like to elicit more opinions and this thread seems the most likely way to do it. Even if we limit this thread to that issue I think it's worth keeping open as essentially it's a different issue to the TfD. Dpmuk (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as there are only a few editors of the page it should be fine to make an edit summary of "content merged from Template:Palestine foreign relations, attributed to... XXXXX" on the page the content was merged to and delete the template. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This essay has a useful explanation --Errant ^(chat!) 12:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, wasn't aware of that as Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#List of authors suggests that's only acceptable if there's only a single author. That may well need updating then. In which case I'm fine with deletion and an appropiate null edit. Dpmuk (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I can help with some of the confusion here? It is a giant mess, and I know I'm quite involved, but if there are any questions I can clear up, just give me (or the author) a buzz. I did the merge from the template to the article space in this edit, but it was copy-paste... Sorry... Nightw 12:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No, you have never done the merge, and the version you're talking about is a very old version of November, whereas the original resolution to merge is of December, and the discussion proves that this resolution refers to some more updated documents, which can be well noticed in the right side (line 517) of this diff (between the article and the template). Eliko (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was anything being added to a template that was meant to be deleted after a merge? Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Because:

1. The template had contained undisputedly obvious errors (like outdated figures etc.) that have already undisputedly been fixed in the article into which the template should be merged, whereas what was added to the template - was taken from the very updated undisputable figures in the article into which the template should be merged, so no damage was brought about by having fixed those errors.

2. Most important: thanks to having fixed those undisputedly obvious errors in the template, it's now much easier to notice what additions should be merged into the article - according the original resolution, as can be well noticed in the right side (line 517) of this diff (between the article and the template).

Eliko (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It's now been deleted, and I copied the contribution list to the talkpage of the FRotPNA article for attribution of any merged content. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And I've now added a null edit to the article saying that attribution is on the talk page just to make it even clearer. Dpmuk (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for all your help with this. And sorry about the mess... If there's anything else I can help with, just let me know. Nightw 15:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing Vandalism of "Vito Roberto Palazzolo"

For the past two years this article has been repeatedly vandalized by at least one user (fircks) and two IPs. Every time the vandal does the same thing - just adds comments to the wiki article voicing his opinion that the wiki article is biased/untrue/should be removed. You can see two examples at - here and here. I have posted about this to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/fircks and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Quaber (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Block evading SPA on Japanese related articles

220.102.111.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a disruptive nationalist SPA that removes sourced material, maintenance templates, user comments on talk pages and more from a handful of Japanese political/historical articles. The IP was blocked 31 hours for this today, but the user has since returned as User:Sinehannitikyokugaijin, User:Sinehannitikyokuugaijin, 216.66.9.8 and now 220.102.107.56. The articles in question are:

• Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) (and the talk page)
• Prince Hisahito of Akishino
• Hachimaki
• Anti-Japanese sentiment
• National Foundation Day
• Karafuto 1945 Summer Hyosetsu no Mon

I also received this ideological statement on my talk page, clearly showing that the editor is editing from a POV-perspective not compatible with Wikipedia. I have RPP'd the articles in question, but I would like to know if there are other possibilities, perhaps a rangeblock or something similar that would be more convenient? --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just as a little point of note, these usernames translate roughly to "Die, anti-Japanese right-wing foreigner". So there's a username violation here as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Block review

• God of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jheald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have a feeling I'm going get yelled at by one or both of the parties I have just blocked despite the fact that their edit warring seems quite obvious to me, so I am asking for feedback on it preemptively. I blocked both users, one an admin who I have recently had some discussion but no direct conflict with (read: I spoke with them at length about a related matter which I do not have any actual involvement in, administrative or otherwise). In my judgement they both obviously edit warred, and they both should have already known better as they have been here for years. (In both cases longer than myself) I therefore blocked them both for 31 hours for clear violation of WP:EDITWAR. Fire away. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dbachman did not violate 3RR on that article. A month's block is outrageous. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pieter, the block for both is only 31 hours. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've reversed the Dbachmann blocks, which I find hard to justify; only 2/3 reverts this month does not equal blockable edit-warring for a contributors with such long service, though it was going on across several pages I admit. The last edit-warring activity was last night. I agree that laying down the rules is necessary when things begin to look like they may get out of hand, but that is different from creating a fear that one cannot edit in safety (which is what such blocks can do). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the unblock. This was not a good way to deal with it. I am however pleased that Beeblebrox brought this here as I was going to bring it here until I found he'd done it already. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not comment on the content issue, see my edits to Beeblebrox' talkpage for that.

I was hoping ANI would sort this out on its own, and Deacon's unblocking me on his own accord seems to vindicate this hopee. I commend Deacon of Pndapetzim for this, as he and myself have a history of unfriendly clashes, so it is particularly satisfying to be unblocked by an admin who as an editor is in frequent dispute with me. I will view DoP with more respect in the future, as this shows a true capacity of looking at the issue, not the editor, which is so important for the project and at the same time so rare.

I have been out of touch with the development of the admin community over the past few years (I think I followed RfA during 2005-2007 or so, but I have no idea how RfA has been working out over recent years. So I was a little disturbed to see an admin jump out of the woodwork and issue blocks for non-violation of 3RR without prior warning.

So if this unblocking is going to stand, my faith in the principle of admins watching admins will be somewhat restored. I still feel uncomfortable going around with such a recent block log, so I would greatly appreciate if Beeblebrox would make an effort to have this incidence cleaned from my block log. --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I have posted what would have been my unblock request here, and I'm not happy about having a block on what was previously a six-year completely clean sheet either. As dab, so far as I can see, seems to be completely unrepentant, I would welcome advice as to how to deal with this better another time, if he starts this up all over again. Respectful thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• An edit war over a redirect? Sheesh. It sure looks to me like both reverted 3 times (technically not in 24 hours, but they should have known better anyway). Since nobody else was trying to edit that redirect, though, the disruption to other editors was probably minimal, and on that basis I'd have gone with page protection and trouting rather than blocks. Can both stop fighting and talk things out? If not, please apply 48h page protection (not to be edited through). More blocks will cause more drama and I doubt anyone really cares if that redirect points to the Wrong Version for a couple days. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not really about the redirect. It's actually about different views of the scope of the Yahweh article (see what would have been my unblock request, linked above). The redirect was just a minor collateral bit of the picture. Jheald (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should have been more explicit in explaining some of the background here. Dbachmann has been engaging in a prolonged conflict in this area. He has twice moved a related article without consensus and twice been strongly, nearly unanimously opposed and his moves reversed. He has claimed that this is in the name of administrative enforcement of WP:CFORK. This is a continuation of that ongoing "enforcement action" which in reality is just a content dispute. Nobody commenting here has explained to me why this wasn't edit warring. Not surprising since it obviously was. It seems more like everyone is upset that I blocked two users who have been here a long time, one of them an administrator. So, we grant them a free pass for edit warring because of the length of their experience here? As I said last week when Dbachmann was move-warring in this same arena, this sort of thing is exactly what people are talking about when they say admins are above the law and get treated differently. An admin and another very experienced user should know better than a newbie not to edit war. In fact Dbachmann has been blocked for it before. In short, I stand behind these blocks, I object to them being so swiftly overturned when discussion here had barely begun, and I would like to hear some reason besides "they've been here a long time" that explains why this childish warring should be ignored yet again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Beeb, I don't think anyone has said "ignore", so that's a false dichotomy. The general principle is to look for the path of least drama. Edit warring is disruptive, especially if lots of editors are involved, if lots of angst is involved (e.g. the conflict is over a contentious BLP or other contemporary battleground topic where outside agendas are involved), the complexity of the conflicting edits (higher cognitive load = more stress). Blocks on the other hand bring drama of their own, in stirring up factionalism among editors, and contributing to sometimes long-lasting resentment and burnout from the blockees, who (in the case of editors who are usually sensible) are probably already pretty stressed to be editing this stupidly in the first place. It's best to all weigh these issues against each other and look ahead to the likely outcome when figuring out what to do. Lesser measures in this case might have included protecting that redirect (nobody else was trying to edit it anyway), yelling and/or sweet-talking the participants on their talk pages, opening an ANI thread and getting wider consensus before taking drastic action, or any combination of those. Try to the extent possible to be a mediator and not just a rule enforcer. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have explained twice now, I already tried that at length with dab. He steadfastly refused to acknowledge his poor judgement and continued to engage in "warring" actions, despite having had those actions repeatedly overturned by overwhelming consensus.Protection doesn't work with dab either, he had no qualms about move warring on an article that was move protected. More than sufficient warning has been given this user, by myself, by discussions on talk pages, and by previous ANI threads. How long should we turn a blind eye to this and allow it to be explained away when we would certainly have blocked less experineced users long ago? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I remember the incident with the move protection and obviously if dab had repeated something that stupid, it would have been a pretty major escalation. But that's not what happened. The discussion at Talk:Yahweh is actually mostly pretty lame, and the flak Dab got here at ANI was mostly about his improper procedure (the move through protection) rather than about where he fit into the content dispute. Maybe an RFC about the content question can help. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also pretty clear from his comments that Deacon, the admin who summarily undid the blocks, is involved in this area also and personally involved with dab. I feel like I strayed into a walled garden and the folks inside the walls are suggesting that I should mind my own business unless I want to join in the actual dispute. This rather ignores the long-accepted position that in edit wars, move wars, wheel wars, etc, there is no right, anyone who participates is wrong by default, even if they are technically correct with regard to the actual content. As I see it that, and not what the name of the article should be or where a redirect should point, is the crux of this issue. From his block log, it looks like dab has been repeatedly blocked and someone always comes along and reverses it. I would suggest that it is the admin corps itself that has failed here. We can hardly expect dab to respect the rules if he is actually encouraged to not in this manner. It is clear to me now that the wagons were already circled around him and there is apparently nothing he can do that won't be explained away by his defenders as not being a big deal, even if it demonstrably part of a pattern of warring in a particular topic area and not an isolated incident. That's a shame as this approach will only increase the (apparently correct) perception that there are admins who always defend one of their own and will not hold them to the same standards we we expect of everyone else. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I can accept the idea that the unblock was a little bit too sudden. However, dab has been editing (mostly sensibly) in contentious topic areas for a long time, so it's unsurprising (and shouldn't be held too much against him) that he's been in more friction than editors who stay in more peaceful topics. The block/unblock pattern that you observe is another reason to expect more blocks to lead to more drama. Repeating the same action and expecting a different result is an unpromising strategy even if the action is in principle justified by policy. Anyway, dab appears to be taking an editing break, which should calm things down for now. I'll probably be offline for the rest of the day, so can't respond further for now. 71.141.88.54 (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That unblock appeared to me to be too soon, without sufficient time for any consensus to form here on the appropiateness (or otherwise) of the initial admin action. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I would encourage extra eyes in the Topic Area, We have multiple problematic users which do nothing to help the situation. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Extra eyes" only goes so far if every action an administrator makes is going to be put up for heavy scrutiny. What's the incentive to spend my time there? NW (Talk) 18:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • We need to one to referee while content issues are hashed out. Your reward? Warm Fuzzy feelings of doing the right thing.... I guess The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• And to those who think more talking to dab would have been helpful, I invite you to peruse the various conversations I have had with him, including the most recent one on his talk page where he asks me if I have lost my mind because I dared to block the mighty Dbachmann and suggests that the problem is my lack of testicular fortitude. He does not and will not acknowledge the flaws in his actions if other admins are always willing to step in and mollycoddle him. This is a disgraceful situation, and since apparently nobody is allowed to block dab I guess we have to go the more painful route of WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • With such an eclectic bunch of characters? dab is rather dull compared to some there. I'll get the popcorn ready..... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear at the moment if dab is going really going to take a wikibreak, resign his adminship, etc, and I really don't want to have to go there anyway so I won't be doing anything at the moment, but what else can I do? Look for yourself :[5] [6] [7][8] and tell me if you see a prolonged content war or not.He won't admit it, claiming it is simply administrative enforcement of policy and not a content dispute at all, he can't be blocked, or rather he can but the block will be overturned by other admins who seem to think it is ok for him to edit war and have let him off three times now. When I talk to him he says I am crazy and have no content in my scrotum. I'm pretty sure both my brain and my testes are functioning properly, and I see an admin acting like a bully and doing things they know damn well are disruptive, if not downright contrary to policy and consensus at the relevant article talk pages. I don't see what other options are left, but will wait for now to see what dab decides to do next, if only because formatting an RFC is a pain in the ass. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox I would put it to you that you have expressed here some emotional baggage that suggests that next time rather than blocking two editors neither of whom breached 3RR that you bring it to ANI and get a consensus before initiating such an action. To place a block on an editor who had been editing for six years with a clear record, without doing that because you think that the other editor is edit warring is not right. It leaves a stain on their log which is unwarranted.

If you are going to block an administrator you should think about it long and hard and discuss it with other administrators first. In all the cases I have seen where on administrator blocks another--without discussing it first at AN or ANI and getting a consensus--there is a cat fight and the blocking administrator does not walk away cleanly. In this case you have stated "I therefore blocked them both for 31 hours for clear violation of WP:EDITWAR." If it had been a clear violation then the consensus here would have agreed with you and the blocks would have remained in place. So this incident would appear to have brought into question your judgement, both for being hasty (not discussing it here first) and for your concept of what constitutes a "clear violation of EDITWAR".

I would strongly suggest that you agree with Dbachmann not use administrative actions on each other, but if either of you think that the other is out of order your report it to ANI so that an uninvolved administrator can take action, because in future like it or not you are now involved with Dbachmann and he with you. -- PBS (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A prohibition on blocking administrators without prior discussion, in situations in which mere mortal editors could be blocked unilaterally, has the effect of placing admins "above the law" and encouraging malfeasance. Do we really want to encourage a situation in which editorial misconduct by administrators can only be addressed by arbcom, and only after a prior RFC, because any block placed on an admin's account will be immediately and unilaterally reversed, creating the impression of admins "protecting their own"? Chester Markel (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking anyone who has been editing for more than a year without block, without first discussing it with the person or here at ANI is not good judgement. As I said above "In all the cases I have seen where on administrator blocks another--without discussing it first at AN or ANI and getting a consensus--there is a cat fight and the blocking administrator does not walk away cleanly." that has nothing to do with putting anyone above the law it has to do with judgement. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, Dbachmann's personal attacks upon Beeblebrox, or the latter's very understandable objections to them, do not create "involvement". Blocking users involved in an edit war is an action taken in an administrative capacity and does not create a personal dispute, even if one of the blocked editors is an admin whose status affords him an apparent immunity to sanctions. Chester Markel (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do create involvement. There is now bad blood between them, or are you seriously suggesting that if Dbachmann was to block Beeblebrox there would not be questions asked along those lines? The simplest way to avoid such accusations is for both to bring any future disputes between them here and ask for a third party admin to take any administrative measures necessary. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion the statement "If you are going to block an administrator you should think about it long and hard and discuss it with other administrators first." is grotesque and should be publically repudiated. Either replace the first occurrence of “administrator” with “editor” or don’t say it at all. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not a moral issue it is a practical one. Beeblebrox would have been in a far stronger position if the issue had been discussed here first. Personally unless it was a clear breach of 3RR I would not block an long term editor of good standing (which all administrators are) under the catchall WP:EDITWAR before giving explicit warnings and probably discussing it here. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see there are finally some users with some sense commenting here. In response to PBS:I never said anyone breached 3RR, they missed it by one hour. As is clearly stated in the edit warring policy, 3RR is not an entitlement and users can be blocked without breaching it anyway. If this wasn't edit warring then what was it? I really want to know because it looks more to me like the crux of every single argument to overturn the block is more about who was blocked than what they did. It is not supposed to work like that. Admins and long term users should know not to edit war. Dab had engaged in a long-term pattern of "warring" actions here which he still refuses to acknowledge The suggestion that admins are above this policy is exactly what is wrong and severely dysfunctional about this situation. There is no policy and no precedent for that. Frankly this whole thing stinks. Every time most admins something stupid they get a lecture on how admins are supposed to be held to a higher standard than other users. Every time dab does something really stupid he gets it explained away by his cadre of defenders. I've never bumped into Jheald before that I recall but he edit warred as well. Why are they being placed in an upper class of "unblockables" who can get away with things we would block less experienced user for without another thought? Edit warring is wrong and is not supposed to be tolerated. I blocked two users for it as dictated by policy and now I'm the bad guy and it's ok to sling mud at me? I don't think so. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You write "I never said anyone breached 3RR, they missed it by one hour. As is clearly stated in the edit warring policy, 3RR is not an entitlement and users can be blocked without breaching it anyway." Where did I write that you said someone breached 3RR? What I wrote was "If it had been a clear violation [as you claimed of WP:EDITWAR ] then the consensus here would have agreed with you ..." -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the reality of the situation also needs to be acknowledged: there are serious and ongoing issues with Dbachmann's behavior, and no sanctions will stick, unless arbcom administers them. Since he's already had the benefit of several requests for comment, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 4 being the most recent, there would be a temptation to proceed directly to arbitration. However, the prior RFCs could be deemed insufficiently related to the present problematic conduct. Opening Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 5, followed by an RFAR (if the issues persist, which they probably will) would be the most prudent approach. Chester Markel (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

His userpage indicates a wikibreak, and he has hinted that he may resign as an admin so I guess we should hold off for now. I wasn't aware there were four previous user conduct RFCs. Obviously I am not as alone as I thought in seeing a problem here. It looks like the last one at least did have to do with the use of admin tools though, so it is somewhat related. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the most recent one was ultimately deemed to be without merit, but Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann 3 addresses many of the exact same issues brought up here, edit warring, incivility when challenged, acting and apparently being "above the law", claiming that he is only acting to enforce policy when engaging in content disputes, etc, all the way back in 2007. It was certified by not just the required two but six other users, and the basis for it was endorsed by many more. Dab himself does not seem to have participated, so I think it is unlikely doing it again would have the desired effect. RFCs are for arriving at voluntary agreements with a user, this user has ignored or dismissed every attempt to get him to see the error of his ways, so that leaves ArbCom as the last viable option, but as I said we should maybe give it some time to see if he really does take a long break and/or give up his tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

To repeat what I wrote before as you seem not to have thought about it but instead tried to justify your actions without addressing implied criticism of you judgement through the revert to your blocks: You said "I therefore blocked them both for 31 hours for clear violation of WP:EDITWAR." If it had been a clear violation then the consensus here would have agreed with you and the blocks would have remained in place. So this incident would appear to have brought into question your judgement, both for being hasty (not discussing it here first) and for your concept of what constitutes a "clear violation of EDITWAR".

Beeblebrox I find in interesting that you have not addressed the issue of whether in the future you would behave in exactly the same way, or if you have leant something from this encounter: For example in future you would warn a editor of long term good standing like Jheald before blocking them under the catchall of WP:EDITWAR? --PBS (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) It is probably a good idea to ask, before the action, whether a block will be a net positive or a net negative for the encyclopedia. In this case, I see no real positives. Both editors are long standing editors with clear or recently clear block logs. Both have contributed positively to wikipedia. The immediate problem was easy to handle by protecting the page (for example, MSGJ took care of the move war by move protecting the page). The only plus from blocking appears to be the 'forest from the trees' lesson that the blocking admin suggested here, a patronizing reason at best and admins are certainly not appointed to fulfill the role of educators. The big negative is that it'll drive away otherwise valuable editors who, one presumes, don't come here to get grief in the first place. I understand that given a block tool there is a strong temptation to use it but suggest that it be used lightly and definitely with care when employed against long term editors, especially when simpler remedies such as page protection are available. --rgpk (comment) 15:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I realize this thread has grown quite long and it is possible you missed that I already clearly explained that dab has demonstrated in the past that he is quite willing to make controversial edits through a protection placed by another admin and that is why that approach was not used. I'm not so sure how you could have missed the point that this type of combative editing has been discussed with dab at extreme length over the course of the last several years. I don't see a consensus that these actions did not violate the edit warring policy, what is see is an lot of suggestions that these two users deserve special treatment. Many users who oppose the block acknowledged at the same time that they do indeed see edit warring. Look, here it is for your convenience once again:[9] [10] [11]. Not that the timestamps also indicate that breaching of the bright-line rule WP:3RR was only narrowly avoided. Note also the move warring by dab reflected here [12] and that the article was protected during those moves, demonstrating a pattern of disruption reinforced by the same issues having been repeatedly brought up in RFCs. Ok, maybe there is a valid case for warning Jheald first as he has not shown a pattern of such behavior. I'll grant that despite the fact that long term editors should already know better than to edit war, but the block of dab is completely solid, I stand by it 100%. I have repeatedly shown than this is not an isolated incident and we shouldn't let it be treated as just a experienced admin who slipped up. It is verifiably part of a long term pattern of feeling they are above being bound by our policies, a feeling re-enforced by the irresponsible action of unblocking him yet again. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• A look at dab's block log [13] also may shed some light. It seems Deacon was bit confused when unblocking, stating first that two reverts do not equal an edit war, as I have repeatedly shown each user reverted three times, and apparently mistakenly believing he was blocked for 31 days not 31 hours. Others have accused me of rushing in and using my admin tools without thinking, it seems much more clear to me that this is exactly what Deacon did. This view is further re-enforced by the fact that he realized his error a few minutes later and applied a one-second "correction" block. I blocked a user who has been doing this for years, and Deacon unblocked them on a completely false assumption you can still see reflected in another user's comments at the very beginning of this thread, without even bothering to check if it was correct or not. Consider that while you all continue to berate me for what you see as being in too big of a hurry to use my admin tools. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I put a reply here, but have deleted it as I am just starting to repeat myself. I guess you "just don't get it" so there is no point continuing. -- PBS (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your guess is identical to mine. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we are at an impasse here. I understand your position, I just don't agree with it, and you clearly do not agree with mine. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify: do you or do you not intend on continuing to use the blocking tool in the way that you did in this matter if similar circumstances arose? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And, BTW, have you stopped beating your wife? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, your suggestion is both unjustified and inappropriate. Mentioning 'disagreement' is one thing, but whether such tool usage will continue is another. The question concerning the latter was asked by someone else above but the blocking admin does not appear to have answered it (perhaps he missed it); Beeblebrox is being given another opportunity to answer it in this block review. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Until you're more specific than "similar circumstances," it really is a loaded question with no good answer. Beeblebrox is better off not answering, because any answer he gives is going to be unsatisfactory to some, and used against him later. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If it ever unfortunately came to that, I don't think it's his answer which would be used against him; it would be the judgement exercised for those particular actions he made. But in any case, I hope my response adds some clarity (or even specificity) to resolve that concern. The purpose of this was to invite is a response from him as to what he has learnt from this block review - beyond the obvious fact that there are people who do not agree with him. For example, if identical circumstances arose, how would Beeblebrox respond? If identical circumstances arose, except that there was another admin instead of dab and another long standing editor instead of J, how would he respond? ...except that a different page/article was involved, how would he respond? That is what I was getting at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-admin comment). I've only just examined this, and I see blatant edit-warring that would have gotten most "ordinary" editors blocked without anyone turning a hair. The only argument against it seems to be that "These two deserve special treatment cos one's an admin and one has been here a long time". The idea that admins deserve special treatment and are above the law, including one who has clearly been behaving in a similar "I know best" manner for quite some time, is very disturbing. In my view, Beeblebrox was correct to impose these blocks, and the near-instant non-policy unblock was quite wrong. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I don't think User:Dbachmann was in any way acting in bad faith, but I think I see someone perhaps suffering a little bit of burnout and who, through frustration, has tried to assume too much personal authority. It's a contentious area to edit in, but I think that makes it even more important to stick to doing things properly and not seeing admins as some kind of superior beings - admins are not there to personally make content decisions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, I read these latest comments and do not see any need to re-iterate my arguments as I have already done so many times now. However, I would add that if this were a formal discussion requiring a detailed close I don't see how it could go any way other than "no consensus," I don't see any potential for this to be used as a precedent for any action or further discussion in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:WikiManOne

Pretty clear-cut this time. There is a discussion on the talk page of the article Family Research Council and currently the side advocated by WikiManOne is down by 5 votes.

A similar discussion was held on the same page 3 months ago. WikiManOne asked 5 users who had contributed to the pervious discussion to chime in this time around. He exclusively notified users who had voted the same way he voted. This is very transparent vote-stacking.

• diff of notification of 1st pro-inclusion voter
• diff of notification of 2nd pro-inclusion voter
• diff of notification of 3rd pro-inclusion voter
• diff of notification of 4th pro-inclusion voter
• diff of notification of 5th pro-inclusion voter

No anti-inclusion voters were notified were notified of the ongoing discussion.

WM1 has been warned about canvassing in the past - Haymaker (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - It looks like every other posting at AN/I in the last few days has been by POV pushing editors on either side of the abortion divide trying to get their POV opponents blocked or banned for one thing or another. When does this mess go to arbitration instead of wasting everyone's time here?Griswaldo (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it has been an ongoing probably that will probably end up there but this instance is actually not related to abortion. Please just give it a go based on its merits. - Haymaker (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

In what world is the the Family Research Council not heavily involved in the politics of abortion in the USA? If there is an abortion arbitration, the entries of institutions who lobby for or against abortion, like this one does, will clearly be part of the scope. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That actually has nothing to do with abortion--it has to do with gay rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Drrll (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean the specific issue discussed on the talk page does not directly relate to abortion. It relates to the image of an institution heavily involved in abortion issues among others. These editors have been battling each other all over the encyclopedia on related pages. That's the problem, not the specifics of whether or not this particular issue directly mentions abortion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

While it looks bad, am I right User talk:Uncle Dick is the exclusionist they've failed to notify? There seemed to be two other exclusionists but they remained active so notifying them was not necessary (unless WM1 notified inclusionists who remained active). Nil Einne (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Uncle Dick was deliberately excluded from notification, User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling should have been contacted as well. - Haymaker (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it was not a lot of work to notify Uncle Dick [14], while User:Jclemens was so kind to be the message carrier of blocked user LAEC [15].-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

LAEC had been indefinitely blocked since 27 December. What good would contacting him have done? Doc talk 15:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair point. Still, WM1 almost certainly didn't know that and chose not to contact him or the other oppose editor while contacting the 5 support editors. - Haymaker (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No argument whatsoever on not contacting "oppose" editors, for sure :> Doc talk 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't contact inactive editors, my bad, for example, I did not contact include vote User:Groovyman1969 because he was inactive. I did know that LAEC was banned, and Uncle Dick was inactive. This is just another frivolous attempt by Haymaker to get me blocked for nothing. _WM^O 17:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they have been active. The point is he is requesting comments from editors that he knows will be sympathetic to his point of view. It is a pretty clear case of Canvassing. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) You could look at it that way, but reviewing the statistics is a little more troubling:

• 5 of 5 editors who had previously opined that the material be included in the lead yet not returned to the page to contribute to the current straw poll were canvassed.
• 0 of 1 editor who had previously opined that the material be excluded in the lead yet not returned to the page to contribute to the current straw poll were canvassed.

Given a previous warning on canvassing, I think the targeting of the message is troubling, though the message itself clearly remains neutral. If WikiManOne were an ARS member inviting folks to a deletion discussion in such a manner, I strongly suspect he would already be blocked. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing is inappropriate, and if the editor does not come with a brilliant argument for the exclusion especially after being warned, he should be temporarily blocked. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the explanation guys: I contacted all the participants in the previous vote that were active and were not already participating in the current vote. As such, I was operating under the allowed part of WP:CANVASS On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). As previously stated, all editors who participated in the previous vote and had been active recently were notified. I'm getting tired of these ridiculous accusations by Haymaker. _WM^O 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, this "previous warning" was not a warning at all. It was a response to my request for comment as to whether something constituted canvassing, and it obviously was not very clear. Feel free to point out this canvassing that I was warned for previously Haymaker.. lol _WM^O 17:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether what you did was okay or not, it seems to me this whole fuss could have been avoided if you'd notified all people who had participated, active or not (blocked users who aren't coming off their block any time soon I agree aren't relevant). I appreciate it's possible you may not have noticed the one inactive user who had not participated in the discussion also happened to be the one user opposed to your POV unfortunately it does put a question mark over your actions even if it's not something you noticed at the time. (If you did notice, even if you'd decided beforehand to exclude inactive users with whatever definition you came up with on how to define someone as inactive before you checked who to notify I would suggest it's was a mistake to continue with that criteria have realised the effect.) It's worth remembering inactive does not mean 'won't notice the message or participate', some inactive people do check their accounts or even stay logged in all the time and may choose to participate again if a topic of great enough interest comes up. In this particular case it's only been ~2 months and there were only 2? inactive users so there was no real advantage to not notifying them. P.S. As a general comment what's all this discussion of a 'vote' I see in relation to this? Isn't this a typical straw poll to determine consensus not one of the very rare instances we actually vote? Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I also didn't contact User:Groovyman1969 who was an include vote due to his inactivity. Its a straw poll, so theoretically supposed to be a discussion but it usually turns into a headcount, mob rule, etc. lol. _WM^O 17:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, looks like Jclemens tally was incorrect. I have notified this user as well to keep the whole bunch in the know [16]. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Snackycakes and Destinero are as inactive as UncleDick (and LEAC) but WM1 contacted both of them because they agree with his POV. This is cut and dry votestacking. - Haymaker (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to break it to you Haymaker, but my line of active/inactive was whether they were active after the new year. Go run around again and see if you can find where Snackycakes and Destinero posted in January. :) I would like to remind everyone that Haymaker has a track record of filing frivolous reports on here that generally don't seem to result in any action. _WM^O 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds are you trying to discount this as frivolous. I filed 1 3rr report against you, yesterday and it still outstanding. - Haymaker (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Frivolous reports like this or this. And yes, you have posted something about me on the noticeboard twice within 24 hours, both of which are questionable. It seems to be someone failing to WP:AGF as well as just a desperate desire to get someone blocked. I will be happy to respond to an admin should they want to take this up. I believe I've explained it quite clearly. _WM^O 18:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How many ANI threads about Kenatipo did you start in the same time-period? - Haymaker (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Two. One of which resulted in a 24 hour block and one which resulted in a warning, doesn't seem frivolous does it? _WM^O 18:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And mine resulted in Roscelese being blocked and the jury is still out on the 2 I filed regarding you. - Haymaker (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WM1 Canvass break

WP:CANVASS stipulates all should be notified. Pretty clear. (Though where a user has specifically stated that he wishes not to be notified, that is quite a different matter covered there). Collect (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It also says The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it., nobody was selected based on their opinions. I contacted everyone who had previously participated and has been active since the new year. Not my fault that the oppose voters who hadn't participated didn't meet the (I admit arbitrary, but acceptable) requirement I set to get a notification. _WM^O`

The parameters for notification you set were not arbitrary, they were deliberately set to benifit your side. After being warned about Canvassing guidelines in the past (and accusing other users of Canvassing) didn't it occur to you you that notifying 5 editors who agree with you and none who don't might be a bad idea? - Haymaker (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you have no reading comprehension? Where is this warning? What instance of canvassing was I being warned for? That might be too hard to understand, where exactly did I canvass previously that resulted in a warning? _WM^O 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You were perviously accused of canvassing here. After an administrator came to you talk page and told you what canvassing was, was there any doubt in your mind as to what canvassing was? - Haymaker (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! Let's take everything completely out of context, perhaps you would like to go ask that admin why he posted that on my talk page, I'd wager a bet that it had nothing to do with the "report" that was more like a fishing expedition that you pointed to. There was no canvassing, and this does not count as canvassing either. _WM^O 19:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see where it stipulates that, Collect -- I'm reading it more WM1's way in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Current edit shows Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. Which I rather think has the word "all" in it. And the word "everyone". The parenthetical example is, of course, an example only. Collect (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree partially SOV, but the audience was partisan, so it did violate guideline 3 and is votestacking. As a general rule I find that one should be very careful about notifications like this. Regardless of the intent, the appearance is of canvasing, and it strains the entire process. It also makes it hard to actually discuss the issue at hand because the appearance is of one lacking good faith. Arzel (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne appears to me to have followed the rules at CANVASS. We cannot know whether he started out with the intent to stack, or ended up there after exhausting all previously active editors who had not yet weighed in on the new issue. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• So far there have been two uninvolved editors have given input on this (unless I missed one), both of them have stated that they do not think that I violated WP:CANVASS. Those that are arguing otherwise are those who want me to be blocked due to disagreement in a content dispute. So much for WP:AGF, huh? _WM^O 19:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you might tell me when I became "involved" in your opinion? Thank you most kindly - but I rather think my opinion was not aimed against anyone at all. Collect (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps right here:

"Remove I find Jclemens to be sound on this. Not only is using a pejorative claim problematic on any WP article, especially where the reasoning for the use of "hate" is not given, the tendency on WP to categorize everything with the most extreme terminology rather than more moderate terminology is eventually going to be a problem on a great many articles. Collect (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)"

_WM^O 19:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

IOW, because I found this discussion here, I became ex post facto "involved"? That means anyone who opines on the article talk page after finding this discussion is "involved"? Strange logic, indeed. I do not buy that sort of logic one whit. Collect (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You can't ask people to AGF and then in the same breath say that the opinions of everyone who disagrees with you are illegitimate. And not to be petty but Arzel and Nil Einne both said you should have notified everyone. - Haymaker (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am as of yet uninvolved in the talk page discussion, but I would think that it is a clear violation of canvassing, when an editor informs only a select number of editors from a previous discussion, especially when based on criteria that is not even mentioned in WP:Canvass, and appears to have been created to get the desired result.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You hadn't commented on the discussion until now. So you're suggesting that because I omitted inactive users in a good faith effort to not waste time notifying those who wouldn't care anyway, I am somehow guilty of violating WP:CANVASS, pray tell how. _WM^O 19:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Your defensive attitude towards my comment only convinces me even more on the inappropriateness of your behavior. If you can cite for me the section or even a sentence of WP:Canvass, that states that its appropriate to not notify a certain number of users from a previous discussion because they didn't comment any further, or were not active, or as you put it Wouldn't care anyway, then I will have a change of heart. As far as I can tell, the guideline states that you must notify all users involved in a previous discussion or as it reads... everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject. I didn't see the part where it said only active participants.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)As a disclaimer, I have been in a few discussions with these guys and there seems to be a little fault on both parts. Might I suggest short of bans/topic bans/etc. Just a disengage request and both of them leave the votes alone from now to closer unless directly engaged type thing. They can still discuss articles, edit, etc. just disengage from each other.Marauder40 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, lets separate two things. One is whether there was canvassing going on (it at least has the impression of it) and two is whether it changed the outcome of the discussion at the talk page (no, because ultimately, all editors have been notified using the same notification and could participate). Notifying editors is definately not a problem. I would like to suggest to WikiManOne to acknowledge that it would have been wiser to notify all of the editors and that he will adhere to that in the future. Does anybody think a block would be in place? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I also want to note that the only uninvolved admin who commented on this stated above, "I'm reading it more WM1's way in this case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)", perhaps it would have been better to notify all of the previous participants, but I will note that I also did not contact some include votes because they were inactive according to my arbitrary definition. _WM^O 20:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan is taking your side in your on-going Pro-life saga (not that I doubt your intentions, SOV), so lets not wandering into this whole "involved" morass. - Haymaker (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe WM1 in this case, and Haymaker, your assertion that he chose his date criteria either before or after the fact to FACILITATE canvassing is purely WP:AGF-violating speculation. --King Öomie 20:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Robert Coombe

I don't know what's happening at Robert Coombe, but a whole bunch of new editors seem to be piling in and making test edits, minor edits, editing and reverting each other, etc. (I'm not going to try to notify them all). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A couple of them did it at the related University of Denver too, but they seem to have stopped after I gave them all {{uw-test1}} messages. Worth keeping an eye on though, if anyone would be so kind. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It shows the signs of possibly being a college class, not adequately supervised. I've reverted a few edits elsewhere from the same users. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the editors confirms that it's a class.[17] Each of the editors seems to be creating a stub for a DU-area business in his/her userspace. DMacks (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-ed that page. While I generally support student Wikipedia projects, telling students to make test edits should not be taken quite that literally. Granted, it did make it easy to figure out which students were in the class.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

BrigKlyce and Panspermia

(Modified from my AIV report, in case that gets turned down) BrigKlyce (talk · contribs) continues to spam his personal blog as a source on Panspermia after last warning. He has been doing so under various accounts, even getting his step-father to meat-puppet for him. His site is not peer-reviewed, he is not a recognized scientific authority (according to his own site, he only has a degree in architecture, and seems to be pretty proud of the "special mention" this site apparently gives his overglorified blog). He has repeatedly had WP:COI and WP:RS pointed out and explained to him by various editors but shows a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, except to leave left a personal attack on my grafitti page. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite repeated attempts to explain the need for discussion, consensus, and civility, it appears BrigKlyce (talk · contribs) continues to enforce their edits without discussion; see many helpme responses at attempts at explanation on their talk page. As previously xe was blocked for 31 hours, for 3RR, and has repeated 3RR, I support an appropriately longer block.  Chzz  ►  22:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I know I'm supposed to assume good faith, but he appears to be a single purpose account to me. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am seeking a consensus among your editors [18] might indicate good intent, but note contribs show no such efforts, despite repeated attempts by myself [19] [20] and others [21] to explain the need for discussion; the user has also made at least one personal attack [22].  Chzz  ►  22:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The user is attempting to find a mediator, user Courselles here - I would rather have him contribute than unnecessarily blocked again, its hard as a new user to understand our guidelines - I see a couple of comments a bit near the line of a PA but, he has made a couple of good additions, this one for example Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in a minor way. I'll remind you that newbies are unaware of our prohibition on meatpuppetry, and that edit was a response to my post telling him that he personally should not be adding that site. I think he read it a bit too literally, and missed the point. Having said this, I'm defending a very minor point—overall, I see major problems and not much hope.--SPhilbrickT 00:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You might be right but, wiki can appear a combative place to newbies and I think we should be prepared to put in a little more effort to clearly explain points - all I see is that he wanted to add his link and its against policy, he needs to accept that without getting upset about it and being rude to editors that point that out to him, he might be a valuable contributor, if all he wanted was to add his website then he may have got the message and might not even return. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd also add that comments such as "only has a degree in architecture", and an "architect pretending to be a scientist" are personal attacks. --Stephen 01:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If the Klyce was not the person adding the link, and I said "an editor is adding a blog by an architect that fancies himself a scientist, despite not having any credentials nor being published in peer-reviewed works," noone would consider it an attack on the editor or the author, but simply pointing out that it is safe to assume the work is not a reliable source. That the editor and the author happen to be the same person does not change that. We do have policies that allow people to use their own work as references, if the work meets WP:RS or if that person is a notable authority in the field. Those are exceptions to the rules that people generally aren't supposed to shove their own work in, especially personal website. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

+ It seems that Wikipedia wants to evaluate Brig Klyce as an editor. Brig Klyce wants you to evaluate panspermia.org as a resource. Any chance? BrigKlyce (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Postscript: Is knowing the subject among the criteria for editing a page?

I don't think you're understanding what this discussion is about. We're trying to discuss your actions; if you want that website considered, please discuss it on the relevant article's talk page. And re. your PS, no, but it's discouraged to edit a page about someone you know if you know the subject well, under our conflict of interest guideline. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be fair, Fetchcommms, I think that his comment is responding to the implied claims that since he's "only" an architect, he shouldn't be representing himself as a scientist. And the answer to that question (if that is, in fact, what BrigKlyce is asking), is no--you don't need to have any specific content knowledge to edit any given article. However, you shouldn't be adding the link to Wikipedia pages; in fact, it's very generally frowned upon to link to material that you yourself have created. The point about you being an architect is that the only time we allow links to blogs is when the person is a notable expert in the field (an exemption which is very rarely granted, I might add), which you do not appear to be. So, no you shouldn't be adding that link, because it doesn't meet our guidelines. You are, however, welcome to continue to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways, but you need to do so by making changes based upon reliable sources and following our other editing policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will note that I, too, am "only" an architect, but must agree that anything I might post in a blog about panspermia would have no value as a reference and would be inappropriate to add as an external link. Acroterion _(talk) 12:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"the only time we allow links to blogs is when the person is a notable expert in the field ... which you do not appear to be" - This is what I mean by "only an architect." I think it should also be pointed out that even if the website was not his, it still would not meet our site's sourcing policies. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, Acroterion, I agree the only absolute qualification to edit Wikipedia is literacy. You've got the point about the blog issue, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken - don't worry about it, I was having a bit of fun with my profession, which sometimes has an inflated opinion of itself. Obviously, we agree on the point at hand. Acroterion _(talk) 13:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil discussion. I believe I am a notable expert on panspermia, as I have studied it for 30 years and been invited to present papers or write articles about it often. But I understand your worries about someone linking to his own material. OK. In the instance that started this edit war, I referenced an article, "More Evidence for Indigenous Microfossils in Carbonaceous Meteorites" whose first author is not I, but Richard Hoover, who is extremely distinguished. The reference is a web article with previously unpublished photos, and the material is available elsewhere only by reference to the original article. How else will your readers find the material, except with a link to it: [23]? No Wikipedia editor has actually viewed the link, as far as I can tell. It would seem that providing important content is not a high priority at Wikipedia. I understand your rules, so no need restate them. If somebody wants to restore the link, great. I'll look at your panspermia in a few weeks to see what you did. Sorry to be so annoyed. Bye. BrigKlyce (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Neither you nor Hoover appear to meet those, or else we would have articles on you or him. And again, since you apparently didn't hear it the first hundred times, your site is not a reliable source because it is not peer-reviewed. That it is your site shows a conflict of interest. For the record, I looked at it and I'm fairly certain others have as well (which is why they agree it fails our reliable sourcing guidelines), but that is not what is meant by "peer-reviewed." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The website lists no peer-reviewed publications by Brig Klyce. Brig - I understand your interest in this topic, but we insist that citations be to sources which are independently reviewed and quality controlled in some manner. A paper in a peer reviewed publication or a conference proceedings with peer review for acceptance, with generally recognized expert peer reviewers, would qualify. If you have done such work it should be listed on your website. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have, and it is. [24] BrigKlyce 16:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• - I am no scientist (thats clear) but this person appears to have been published and searching around appears respected, http://library.thinkquest.org/C003763/index.php?page=interview10 why is the site rejected out of hand, is it because no other people in the field have reviewed his publications? Also could we have a more NPOV section header.Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• ThinkQuest is a project "by students for students"? The site lists 3 teachers as coachs, but that's all the review that the site seems to be getting. They present him as "the writer and creator of the internet's most comprehensive website on panspermia, www.panspermia.org". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks, and abouthis.htm#publications - so is there no situation that the website or a book cite from the author (brig) would be an added informative external in our articles? Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Totally not involved and only popped by to see what the latest dramah was on ANI and thought I'd throw in a couple cents. I went by his website and had a look at his publications list. Rather than listing his whole site as a resource, which seems to be the problem here, I don't see any problem with citing from his publications themselves. SPIE is a very respected international organisation and getting into their proceedings for conferences, while not on the scale of difficulty as Nature or Science, is still a peer reviewed process. (I've submitted to a SPIE conference before myself). His site may not be a reliable source but citing his journal/proceedings articles may be a suitable compromise. Blackmane (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Blackmane. While the ThinkQuest "publications" wouldn't work, the SPIE ones would, so cite those directly. There's no reason to cite the user's website at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The proposed reference, "More Evidence for Indigenous Microfossils in Carbonaceous Meteorites" [25] (which would currently be about #57 on your pansperma page), is the only place to see these photographs of Hoover's. Yes, some others are in the book referenced, and in conference proceedings listed on my website, but they are accessible only by purchase. That's why Hoover agreed to publish these photos on panspermia.org. BrigKlyce (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the documents are purchase only is irrelevant. The important point is that the articles are peer reviewed and that they exist. If you're only using them as refs it doesn't matter that they are purchase only since you're only referring to them. If the reader is interested in further investigating the topic they can decide whether to purchase the document or not. This way is comparable to citing of other journal/proceeding articles in a paper you are writing. —Blackmane (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see that an editor has removed the opening reference to comets as vehicles for panspermia. Ridiculous. I'm done. Good luck. BrigKlyce (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing by single purpose account User:ObjectivelyWise at Family Research Council.

Last December, the Southern Poverty Law Center designated the Family Research Council and several other anti-gay groups as hate groups. This has led to a concerted effort to keep that label first out of the article and later out of the lead. Tactics include trying to discredit the SPLC, digging up ancient isolated references that label the SPLC as liberal etc. After a lengthy discussion, consensus was to add a sentence to the lead. The sentence was added to the lead in early December.[26] The addition has been target of vandalism since then. By the end of January, single purpose user ObjectivelyWise (talk · contribs) showed up, who is very aware of wikipedia policies and except for 6 other edits, only edits this article. First by bluntly removing the consensus material [27][28], then trying to nchnage the wording such that it was incorrect which resulted in a long discussion about the lead [29]. The consensus that time was again to keep it. Now it has been brought back again for discussion [30], and is degrading into name calling and trying to push out editors. It has now degraded in trying todiscredit m [31], something even noticed by others. [32]. The mentality at the page becomes more and more one of power use to discredit the regulars at the page by an obviously knowledgeable single purpose account (sockpuppet?). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it customary or even advisable for someone in my position to respond to these sorts of things here? I personally would rather not lend credence to Kim van der Linde's attempts at character assassination by addressing them. I will, of course, respond if I need to for purposes of the administrator who will be handling this. My thoughts are that my discussion at the talk page [33] supports my position well enough. ObjectivelyWise (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

KimvdLinde is biased editor and has problems with her POV pushing not ObjectivelyWise. She support label from political group into summary of article about their ideological enemy. She also use double standard when she promotes criticism by left wing/social liberal group in summary of article about conservative group but delete criticism by conservative group in summary of article about left wing/social liberal group. See her edits. [34] and [35]. --Dezidor (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Lets see. The FRC is labeled a hate group by the SPLC. That is notable for the FRC. The FRC calls the SPLC all kind of things, like many of the 600+ hate groups it has listed, but only the response of the FRC is added to the lead by Dezidor. If removing such an undue statement is a double standard, I will be guilty. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that reasonable people should be able to see that there is a difference between the FRC and a real hate group, such as the KKK. But as it stands now, the introduction of Family Research Council is more dedicated to proving that it is a hate group than is the introduction to Ku Klux Klan. How silly is that? Certainly the labeling is notable and should be mentioned in the article, but the desire to put that label in the introduction seems to be a ridiculous standard. If you're not going to put the reciprocal label in the SPLC's introduction (which, of course, would be ridiculous to have) then it is a double standard. --B (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is not up to wikipedia to determine what a "real ahte group" is and what a "not-real hate group" is. The SPLC is generally considered a reliable source for hate-group listings. I agree that the mentioning in the lead is to big, but that is because the various opposers want to have their rebuttal added as well. That is a result of the prolonged battle that is going on, that is not good encyclopedia writing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Prior to willy nilly branding of Christian organizations as hate groups, the SPLC was an uncontroversial source for hate-group listings. But branding the FRC as a hate group is hardly uncontroversial. Speaker Boehner, for instance, signed a letter criticizing them for "character assassination". Wikipedia should not treat this designation with the same validity that it does designations of real hate groups when it unquestionably is a controversial designation. As for whether or not you know what a "real hate group" is, I would bet that if you try very hard, you could see a difference between violent groups like the KKK that are soley dedicated to hate vs groups like the FRC that do lots of things in life completely unrelated to their "hate". --B (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is nice that you show your personal POV. Politicians are notoriously unreliable sources unless it bis for their opinions, and to suggest that the speaker of the house has more to say about this than the SPLC is quite contradictory to the purpose of wikipedia, which is to document what is provided in reliable sources. I am sure you cannot find a single reliable source contradicting the fact that the FRC is a hate group. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Asking for a source contradicting that they are a hate group is, of course, as you well know, ridiculous. It is somebody's OPINION whether or not they constitute a hate group. News reporters don't opine on it one way or the other - they simply report the fact that the SPLC has so-branded them. Plenty of conservative commentators and politicians have screamed bloody murder and the far left commentators are thrilled at affirmation of their hatred of conservative Christians. The point is that the SPLC's opinion is NOT uncontroversial and it should not be taken as gospel or at face value. This column in The Atlantic says, "The Southern Poverty Law Center demonstrated the partisan uses of hate speech doctrine last week when it labeled the anti-gay Family Research Council a hate group." I find one line about Beirich (the research director of the SPLC) profoundly interesting [36] - "As Beirich told me, there is no difference between the FRC and the KKK in the eyes of the SPLC now." That is absolutely ridiculous and no fair-minded person would ever reach that conclusion - the FRC isn't out there lynching people and burning crosses and churches. If you really think that there is a moral equivalence between the FRC and the KKK, then we really don't have anything to discuss. --B (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A bit more context and insight: FRC does not represent all Christian conservatives, despite their heavy-handed marketing efforts. Likewise, Beirich is not the official spokesperson for the SPLC. The TPM piece quoted above goes on to say "the hate group designation doesn't mean the SPLC thinks everyone who supports the FRC 'has a full understanding of what they're up to.' Many who support the FRC may do so because of the group's very public ties to evangelical Christianity, and Beirich stressed that the SPLC designation has nothing to do with an 'attack on the churchly world'." [37]Let's try not to devolve into a rhetorical catfight by misrepresenting the bigger picture issues. -PrBeacon (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this issue was reported on this page at all. After looking at the edit history and the talk page, it seems that we have a content dispute between good-faith editors, all of whom appear to recognize that they have a POV, all of whom have remained reasonably civil, and none of whom I see explicitly POV-pushing (except perhaps this comment by Kim, which advocates having Wikipedia label FRC as a hate group).

In fact, looking at the lead taking pains to designate the SPLC as "liberal" with two citations makes it seem that there's some POV pushing against the SPLC — and that label doesn't belong in the article for two reasons (1) the article is about FRC, not SPLC, so the label is irrelevant, and (2) it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia's voice to substitute for the voice of sources; that is, it is not Wikipedia's business to label any group in any way.

It is highly inapproprate to apply a controversial label to any person or group using Wikipedia's voice. It's OK to attribute the label to a source, and state that "in the opinion of X, Y is a [label]" but that's not what I'm seeing here.

This should be pursued using normal dispute resolution channels. I fail to see this as an ANI concern. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Strictly a content dispute, with the caveat that POV-labeling is not appropriate. I would suspect that FRC also considers SPLC to be a "hate group". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the comment by User:Baseball Bugs. It seems that already, most of the Wikipedia community desires to remove the biased appelation on the Family Research Council from the introduction. User:ObjectivelyWise has brought up logical concerns that wish to reflect WP:NPOV. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize what "most of the Wikipedia community" has decided based on a limited and recently posted poll at the talkpage. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ObjectivelyWise has questioned KimvdLinde's neutrality while apparently using a single-purpose account for this topic. Could that user indicate which other accounts he's used for editing Wikipedia? Using alternate accounts to avoid scrutiny is a violation of WP:SOCK.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not necessarily. Feel free to review WP:SOCK#LEGIT #2, privacy. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ObjectivelyWise can tell us if this is the case.   Will Beback  talk  07:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that question as well as if they have read WP:COI? And the related question,m whether they have a conflict of interest with this article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted a note on their talk page about this question yesterday,[38] but they are apparently ignoring it.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

More questionable behavior

The strong handling of the page continues.:

1. At 16:29, 7 February 2011, ObjectivelyWise open a straw poll [39]
2. At 21:57, 7 February 2011, 5 hours and 28 minutes later, ObjectivelyWise concludes his own straw poll[40] and removes the text in question[41].

Just a content issue, no, not at all. A single purpose account that is strong handling the page to get the desired outcome while assuming bad faith, short cutting ongoing discussions etc. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

ObjectivelyWise doesn't seem to have read WP:GOODFAITH or WP:NPA. At least a moderate time block seems to be appropriate. _WikiMan^One 05:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

... Except that the Straw Poll was 8 to 3 for removal, with clearly better arguments for removal as well. While discussion can certainly continue, expecting UNDUE text to remain against such a consensus while that discussion is ongoing is unreasonable. WikiManOne, I'm not seeing an unbalance in NPA here; KimvdLinde and ObjectivelyWise are, in fact, trading some POV accusations in a relatively civil manner... unless I've missed something somewhere? Diffs would be helpful when advocating a block. Jclemens (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So, a 5 hour straw poll is now sufficient to determine whether to remove something from an article. A removal that violates WP:LEAD that clearly states that the lead should reflect all important aspects of the article, including important controversies. The controvery consists of almost 30% of the article, yet the lead is not even mentioning it. That is an obvious case of undue, and I am surprised that an Arb is promoting that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Due respect, again but that count is not accurate. And "clearly better arguments" is the opinion of editor Jclemens who voted against the criticism in lead. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The previous straw poll went from November 25th 2010 to January 23rd of 2011. That's nearly two months and showed a clear (7 vote) lead for including it. A straw poll conducted a mere 15 days after the previous poll's last vote seems in bad taste to start with, but even should it be appropriate, closing it before even 24 hours passes is entirely inappropriate. _WM^O 09:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Far too much weight is being given to the labeling of the southern Poverty southern opinionated label - imo - the factoid that they have labeled this and that group as hate groups - over 900 of then as I saw the other day - the Southern poverty group are diminishing what a hate group is. I would say this factoid about them should never be in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

RE hate group label -- I'm seeing alot of comparisons between different hate groups with little to no acknowledgement of the inherent distinctions between hate group and hate crimes. Has the SPLC explicitly compared the FRC to the KKK? Giving them the same label is not enough to support such assertions and implications by others above. Could the usual partisan purviews be clouding the issue of a spectrum of hate groups, from anti-gay to white supremacy? -PrBeacon (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Can this be closed and/or moved? No administrator action is called for (with the exception of one ill-conceived call for a block) or warranted. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR

Hails! I decided to report the user with the nickname DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for personal attacks and intolerance based on the place of birth. He said the following about me: "Furthermore, the entirety of your involvement on Wiki has thus far been extreme nationalist right-wing POV-pushing." and he reverted wrong informations about the party called HČSP (Croatian Pure Party of Rights), despite I provided all references and proofs that those informations were false, and he threatened that he will report me, despite my version was correct, as it can be seen on the HČSP talk page. Furthemore, in the discussion of the article about Yugoslav Front, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yugoslav_Front&oldid=409373205 ,(and some other articles), he acted as he is superior to the people from the Balkans (despite the fact that he is also from the Balkans). He also seem to accuse everyone for "nationalism", like it is a bad thing and extreme by default (I'm pretty sure that 93% of the people which wanted the independent Croatia are not extremists, just like the nationalists in Scotland or Czech Republic or former USSR nations).HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoo boy. Let's completely avoid all discussion of what version of the article was "correct" and just focus on whether there was inappropriate behavior, please. The content discussion doesn't need to happen here. --King Öomie 20:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He also seems to be frequently attacking the Wiki members, like he had attacked PANONIAN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PANONIAN#Congradz). P.S. I hadn't wanted to discuss which version is correct, but his removal of the inormations for which I had provided sources.HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Were the sources reliable? Was the information removed notable? I'd love to see some diffs. --King Öomie 20:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Direcktor works in the WP:BATTLEFIELD of the Eastern Europe ethnic conflict, he is often sarcastic but manages the whole thing rather well and does get a fair amount of Content written in that area of the same time. Saying a country was complacent with Nazi Germany is not "personal attacks and intolerance." its simple statement of history The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is his version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Croatian_Pure_Party_of_Rights&oldid=405035469 . My version is this (I had managed to return my version): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C4%8CSP . The differences: he stated that they are opposed to HSP (another Croatian party), this was my source http://www.hcsp.hr/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1293379482&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1& (they are forming the coalition right now, so they are not opposed to each other). The other difference is that he accused the party for something what was said by the other party's member, as seen on the talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croatian_Pure_Party_of_Rights#Antisemitism HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

He had called me an "extreme nationalist". I think it's a personal attack. He was also rude with the PANONIAN, although he hadn't attacked him so harshly. HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Since the door was opened by someone else, I'm going to toss this exchange into the mix regarding uncivil commentary. I'd thought I would be able to bow out of it, albeit somewhat ungracefully, but now I see one of the principals apparently engaging in similar behavior with another editor, and it's time to call a duck a duck. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be totally stale, what here necessitates immediate admin action of any kind? Have you tried proper dispute resolution? Fences&Windows 20:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I want admins to tell DIREKTOR to stop calling me a far-right nationalist and that he should be more polite. Nothing more. HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

While I can empathize, I feel compelled to point out that admins aren't supervisors. An admin can ask him to be more WP:CIVIL, but they can't order it. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand. Well, I guess asking him to be more WP:CIVIL is a good suggestion. HeadlessMaster (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Admins do not run wikipedia, (although I've seen some who think they do), we users do. Admins are merely normal users who have been entrusted by the community to possess certain tools in the enforcement of policies and guidelines. They can't order anything, all they can do is use their tools.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's February, right? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean, "we must have Direktor at ANI at least once a month, so it's about time"? He could certainly spare a few enemies by using a less confrontational attitude and brusque language, but hey, where would the fun be then? No such user (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for sticking my nose in here, but...has anyone ever mentioned any of his exchanges at WP:WQA? Seems to me this kind of situation is precisely what that noticeboard is for. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Resp to No such user; sort of, but you need to have read my edit summary - more about there being a new complaint by a new(ish) editor regarding DIREKTOR; a new(ish) account familiar with ANI and presenting diffs who unaccountably has missed WP:DR in their learning curve... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

IP 190.42.111.16

Please block, ad-only spam IP user. - Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 23:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Two spammy posts to Talk:Main page is all, hardly an emergency. No need to block unless spammy editing resumes. Fences&Windows 01:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User: Loki1488

Resolved

• Loki1488 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) The number 1488 (see here) and Norse gods (such as Loki in this case) are imagery highly favored by neo-Nazi groups. this edit provides additional evidence. Usernames that allude to Nazism or neo-Nazism are against the username policy if I'm not mistaken. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I initially posted this on WP: UAA but an admin there asked me to take it here since it wasn't a blatant enough violation of the username policy (though it's still a violation, in my opinion). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• It's borderline. I know we've discussed names like this before. --B (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The user's sole edit doesn't exactly inspire confidence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but we don't categorically indef anyone associated with any right wing group. Could someone please extend the effort to make a good faith "Welcome. This is what we expect from new editors in terms of polite and civil and constructive editing." comment with policy links etc? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Left some cookies for that Loki[llo] ;) (Lokillo, or loquillo - meaning 'little mad man' in our rich Chilean Spanish vocabulary. I'm obviously using it in a friendly way) Diego Grez (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw the report at UAA as well, but frankly I am not able to maintain neutrality with neo-nazis, so I didn't do anything. I'm probably not alone in that regard. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

George, I assume you realize there is a difference between "anyone associated with any right wing group" and neo-nazis. Our own article describes the Christian right as right-wing. I trust that it is not your intention to lump well-meaning and dedicated Wikipedians of faith in with the neo-nazis who use Wikipedia to promote their racist agenda. --B (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Not too far different from the christian right who use Wikipedia to promote their discriminatory agenda against women's health and marriage equality.... I don't see that huge of a difference between neo-nazis and the christian right, specially those listed on the SPLC's hate list. _WikiMan^One 06:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Come on, man. That sort of generalizing about extremists doesn't help anyone. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The issue shouldn't be an indef because someone is associated with a right wing group, but a simple username block. If it's borderline, it's on the wrong side of the border. And they've made only a couple of edits, I see no harm in a username block but possible problems if we don't. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And I don't see that huge of a difference between neo-nazis and far-left people like you. Any real Christian (the most) is against abortion, that often has nothing to do with "women's health", and so is many right-wing and left-wing people. And just because people oppose gay marriage that's not like what the Nazis did to people. Compare people who want to save pre-natal lives to people who destroyed 60 million lives is also reversing things and projecting their own actions. 193.136.149.253 (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Your hatred of Christians is transparent and self-evident. If you don't see a difference between being pro-life and being a Nazi, then I feel sorry for you. --B 13:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hatred of Christians? Well excuse me for hating myself. _WM^O 21:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As a person who considers myself pro-life I found your comments to be pretty offensive. I in no way consider myself remotely close to being a Nazi. I actually am fairly liberal on most political issues. Kansan (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Will the people bitching about religion and politics shut up! The issue is NOT abortion, the Christian right, the left, or anything but is this user's name a neo-nazi reference? If so, shouldn't we block him? Then answer to both questions appears to be "Yes." Issue settled! Christians here should be aware there are leftists in the flock who are just as Christian as you (it is Christ, not petty human politics, that is the object of worship for Christians). Leftists here should realize that there are Christians here who are their comrades. Vast generalizations like I'm seeing here serve no point but to cause idiotic hatred. Ian.thomson 13:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, Loki is one of the gods in the Norse Pantheon, a religion still alive nowadays. Most of them have nothing to do with Nazi Germany, in fact, they distance them,selves far from it. The fact that a religion has been misused by a evil regime does not make the religion evil. It is therefore totally inappropriate to block based on usage of the names of Gods. However, having said that, this user mi9ght come to Wikipedia with an obvious hate meassage, but that should be determined based on his/her postings, not the username alone.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Whatever should be done about the user (that's not the matter at hand), I would object to being taken hostage of groups by letting them "steel" and monopolize historical figures/images (ok, some images have been irreversibly taken, but that's not the point). If anyone wants a Nordic god in their username, they should be able to do so with any number associated with it... L.tak 14:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the "Loki" by itself. If it were just that, it'd be fine. But the number is used by neo-nazis (who have hijacked an otherwise noble pantheon), and the guy's only post is pretty much "hey, nothing wrong with racism." In this context, it's clear he's using it in a neo-nazi context. The name "Loki" is not being used in a heathen or neo-pagan context, but a neo-nazi context. Ian.thomson 14:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is probably moot anyway - this is possibly a throwaway account. I think we should be trigger happy with users who advocate a neo-Nazi agenda. I looked at Wikipedia:Username_policy#Appropriate_usernames and "Offensive usernames" is defined as "those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible". I don't think this name rises to that standard, though clearly if he resumes editing and advocated neo-Nazism, we should block him for that. --B 14:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The edits made by the account shouldn't be a factor - they have no effect on whether or not a username is acceptable or unacceptable. In this case, as Ian.thomson points out, it's the combination of a name often used by neo-nazis with a number often used by neo-nazis that probably pushes it over the edge into unacceptable territory. Although the name itself isn't offensive, it's so loaded that it would make "harmonious editing" almost impossible. --rpeh •T•C•E• 15:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support username block - I think this has been chatted about sufficiently. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support username block - This person knows the symbolism of their name, we all know it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think there needs to be a !vote - plenty of admins are looking at this - if someone wants to block him, nothing is stopping them. --B (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - not necessarily neo-nazi, and that's from a part Jew. :) _WM^O 21:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I am the UAA admin that declined to usernameblock him/her- mostly because I'm (blissfully) relatively unaware of nazi/neo-nazi imagery and references. Even having read this I'm not super convinced that a username block is the best way to go- the user still has only two edits and they're kind of blatant. I'd rather see someone blocked for POV-pushing and incivility than blocked for a political username- I think it sends a bad message. I would advocate patience here, though I would also not consider it wheel warring or even argue _{(too much)} if someone else decided to block. l'aquatique[talk] 01:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Judging by this user's two edits, the username probably is a neo-nazi reference but that's circumstantial rather than definitive. I have a feeling that this guy'll get blocked or banned eventually if he keeps up his "Wikipedia is unfairly censoring my White Pride" message.75.150.53.81 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose username block. User has several more edits now, and I feel they are well on their way to being blocked for cause. -Atmoz (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nazi or White Supremicist name at the very least, 14 = "The fourteen words", "88" reference to the eight letter of the alphabet "H". yeah, at the very least that name should be changed. KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Are we done AGFing with this guy? They claim here that the "1488" has a different meaning than that associated with racist ideologies, but their actual edits so far expose this for the falsehood it is. Please see their contribs now as they expand into other areas to white wash related articles. Heiro 18:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Given his/her latest edits, I suspect that Loki1488 is well aware that a block is coming, and is trying to make a point. No point in waiting any longer... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Specifically this [42], [43], and [44]. Heiro 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The diffs provided by Hiero make things pretty unambiguous here. Waiting for Thor's banhammer to come down (to continue with the harmless Norse references). 75.150.53.81 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And now this. Obviously only here to push a white supremacist POV or troll editors by acting like s/he is here for that purpose, can we get some action now?Heiro 20:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And now this little tirade here:"It's funny how Black hate groups seem to be ok on wikipedia but white groups are campared to hitler. seems racially bias to me but im sure this comment will get deleted or edited in some way. black commit just as many crimes as all the other races out there". Heiro 20:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support a block based on that rant, but not based on the user name as a whole.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

1) I am in no way affiliated with any hate group.yes the name is regrettably used by hate groups for their own purposes. I cant change that. I initially wanted username Lokik88 or 8Loki8 but was told those names were already in use. I was born in 1988 i.e. the 88 and since i needed to add more numbers to make an acceptable username i added the nukber of states i have lived in i.e 14

if there is a way to change my name let me know as i do not wish to offend anyone.

2) It is Not nor was it ever my intention to upset and anger people.

3) I admit my posting/edits haven't been that great. perhaps i should spend more time in the "sandbox"

4) allow me to clarify my reason for my last edits. the reason i changed "neo-nazi" in American Third Position Party's page is because according to the group themselves, they are White Nationalist/National Socialist. In the "See also/Featured" section i got rid of KKK, Neo-nazi, Aryan pride because that is putting word in the groups mouth and is not what they affiliate with. I am not defending or supporting the group only editing out that which is not true.

5) I will refrain from posting/editing that which i know nothing about. I am only here to provide correct information on that which I am knowledgeable and know for certain is truth.

Again It was not my intention to upset or anger anyone. Loki1488 (talk)Loki1488 —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Right... And your comments meant to promote a group that "represents the White community" (because, you know, we crackers really need support *eyerolls*, and Obama having darker skin than me means there's no way he could possibly have policies I'd like!), removing sources because they point out that group's white-supremacist agenda, and bashing black political groups couldn't possibly be construed as a hidden white supremacist agenda. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

ok I have nothing against Obamba. I don't have an opinion on politics if you read my bio. if it will make you feel better Ill be glad to write an article about why all racial hate groups are just as bad as the next. judging people on their skin is a racial version of "judging a book by its cover". Loki1488 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

If i comment on an article its because the article is bias in some way, lacks information, ir just flat out isn't true.Loki1488 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

Ok, you want us to believe it is a coincidence that you use numbers that are associated with Neo-Nazis in your username while simultaneously also invoking a Norse reference commonly used by Nazis and then remove links between National Socialism and Nazism? How dumb do you think we are? AGF is not a death pact. 75.150.53.81 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here as a WP:FORUM or to present "the WP:TRUTH", if you have specific issues, bring reliable sources to use to cite information you think is lacking, deficient or incorrect, and it will be addressed in a neutral fashion. So far all you have done is remove cited information, remove or change information that you think makes these white supremacists look bad or leave little rants. The fact that your username has things which are used by such groups to identify their racist agenda(whether you claim it means something else or not, I'm still not convinced on that point) and the fact that your edits have almost exclusively involved white washing this subject leads me to believe you are here for this agenda alone. Editing to promote such an agenda will not be tolerated here. If you wish to continue as an editor here, I suggest reading up on our policies, especially the bluelinks I just presented above, and editing some different subjects. Heiro 21:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If that's what you believe then that's whats you believe and That's o.k. if I'm deleted or blocked then so be it. If you think I'm here for whatever reason that's you opinion and your entitled to it. I really don't care what others think of me. Call me, label me, stereotype me what ever you choose. well ive had this account for like a day or two and I do have a full time job so its not like Im going to be able to edit random stuff all the time. you seem upset at what im editing. name any sujbect and if I see something that I know is not fact then Ill edit it to what it should be and is consistant with known current facts. so what do you want me to edit first? Loki1488 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

• I love how these "white pride" people are so quick to disclaim their own beliefs when challenged publicly. These fast talking excuses that would have us believing this is all a giant coincidence have had the exact opposite effect as far as I am concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  I love how they're all illiterate. -Atmoz (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support username block. Anyone who's dealt with neonazis knows what 1488 means. It's about as blatant as using the word "Nazi" in your username. Kaldari (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

How can i disclaim something that i never believed in to begon with? and as for you calling me "nazi boy" that's a personal attack which I'm sure goes against your rules. i am in no way a nazi. As for usage of "boy", you need to show more respect towards people. Especially those that fought to protect your right to express your opinion. Loki1488 (talk)

Agreed. No need for personal attacks here. Let's keep things civil. Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you really are a veteran, then I applaud you're service, but that being said, we have no idea if you really are or not, this being the internet, people can claim lots of things about themselves which are not exactly true. All we have to go on so far is your username and your contribution history. We are not stupid here, those 2 things together have led us to the conclusion stated above. If you are serious in your statements above, see Wikipedia:Changing username and change your username to something more appropriate and read up on our policies for WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Heiro 22:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I applied for the new username. I logged out then Logged back in. how long should it take for the name to change? Loki1488 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

I'm not really sure, I believe an admin has to do the actual change, so when one can get to it would be my guess. I think this is a positive step forward. Because of the username thing and your contribs so far, you're probably on a lot of peoples radar now. Take it slow, investigate the policies I linked above and the policies someone has already left on your userpage about learning to edit, MoS, 5 pillars, etc. Good luck and keep it NPOV. Heiro 23:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A bureaucrat, not an admin, has to make the change. It looks like it has now been done. --B (talk) 00:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Um, no it doesn't - it's still at 'Loki1488' as of about 30 seconds ago. GiantSnowman 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A 'crat, WJBScribe, has marked the request at WP:CHU/S as "done" (at 00:37) but appears not to have pushed the button yet... Bencherlite^Talk 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left him a little message about it... GiantSnowman 01:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, about that new username, User:TX0311... That's a heck of a coincidence there. 28bytes (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My word, this is getting ridiculous now. I'm sorry but Loki/TX cannot say that two usernames which both have associations with the far-right and white supremacy is just a happy coincidence. GiantSnowman 01:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

At least it isn't as obvious as 1488, which is well known to anyone familiar with neonazis. I've never heard of the 311 reference, personally, but if others are, I suppose it may be offensive as well. Seems pretty borderline though. Kaldari (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, time to block this obvious racist troll and move on. There's nothing to be gained by further discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep. I can AGF on one "coincidental" username but this guy seems to be playing hate number bingo. 28bytes (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Facepalm I was willing to AGF enough after a requested name change for his own editing to hang him, but this is ridiculous. Does anyone think this guy could be a net positive to the project? If not, can someone indef block the troll and mark this resolved? Heiro 01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

this is what i wrote on his wall after seeing my name request denied.

"ok look 0311 is not a KKK reference 0311 is the Marine Corps numeric code for infantry rifle man. i looked at your link. the KKK reference is "311" not "0311" i cant do crap without one of yall thinkings its racist. my rifle serial number was 10248099 is that racists too? seriously why is every number a racist thing to you? i was born in 1988 you think thats racist. my MOS is 0311 you think that's racist. how about my lucky number 5 is that racist as well?"

Loki1488 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC).

He is actually correct.[45] I don't think the TX0311 name is likely to raise any eyebrows, unlike Loki1488, so let's accept the username change and move on. Kaldari (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I know, I looked it up as well, it is just so coincidental with the 311 thing. The user is just monumentally unlucky in choosing usernames.......... or funning us. If we AGF, I say we give him a REALLY short leash, as in no edits to controversial pages concerning race and let him prove himself for awhile editing other things here.Heiro 02:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you will understand my skepticism given the nature of his edits thus far. 28bytes (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's get real here, the idea that there were four separate "accidental" coded references to racist ideology in two attempts at selecting a username is laughable. Especially in light of the fact that he is editing in race-related areas. We are miles beyond AGF here, this defies belief. I really, really wish I hadn't stated above that I wouldn't block here, we are just feeding the troll by continuing to discuss this. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I've AGFed enough and would prefer a block, but if not, I want to start setting the groundwork for serious editing restrictions now. Heiro 02:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any policy basis for blocking at this point. Regardless of whether TX0311 is a veiled racist code or not, it seems ambiguous enough to be tolerated in my opinion. If you're concerned about the editor's POV you need to give him enough rope to hang himself first. We don't pre-emptively block people on the basis of POV. Kaldari (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I really dont care what my name is. this has gotten out of hand. i didnt even want numbers to begin with but I dont have that option. pick a name for me. because apperantly everything I do is Racist. Loki1488 (talk)

• {{reality check}} Blocked indef for trolling. I blocked the editor, not the username, so if his name change goes through I'll block that one too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank God someone has finally demonstrated some sense. This is some of the most blatant trolling I've ever seen on AN/I. 71.62.188.38 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Tagging as resolved, support the block, two Nazi-encoded names strains the ability to assume good faith. --B (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah. Doc talk 03:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that WP:AGF is not intended to be a substitute for common sense, or for using one's intelligence to parse information for its meaning. This should have been a no-brainer from the start, there was no reason there needed to be any debate about it. As Carl Sagan once said, reporting the remark of a colleague, it's good to have an open mind, but not so open that one's brains fall out. Sometimes I think that the egalitarian ethos of Wikipedia, along with the carping of self-appointed ombudsmen, creates a climate of fear among admins, so that they hesitate to do at the outset what (eventually, after too much discussion and more bad acts) becomes obvious is the right thing to do. AGF by all means, but if experience tells you that "X" is happening, you're probably right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Can someone take a look please?

I noted a question at Talk:marmalade and gave this answer. The editor User:Myles325a is unknown to me so I quickly browsed his contributions and noted this astonishing message he left on the talk page of User:78.38.28.3 who edits from Iran. So I left this warning/message at User talk:Myles325a. He did not respond at that page, but later returned to User:78.38.28.3's talk page where he added this and then added this. Comments? I am advising the editor I am placing this message here. Moriori (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't do admin stuff, but I've removed all the abuse he added to that User Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting that Hersfold previously did a checkuser on Myles325a, said he was confirmed to be the banned Karmaisking (talk · contribs), blocked him, and then gave him the benefit of the doubt several days later. From a very, very quick glance at contributions, it jumps out at me that they both CAPITALIZE things they want to stress and both have very similar talk page behavior. I wonder if maybe Hersfold was right the first time. --B (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a back here. Well, my slow-talking Texan pal, having a look at your insular and polemical input to Wikipedia, I am wondering why you didn't join the great journey to the promised land of Conservapedia when everyone else of your kidney left here a few years ago to find the promised land there. Have a read of my Conservapedia treatise (link below) and tell me what you think.Myles325a (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Even if he isn't a sock (though I agree that WP:DUCK seems to apply here...) his behaviour has been horrendous. GiantSnowman 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am myles325a, the editor who is being accused of being rude. I am not a sock puppet, and the reason that I was confused with Karmaisking last year (a vandal who I don't know and would not care to) is because I post from a public library which is in use all day, every day, and has about 20 computers, all with the same IP address. He must have made posts from there too. After I was wrongly identified as this vandal, I wrote to Hersfold thus:

Further, I had a look at Kairmasking’s contributions to see how they might be compared to mine, and mistakenly thought to be written by the same hand. I am a good writer and I anticipated that this vandal’s “work” would be crass, offensive and primitive. I was a little surprised to see that in some respects he is quite literate and witty, and we have this in common. He is also a pedant on matters of syntax, and we have this in common too. But a closer comparison of my contributions list and his will show that it would be very unlikely they were made by the same person. Kairmasking seems to have only one interest, that of some arcane financial business involving bank transactions. I do not have any interest at all in such matters and find them completely baffling. The battles he has with other users is a practice totally foreign to me, and I have no contact with or knowledge of any of them.

I would like to add that I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for about 5 years, and that I have made many intelligent and valuable amendments to the material here. I recently added valuable information to the article on Anthony West, the son of H.G. Wells and Rebecca West, and so on. The list is there for you to peruse. I have plans to rework articles on morphemes, and allied subjects, which are badly written. I reworked the Dasher article to make it coherent, and so on. I just have to find the time. I am also compiling material on my old school, Newcastle Boys High School, which I intend to use. I do use the Talk Pages a lot, but then I am of the view that it is better to ventilate matters there than to go through the vexing process of seeing text written and deleted over and over. Recently, I ended a long-running Talk Page battle on the final scenes of the film Let Me In, and provided text for the article which mollified the various disputants.

I am a published author, and made a career in writing manuals for the Public Service and training public servants in computer use, before I was medically retired, after a heart attack. For many years, I drafted material to go before the signature of the Minister of the Department of Education at NSW, and no paper of any sensitivity was released before my red pen had its run. I am one of the best writers you have here, and, further, I have many ideas concerning the improvement of WP, which I think is being dragged down by techie geeks who are intent on showing off how much they know at the, often deliberate, expense of communicating with the people. I read text like “The answer then becomes isomorphic to the previous one” unnecessarily using “isomorphic” instead of the simple “the same as”, and text which uses the mathematical term “function” when the simple “is determined by” would do nicely. WP is full of it, and many articles are becoming unreadable through their efforts.

I believe the emerging tendency of the Wikipedia experiment is the over-saturation of articles with simply too much data, too many examples, too many essentially trivial sidelines, and too much technical detail, all in the name of what becomes obsessive completism. A people’s encyclopedia implicitly aims at providing a clear, succinct summary of a topic, and one which is accessible to the general reading public. That aim needs to be renewed and given greater priority. Bertrand Russell’s “History of Western Philosophy”, itself an encyclopedia, illuminates with a wonderful intensity how complex subjects can be amenable to a literary style of great grace and classical simplicity. It is a Bible to me on these matters, and I would recommend it as a Pole Star to all who aspire to write on subjects of greater moment than the latest issue of some computer game (including that of mixed metaphors).

I have another project, which is to begin the compilation of signs and symbols index, for such as & ^ |, and all the accents like the cedilla found in other languages, and the ones used in Logic and Mathematics. It is high time that someone could search a database of thousands of such symbols to find their proper names and designated uses. And Wikipedia would be a perfect place to do that.

I realize that none of the above bear directly on my defense in the matter at hand, it is just that I wish to point out that I am essentially a serious and passionate member of this organization, and have far-reaching plans to help make WP the leading educational wonder of the 21st Century, via my contributions, and via my ideas of what can be done here. And, unless some blinkered bureaucrats axe me, I will go on and do this. Yes, perhaps I have been a bit wacky and anarchistic in my approach at times, but most of these misdemeanors are humorous sidelines. At times, I have been known to blow off some steam. I hate mediocrity. I can be intolerant of it, and this is a fault. I will try to improve on this account, and soften my most trenchant criticisms. We Australians are perhaps more accustomed to calling a spade a bloody shovel. Then again, I shouldn’t have called A. Mohammadzade a moron, and I apologize for it. But I find it odd that he is being encouraged to post his virtually unreadable drivel, while at the same time I am being threatened with excommunication.

This man claims to be a graduate: “I am A. Mohammadzade, and I live in Iran, and graduated in Iran University of Science and Technology. I have some studies in astronomy and physics….”

And yet he asks questions such as these:

1.Are there such as our solar sytem in other places and galaxies? 11.Smallest moon of Mercury, Fubus has more density than semi-star Jupiter, why? 8.What made Cassini discontinue in Saturn? 7.What made heavy metals and elements in Earth? 12.Why the orbital of Pluto has so angle with orbital of other planets? 13.The coma of comets move ahead of that and has about 150 million kilometers length with any core.

The answers to these questions are well-known to science, are taught at Junior High School level, and all are plainly elucidated in Wikipedia. I am particularly intrigued as to how a graduate from an Iranian technological tertiary institution thinks that Mercury has a moon call Fubus. There is something plain wrong with his mind, and he has been warned not to keep expounding his crackpot theories in WP. I was too severe to tell him off the way I did the first time, but my second outing on his talk page, where I made out I was an alien from Fubus, was just playing up. In fact, as today I am less choleric than I was yesterday, I see a certain pathos in his case, poignancy, and a quaintness that I did not descry before. Peter Sellers could have done an excellent interpretation of this unassuming, gentle star-gazing Iranian bumble-bum.

In any case, this graduate has not even bothered to apply for a user name. Is the fact that he is Iranian the reason I am being dealt with so harshly? The man writes nothing but triple-certified gobshite, NONE of which should be here. At least I have contributed something worthwhile, and the best is yet to come. So let us start again, my friends, and well, I don’t know, we could ask good ole’ 78….to give us a WP article on Mercury’s moon, Fubus. Or if you like, I’ll have a go at knocking up one myself. Wadda ya say?

Btw, I was banned from Conservapedia, a couple of years ago, where I had felt my pedantry for correct English usage qualified me for membership. But on other matters, my views were anathema, and I was told to go. Before that happened, I wrote this article for their Home Page on the future of THAT encyclopedia, and it may be of some interest to those who wonder as to what I am about. http://www.conservapedia.com/User:MylesP Myles325a (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

78's problems seem to be that his English is poor, he has misunderstood the nature of wikipedia and wishes to discuss his odd theories. This is a mild nuisance rather than a major problem. The savagery with which Myles has attacked him is quite extraordinary and totally unacceptable and I don't see any real recognition of this in the above.Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a back live. Faintes, if you reread my explanation above, you should see that I apologised to A. Mohammadzade, who never asked for one, and most likely does not even know of this kerfuffle. As you are some kind of psychologist, who has his name in letters 10 times the size of Godzilla on his Talk Page, where it is surrounded by any number of glittering prizes and special days, all self-advertised, perhaps you can tell me why I am the only poster here who calls this poor man by his actual name. To you and his other defenders he is just anon, or '78. None of you have written to him, and frankly, like a lot of bleeding hearts, you couldn't give a shit about him, it's ME you want as a whipping boy. Well, here I am. I've said I'm sorry, I've said that I will be less trenchant in my criticisms, I've apologised to Wikipedia, I made some kind remarks about him, and lo and behold, Faintes comes out here, and it's just not good enough for him. Well, I am not going to bend over and spread 'em for you, or him. It will just have to do, won't it? I notice from your Talk Page archives that you were in the recent past asked to tone down your remarks and be civil yourself, and you replied basically by giving them the finger. Myles325a (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You read my talkpage archives! Blimey. (The big name was a present by the way). Fainites ^barleyscribs 08:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm Australian myself and honestly, I'm appalled at the blistering attack on the anon. I'm pretty pedantic about correct grammar and spelling, but that is a demand I make of myself not something that I'm going to impose on someone else, especially someone for whom english is not their first language. His justification for his attack is completely unacceptable in a community where civility and good faith are supposed to be upheld. The anon's material maybe drivel but that's what BRD is for. Blackmane (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a here. Oh, come on cobber, don't put yourself down, you are no pedant. A pedant would know it is "English", not "english", and "may be" not "maybe". See, you're just a good 'ole Aussie whose writing is no better than it should be. Nothing la-di-dah or bunging it on like a fairy about you, mate. You're the genuine article. Wouldn't piss in Faintes' ear if his brain was on fire, but for you, my whanger is in your pocket anytime. Thanks for being such a good sport about it. But I might ask you if you do in fact make correct usage a demand "[of yourself and] not something [you are] going to impose on someone else" then why would you be so presumptious as to "correct" someone else's text at all? Isn't changing their text an imposition, elevating your style above theirs? Aren't we all good postmodernists now? Shouldn't we allow 'ole Persian anon his fractured syntax as his own special narrative?

I find the stuff that "separates" Myles and Karmaisking amusing. Myles had expected Karmaisking to be "crass, offensive and primitive", not "literate and witty"... like the "You write like a moron" post, right? And Karmaisking is just a "vandal" - but your first edit after exoneration (reverted three minutes later) wasn't vandalism at all, I suppose.[46] Needlessly attacking the Iranian editor four days after he's even edited is just mean and, IMHO, adding material that is "annoying or embarrassing". Doc talk 11:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a here. I repeat that I apologised for calling Mr. Mohammadzade a moron, an apology which has received not the slightest recognition from any of my detractors. I'm not sure what they expect now. I apologised for my first note on his Talk Page. The other note, where I play the goat and act out the part of an extraterrestrial from Fubus is linked here with all the po-faced gravitas one might expect from a dessiccated hanging judge from Old Blighty a century ago. Lighten up, guys. It's a bit of fun. Myles325a (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering the tone of the comments that Myles made to the 78, I find his explanation of having the same IP address as Karmaisking almost like a WP:BROTHER excuse. Calling someone a retard is an indefensible breach of civility. 75.150.53.81 (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a back live. Read my remarks below to Faintes. It is easy, and iniquitous, to insist upon a presumption because it suits your prejudices. I am NOT this other person, and any intelligent and dispassionate adjudicator would see that straight away. Myles325a (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So is he a sock or isn't he? Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The accused myles325a back live. In the matter of Karmaisking and I being the same person, once again I deny it, and I will deny it thrice if necessary. This man is not my Lord, nor even a poor excuse for a Brother, and I have nothing to repent of in the business. I am the only innocent party in this entire sordid escapade, and yet it is I who is being led to execution. The link below provides a list of this poster’s contributions. As you can see, they are all related to matters to do with such as fractional-banking reserves and the stock market and the credit crunches. He had absolutely no interest in any other subject whatsoever: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Karmaisking

Now have a perv at the list of my contributions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Myles325a. Ghambian pouched rats, marmalade, Anthony West, Saul Bellow, Kenken etc, etc…What isn’t this bloke interested in? I’ll tell you what? Fractional-banking reserves. You don’t have to be from Interpol to see that he and I are not one and the same person. In any case, he was banned last year and remains so. I explained that in situations where there are many PCs linked to one IP, as in internet cafes and public libraries, such misidentification of one poster for another is BOUND to happen, it has nought to do with this BROTHER excuse. I am typing this now from such a computing area in a Sydney public library (I won’t say exactly which one as I avoid the paparazzi whenever I can) and there are about 18 other people alongside me in a long row, all busily typing away themselves. Do you want me to send you a photo? It is pure bigotry and character assassination to conflate this internet hoodlum with me.

If the editors had taken more than the most cursory glance at these two lists, and had an ounce of disinterested fairness, they would plainly see this. There are grave historical precedents for linking the evil that one man does to someone else near him on the most gossamer of circumstantial evidence, someone else from his group, from his culture, from his race, or in this case, from his local library, and then tarring the other with the same brush, and menacing him with and then subjecting him to eviction, to exile, to silence, to, dare I say it, no I won't, yes I will: red ink libel. You do not wish to be identify yourselves with the stratagems of these villains, do you? Then I beseech you, in the bowels of Franklin and Obama, think again, consider more closely, ponder the facts before you, and agree with me.

To pillory me further on this matter is to pillory all those poor sods like myself who do not have or cannot afford current access to the internet from their own homes. In other words, to those who have, more will be given, but, as my now life-long friend and ally A. Mohammadzade would have completed the quote for me: “For the beggar crying for alms at the gates of the city, even the voice with which he cries will be taken from him.” And this is what some are trying to do: take the voice of myles325a from this forum. If such a day comes, a casement which opens on the lake of this world from a vantage shared by no other, will be bolted. Myles325a (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Stick around. Just don't hurt people's feelings. It's mean. OK? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

myles325a back live. Thanks Anthony, you are the only editor who said something that was not full of self-righteousness, and you placed the matter in its proper perspective. It was mean of me to call this man names, but it was not "horrendous"; and I did apologise for it, and I am quite plainly not the vandal I was wrongly identified with. You invited me to stick around, which is what Jesus would have done, while the Pharisees rended their clothes and made one huge hooplah after another hooplah, and threw the book at me, and swallowed camels while straining at gnats, and were more belligerant and surly than ever I was, and more judgemental, and pretended to care about this Persian, when they do not. But I did get some other support (on my Talk page) from a top-flight editor who has that strange thing called "a sense of humour", and with a scintillating style that bears some resemblance to my own. There, I feel better now. Myles325a (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I share most of the views expressed above, just not to the extent that you should be sanctioned, since it seems you intend being kinder in future. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Myles325a, can we assume that your anwer to Anthony's simple question is isomorphic to "Yes, OK." ? DVdm (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Myles has apoligised and resolved to be less trenchant in future. Can we move on? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Coverorange and socks at Colorado Springs Christian Schools

Nlu protected Colorado Springs Christian Schools for a month from the same repeated vanity edit which has been popping up for months. I did some legwork. The same text, "Jamieson Miller", no hyperlink, no source, is all that's been repeatedly added. I thought, maybe it's some hip new somethingorother all the kids are talking about. Nope. Google brings up an Australian sculptor, no link, and this guy http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jamieson-miller/1a/6b8/584 comes up when I add Colorado Springs. Truly notable auto-parts manager. It is all a sock of the same self-promoting nobody. Today the edit came back, under a registered user. User:Coverorange was just what I suspected, made 10 minor corrections to articles then waited four days to be autoconfirmed just to add his name to the article protected for a month from just that same stupid edit. It's time to report him.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Recommend getting a CU involved. Wouldn't be surprised if they had a few sleepers about. Once the CU is done, I would also recommend a rangeblock so no other problems arise for a couple. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

How do I initiate that?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Go to WP:SPI and file a report. Collect as many obvious socks and IP addresses used by the guy, ask for a checkuser to see about the possibility of a rangeblock. If that isn't possible, then all we are left with is either whack-a-mole or full protection. --Jayron32 04:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

Greets. User:Gunmetal Angel seems to use his rollback quite at random, so I just wanted to let some admins know to check it out. He seems to rollback quite any uncomfortable edit that he disagrees with but has nothing to do with vandalism or whatsoever. For instance, he rollbacks other users's contributions to discussions and ignores them. He also reverts obvious good faith edits (including added links to other language wikipedias like here - see bottom of the diff). Now i just spotted him as he plainly rollbacked a bunch of copyedits, updates and cleanups that i did. i'm not sure if he has any idea what rollback and reverting in general is for... cheers--Lykantrop (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lykrantop, did you notice the bright orange box when you edited this page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

NOBODY NOTICES THAT BOX. IT IS POINTLESS. /shouting. I'll notify User:Gunmetal Angel. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

nvm you did. Protonk (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

For now it should be sufficient to remind the editor that Rollback is only to be used for blatant vandalism, and more importantly, it's not appropriate to remove legitimate posts from talk pages using ANY editing method. --King Öomie 18:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not the first time that this editor has had rollback removed for using it in an edit war. I've removed it again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, i'm sorry. I did notice that box but i forgot afterwards. my apologies.--Lykantrop (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

After a quick check, I also have concerns about this editors use of rollback. He ought to have been blocked for edit-warring on In Fear and Faith yesterday. I won't do it now (36 hours after the event) but he/she needs to know that this is not acceptable. That was clearly a content issue rather than vandalism. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks a lot more like reverting vandalism than edit warring to me. Changing "post-hardcore" to "teenybopper" is something that's hard for reasonable people to agree on, generally.... (oops, forgot to sign...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yesterdays edits sure did look like reverting vandalism, yet I would be very concerned over the other rollbacks, that clearly were not vandalism, especially the edits on the talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If there's nothing recent, I don't think its a huge deal. I made a bunch of bad rollbacks when I first got rollbacks as I wasn't used to the button being there.. _WikiMan^One 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In light of the comments here I have returned rollback to Gunmetal Angel and apologised to him/her. It seems I misjudged the situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The above mentioned In Fear and Faith block is not the problem here. I am more concerned that an editor attempted to disuss on Talk:A Beautiful Lie but his comment towards Gunmetal Angel "Can you give me the link to your source please?" was just rollbacked by Gunmetal Angel. Another editor on Tool (band), who added information with sources, copyedited the article and added Korean and Basque language article links, was just reverted by Gunmetal Angel. That is intentional disruptive behavior, ruining the work of others and ignoring good faith discussion. After he rollbacked my contributions, i contacted him/her, but he/she resumed to edit, ignoring me. He/she cries out when his/her powers are shortened, even though vandalism can be reverted without rollback just well. That isn't very responsible and is up to admins to decide whether it's acceptable.--Lykantrop (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to see an explanation of these actions. It is possible that they were mistakes (but in that case the user does seem to make a lot of mistakes). Otherwise it would be good if GunMetal Angel would assure us that rollback will not be used in this way in future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As you may see, Martin, Gumnetal Angel just doesn't care. As long as he can display his rollback rights on his page that give him enough self-confidence to be ignorant, he's allright. If those edits were mistakes, he would have fixed them. But he didn't and he obviously ignores you too. I told him "Please—don't revert others' work on a cursory, skimming, didn't-read basis without paying enough attention to judge the merits of it (...) one has to remember that doing that kind of reversion to newbies would constitute WP:BITEing. It takes good contributors and sours them on future contributing." But he has no idea what i was talking about. Your apology to him was out of place, but i'm not gonna waste my time on him anymore. Happy editing, cheers.--Lykantrop (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What the hell? The In Fear and Faith thing was nothing BUT VANDALISM, which I have every right to use rollback on. And FYI: I used that rollback on accident! A whole night of continously using rollback on In Fear and Faith in A VANDAL THAT CONTIOUSLY MADE EVERYTHING AN ISSUE made it quite a simple mistake to revert ONE USER'S EDIT ON A PAGE BY MISTAKE. You don't even consult me of this, and threaten to block me over reverting vandalism and then rip away my rollback rights because I hit the button on accident in regards to attempt to revert the edit in a different way? Yeah, this is real nice; I hope this has became of notice that a mistake has been made here, and I would really need rollback again as soon as possible hence the same vandal is once again attacking articles as we speak. • GunMetal Angel 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What the hell indeed. Wasn't genre-warring the main reason I blocked you a year and a half ago? As a matter of fact it was, this diff:[47] (for some reason this thread does not appear to be in your archives) shows as much. And this diff:[48] shows you promising never to do it again. Edit warring over what genre a band is is just silly. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User:R3xmAs recreating hoax article

For the second time (fifth time if you count the three user pages) R3xmAs (talk · contribs) has created a hoax article about a non-existent manga. The first time was at Nirvana (Manga), which was speedy deleted under A1. The second time was as their main user page which was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax.[49] The third time was at User talk:R3xmAs/Editnotice, which was nominated for MfD as a possible hoax. Now the user has recreated the article back as their main user page and at Nirvana (manga). All references on the article are faked and links to the same Facebook page. Since this user keeps recreating this hoax in both article space and in their user space, a block may be warranted. —Farix (t | c) 01:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's so much a hoax as it is wishful thinking. I'm going to write him an explanation of our purpose at his talk page. If he keeps it up after that, I think an indef block would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Soft block?

User Timneu22 has apparently retired and has noted that he/she will edit from another account in the future, if at all. Can an uninvolved admin please comment/proceed on soft blocking the account to prevent future misuse? Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why we'd do that: this seems to be an attempt at making a clean start, and the relevant policy says nothing about blocking the old account. Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IF it becomes compromised We'll do something. Compromised accounts have a hard time not being noticed. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought we discussed this a couple months ago in regards to deceased users. There's no need to block. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly alright. No problems. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I also wouldn't block, since there is an open RFC on this user's conduct. Blocking this account would make the user unable to participate in the discussion except through either their talkpage or outing whatever clean start account they may have created. Syrthiss (talk) 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:108.64.172.101

Resolved

 – Temporarily blocked. Stable IP with a pervasive pattern of edit warring who has refused all efforts to engage in conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The person behind this IP is a pervasive genre warrior. There has been an ongoing genre feud between me and him on the Mushroomhead (history) and formerly Beautiful Stories for Ugly Children (album) (history and Sevendust (history), the last of which involved multiple editors, which ended in a decision against his removal of the nu metal tag. This editor also frequents [album] pages relating to Deftones and Faith No More. The person rarely displays reasoning behind his or her edits, and has neglected to back up the editing activity, even after repeated requests to do so. On Beautiful Stories for Ugly Children (album), the user added this entry and this entry, the latter of which is especially questionable, since the line that alludes to the album being doom metal in this source, duplicating other reviews is "It’s a doomy sound, if not quite doom metal (too fast) or death metal (too tonal)." That doesn't blatantly state that it is doom metal, yet this is what #108 bases his or her stance on. One characteristic of this person's editing is regular reversion of others' edits, this too without reasoning. I hate genre warring, and I don't want to risk stooping down to that person's level in the process. Fortunately, though, I have not found proof of other IPs which could be the same person. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromised account

Resolved

 – user blocked. GedUK  12:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Emirates777saeed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Vandalism suggests a compromised account - vandalism has stopped now, so don't know if any action is needed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the vandalism's stopped. Unless and until he's confirmed that he's back in control of the account and has changed his password he should be blocked. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 11:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As much as I agree with Jéské Couriano, it's also plain enough from the editor's contribution history that their account was not compromised; they're trying the usual lame get-out-of-block-free card that so many new editors try. Of course, that's not meant as an argument for leniency. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I watch BsZ's talk page and saw it there before here. I've blocked them. GedUK  12:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User: CandyYo

Hello, I am requesting that User: CanyYo be temporarliy blocked, because of persistent vandalism. I continuously told her that Radio 1 is not a reliable source, but this user continued to revert my edits on Like a Surgeon (Ciara song). Then the user tried to put that Go Girl (Ciara song) was the lead single from Fantasy Ride, despite me trying to show them different sources that state otherwise. Thius user has shown that they arent willing to discuss or reach consensus as they even threatened to block me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:68.79.92.229 , and refused to listen, despite my continuous asking to discuss the problem : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Candyo32 . If not blocked this user needs to be put under observation. Thak you. --68.79.92.229 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

CanyYo (talk · contribs) ---> Candyo32 (talk · contribs) Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Which Radio 1 is not a reliable source? Mjroots (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

From the article, it appears to be none of them, but rather www.radio1.gr... Radio 1 Rodos Greece. I'm skeptical about its reliability, especially with the "(Hated on since 2002)" at the bottom of each page, and am surprised there's no other source for a release date Worm^TT 13:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well the IP user is adding original research to an article, claiming that their are "cancelled" or "demoted to promo singles" which is untrue and is impossible to happen, when a single is out there, it is out there. Per my talk page, they are also going by unreliable sources. Their edits are going by their opinionated views, and that Ciara should not have low-charting singles in her singles chronology. Candyo32 14:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

non-admin comment I have told the above IP before that a CD single that was released to the public for sale directly from the company means it had an official single release, which means that his/her continuous edits to change "Go Girl" to a promo single were vandalism. Per discussion at WP:SONGS, a song with an official add date to US radio also means it was officially released. This IP has failed to listen to my comments on his/her talk page and decided to take this to ANI. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 14:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Found another source, Billboard website [50] and have mentioned at the talk page, where this would be better handled. I don't see any need for administrator intervention. Worm^TT 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Cardovus

Cardovus (talk · contribs) could really use some extra eyes on him. He believes that sockpuppet accounts are flooding Wikipedia with anti-Iranian, pro-Isreali propaganda as some kind of "war effort", and that Wikipedia administrators are invovled somehow. This all despite the account being less than a day old, yet he knows what a sockpuppet is, so I'm assuming he is one himself. But I have no familiarity with this area of the project, so I thought someone here might know who it is. I'm going to bed. Good night. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cardovus's cries of "cover account" seem to be unfounded, as the alleged Cover is a legitimate alternate account of the alleged sockmaster. He seems to be on a very troll-like POV pushing spree, labeling articles as "sham" or as part of "a propaganda campaign". I firmly believe he could either use some sysop type "advice", a good psych exam, or a trip out behind the woodshed. WuhWuzDat 10:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of a different variation of what I meant in this essay. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cardovus has been indef-blocked for disruptive editing by User:JamesBWatson. I agree completely with the block, myself. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IP-hopper trolling RefDesk/Comp

Over the past couple of days, an anonymous user in the 70.179. range (70.179.173.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 70.179.181.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has been making threads at RefDesk/Computing that appear, on first read (and all subsequent ones) to be trolling. I've removed three threads from this user thus far; the first two were threads where he asked about sending antique computers to Africa ([51], [52]) that quickly devolved and became obvious as trolling ([53] is last revision before I removed them), and his most recent one concerns Halo: Reach. ([54] is first incarnation; I've removed the thread three times thus far as trolling).

Could an admin rangeblock the appropriate range or apply very short term semi-protection to that Ref Desk, and soon? I'm presently in an edit-war with him over the third thread. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, this is an over-reaction. The RD questions at issue are certainly naive, uninformed, probably in the wrong place, and have unrealistic expectations - but there are not enough hours in the day to remove every naive, uninformed, misplaced or unrealistic question from the RDs. RD regulars have a strategy for handling such borderline questions - provide a short, factual answer (as Bo Jacoby (talk · contribs) did here) and ignore any follow up. If the questioner is a troll, they soon get bored and go away. Playing Whac-A-Mole with them round the RDs only annoys a genuine questioner and encourages a troll. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying comments like "Moreover, beggars can't be choosers, can they? I'm sure there's an extra-desperate country somewhere that'll be willing to take my 12 1/2 year old computer off my hands" and "You see, there may be some school districts in Somalia that are so Überly-desperate that they would be ecstatic to receive just an Apple IIe" [emphasis in original] aren't problematic? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 11:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put words into mouth. I agree that those comments are poorly expressed and betray an uninformed and prejudiced world view. But we see this sort of thing fairly often on the RDs. Experience has shown that removing RD questions is almost always counter-productive and RD regulars only do so if the questioner is being quite extraordinarily offensive, or is clearly breaching the no medical advice/no legal advice rules. And when a question does need to be removed, RD guidelines ask that the removal be explained at the RD talk page so that it is transparent and open to scrutiny. I stand by my view that in this case escalating to AN/I and requesting a rangeblock and semi-protection is an over-reaction. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with everything Gandalf said. In particular: semi-protection would be a horrible solution as it shuts out IP addresses - a huge number of people asking questioins, and a sizable number of volunteers providing answers. I'd even rather live with a lamish edit-war, but best just ignore it and let it peter out. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Even better, WP:DNFT applies here, if you believe this to be a troll, then do nothing at all. Removing his question invites edit warring, which is what he may want if he is a troll. If you believe him to be a troll, your best course of action is to do nothing at all. If other people answer his questions in good faith, then perhaps they believe him not to be a troll. --Jayron32 18:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion / Portal of Evil

Not to speak out of turn here, but this nomination was a pretty bad WP:COI violation which probably went unnoticed because nobody looked at the page. The deletion nominator, Ben Schumin, was one of Portal of Evil's most infamous targets, essentially a PoE-only meme who kept returning to the site to be picked on by the site's users for years and years. He seems like a capable Wikipedia editor; I don't have any clue why he would create a conflict of interest as bad as this. (It looks like the site itself has been deleted. I'm not sure how to prove what I'm saying unless there's a Google cache of the massive forums.)

Its deletion was incorrect, too, since only one person voted. Aren't deletion nominations supposed to be relisted until a few people actually show up to vote/comment? 68.109.238.244 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

SchuminWeb (talk · contribs) and Tone (talk · contribs) notified. GiantSnowman 00:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

A shame there wasn't more participation there (if this is procedurally relisted, I'll gladly go enter in a call to delete), but going by the cached version, the article was nothing more than "look at me" self-promotion with no 3rd party reliable sources to justify its notability. The Wired article was on the spyware, not the website. I really see no merit to the alleged COI either; just because a bunch of internet eToughs may be picking on someone doesn't make said someone's nomination for deletion on notability grounds any less sound. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a shame, and a surprise, that the discussion had so little participation. I was honestly expecting it to be a drama-filled discussion where the {{not a ballot}} and {{spa}} templates would have to get pulled out. That said, however, I don't think that disclosing that my site was a target of the subject's commentary was necessary, as the decision to nominate for deletion was made solely by doing an analysis of the coverage in reliable sources. My site being discussed (and made sport of) on the subject's site has no effect on whether or not the reliable sources are present. By not injecting myself into the nomination, it allowed those reviewing the nomination to look at the article on its own merits without letting personalities get in the way. I did think long and hard about whether to disclose or not, but ultimately determined that it was unnecessary. If the complainant is sufficiently concerned that this AFD was not handled according to process, then they should file a deletion review and have the process reviewed. I have yet to see any discussion or even concern on whether process was followed in this instance, as the main concern here seems to be solely on who nominated it rather than the process, its outcome, or the merits of the article that was under discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally think A) the nom should have mentioned the COI just to be complete, but that it's fairly irrelivant in this case and B) with one !vote to delete, a relist isn't unreasonable. Contact the closing admin and ask for a relist. Failing that go to DrV and ask for one. That said, the article needs more than the one RS it had at the time of deletion. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I don't like to close "1 voters". (another being that when someone comes to my talk page asking "why did you delete my article?, I usually say something like "because there was a consensus to do so here" I can't do that with a straight face if only one !voter agrees with the nom) From looking at the OP's contributions I see that he was not editing between the 28th and the 8th. The AFD ran from the 29th to the 5th. I wouldn't be opposed to reopening this and letting him have his say but otherwise I agree with Tarc.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This particular admin obviously is very stringent with the rules except when it comes to his own behavior on Wikipedia. He habitually adds his own blog as a reference! e.g. A fun day was has by all? [[55]], big bad protester [[56]], and of course his witty observations while on vacation [[57]].Why does the search Schuminweb on Wikipedia have over one hundred results? 70.69.35.166 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — 70.69.35.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I, as the closing admin, am willing to relist the debate and give it more time to form a consensus. It seemed a rather clear deletion to me but no harm in seeing more opinions. --Tone 08:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why bother? Considering the tone of some of these IP commenters, including the fact that one of those complaining has never edited Wikipedia before, I'm getting the feeling that the complainants are just upset that they missed their chance to call out all of their friends and their friends' socks and have that drama-filled slugfest that they didn't realize that they wanted to have until it was too late. If this is that important to them, I say make them go to the trouble of listing on deletion review. There is no quorum for deletion discussions, and it is not unheard of or untoward to tell someone, "I'm sorry that you missed the discussion", as I recently had to do with someone. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There may not be an official "quorum" but I myself would like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nominator (3 or more is better) for any kind of "hard" delete decision for "articles". However, I would hate to have that idea tested on this case. At least the admins who do close "1 voters" as delete such as Cirt are pretty good at restoring and reopening these if someone who is actually here to build an encyclopedia wants to have their say. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, valid discussion, valid result. Anybody can take it to DRV if they must. As for COI, the COI of the IP editors, who are evidently associated with that website and seeing this as just another opportunity for harassing their victim is much more of a problem than any COI the nominator might have had. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That said, I have to agree with the latest IP on one point: the "schuminweb" blog ought not to be used as a source on Wikipedia. Ben, if you inserted those links, can you please see to it that they get removed? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Correct, Schumin Web isn't a good source, though I'm not digging around and removing things just to remove them, especially since it's been many years after the fact, and I have better things to do than to go through 80,000 contributions just to skim out a couple of links. In the normal course of editing, yes, let's replace them with better sources.

Otherwise, I tend to agree - this seems another effort at cyberbullying, which is what the subject's site specializes in, and we should not be in the business of enabling cyberbullies. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The 101 links to schuminweb.com can be found here. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that the complainants are just upset that they missed their chance to call out all of their friends and their friends' socks and have that drama-filled slugfest. In other words, "Everybody on PoE was an asshole to me. Signed, Ben." How this doesn't constitute a COI is beyond me, but the ends justify the means, apparently. Deletion discussions aren't votes, so however many PoEtards showed up to make the same argument ("KEEP because Ben is fat," etc.) wouldn't matter. Also, please read WP:AGF. I would have voted to delete if I could have voted. You may or may not know this, but I can't vote in deletion discussions.

I have no idea who that IP is, I don't know what you mean when you hit me for my "tone," and I don't know how to do a deletion review. So you win. 68.109.238.244 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

SchuminWeb is a liar and good faith should not be applied to him. He claims he will not go over his thousands of edits to replace the repeated insertions of his personal website, yet when three months ago, an editor discovered them and removed them, he found the time to review his thousands of edits to revert those edits(edits that were properly cited).For example:[58][59][60]. I think it is very dangerous for any editor, especially an administrator, to be able to constantly subvert policy to draw people to his personal website, not to mention how its speaks to the quality of an administrator who has the ego to assume his blog is a reliable source.201.140.189.41 (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

legal threat at AFD?

Does Either Delete this page or rename it! else we will delete it completely as a nominating rationale count as a legal threat? User:Wilspaul seems to have strong religious POV on this issue has used the above phrase in the nomination, its talk page and the article's talk page. Is this a legal threat and should he be blocked?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

No. Maybe rude or unreasonable, but I can't see anything referring to legal action in there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, with both parts. Rude, but no legal threat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): I see no legal threat there. Recommend a general warning for the rudeness though. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sstrauch1955

Sstrauch1955 (talk · contribs) is only a sporadic WP editor, but looking through xyr contribution history, I'm seeing mostly, if not only, edits that demean and give offense to other religions. In particular, note [61], [62], and [63]. Some of those could possibly even rise to the level of needing RevDel. I don't see any need for an editor who seems to be here only to perpetuate religious hatred. Xe's only been warned twice, and the editing is sporadic, but I still think that the content of the edits shows someone for whom we don't need to extend much good faith. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Having reverted this user myself, I looked through the edits and must say I didn't find a single productive one. Borderline, maybe. Certainly seems to be more disruptive in recent edits. Worm^TT 16:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Golly. Almost all of the contribution history is like that. This one certainly demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of a number of our core policies, and none of the additions appear to be sourced. I didn't see anything RevDel-able, although at the least most of the edits should probably be reverted (as I see you've started to do.) 28bytes (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing that more warnings hadn't been received. I've given a final warning. Fences&Windows 21:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merger at Brian David Mitchell

With regard a seemingly simple issue with nonetheless a lot of complicating factors, I've decided at taking a stab at finding resolution here. To start at the very beginning:

1. • On December 11, I, perhaps in error, nominated the Brian David Mitchell blp in an afd. I didn't want the article deleted, however, I sought a merger.
   • I screwed up and didn't complete step 3, thus my afd never got listed until two days later, when a bot caught the error; thus the afd was finally appropriately listed on December 13.
   • The afd was closed on the December 21, eight days later, but the administrator left no rationale for his close leaving it open to interpret whether he believed the discussion favored the merger I sought, disfavored the same, or was inconclusive.
2. Ever since then I have attempted to discuss the merger on the talk page but a short circuit to the discussion takes place in that my counter disputant in the two-person discussion argues that the afd was closed keep and so the discussion is moot while I argue that the afd was closed keep with no mention of the proposed merger and thus the discussion is still in order. The closing admin was contacted first by my co-disputant on January 30, here, and then later by myself on February 9, here. The admin indicated that we two disputants should work it out and seek further input in the discussion. Nonethless, my co-disputant continues to remove the merge tag and to claim bad faith.
3. Help!

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I requested a 3rd-party opinion and one showed up, simultaneously to my posting on this page, here. (Thanks!)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything for administrators to do here. You've now received a third opinion. If that doesn't solve the content dispute, you can always try a request for comments. -Atmoz (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment as given by Atmoz (talk · contribs), above. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeepers Creepers 3

An ip address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/99.191.100.99 and this user User:Undertaker18 0 have been removing info about MGM's having been bankrupt, and l have undid those edits myself.--Daipenmon (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Undertaker18 0 seems to be a throwaway account as well.--Daipenmon (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Both accounts given a {{uw-delete1}} courtesy message. — Satori Son 19:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Personal insults by User:Guidod

After I proposed an unsourced page ALSN for deletion, User:Guidod written two, speaking mildly, unpleasant statements on my talk page [64][65]. In both of these statements user stated that I have bad faith. Also in the last reply he stated that I cannot even read in my mother tongue properly. Last but not least, the user made an edit on his talk page with offensive description.

Therefore I seek administrator attention to delete the offensive description of the mentioned diff and deal with the user for his insults appropriately. Thank you. Artem Karimov (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have advised Guidod that they are now under the Eastern Europe editing restrictions set forth at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Subsequent uncivil edits such as these by Guidod should result in a one week block. — Satori Son 19:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for an edit summary to be deleted/modified

I just recently made this edit to Air France Flight 447. The edit is fine, but unfortunately I pasted some sensitive information into the edit summary by mistake. If an admin could quickly remove that information from the summary, I would greatly appreciate it. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Nakon 20:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift response. -- Fyrefly (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Bullying

Discussion ongoing about user's conduct (not just on this template, but in general) below.

I'm not sure where to put this, so if this is the wrong sport, please let me know. User PM800 has been removing references to the suicide of Tyler Clementi from this template, with no explanation (see [66][67][68][69][70]). I and another user have been counselling the user on this, asking him for an explanation as to why the content was removed - we received no such explanation. The user refuses to discuss the issue, and comes along every few months and silently makes this subtle change to the article. The change is clearly unwarranted, as a number of reliable sources have labelled the suicide a result of bullying ([71][72][73][74]... need I go on?). I'm not sure what kind of action to take here - I have reverted this user a number of times, and I and another user have left a few talk page messages, with no response. Despite a number of reliable sources stating otherwise, this user continues to make this subtle change every now and then. While usually this sort of thing could be sorted with discussion and consensus building, this user has ignored (literally, ignored - no comments were left on his talk page after a notice was left there a while back) attempts to do so. OK, so now for some diffs of PM800 ignoring the request for discussion... PM800 was repeatedly requested to explain his actions: here, here, here, here and here. PM800 ignored each and every request. Arctic Night 20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC) I trust that they will provide a rationale here, otherwise I am inclined to indef block until one is provided - or an undertaking given not to edit war on the matter. This appears to be an otherwise responsible editor, and I would rather not resort to sanctions to bring this to a conclusion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC) I believe a rationale was provided (specifically, in an edit summary, "not bullying"). However, upon being provided with countless sources refuting this, the user refused to discuss the issue further (specifically, by ignoring me and the other user). User contribs show that the user has been active since notification of this ANI thread was posted on his talk page - not just small edits, but the full creation of pages. I fear that this user is ignoring me again, although I wouldn't want to jump to conclusions! Arctic Night 21:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Although I can't quite put into words why, I have to say that I'm not convinced that categorization the cause of suicides in this way is a good idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Categorization of living persons is arguable enough - this sort of template gives me substantial unease - one ought not rely on "he's dead, Jim" as an excuse for lumping anyone into a category. Collect (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC) OK, I would be perfectly happy to discuss that if you would like to - however, this user is removing one suicide from a list of several suicides. Just to make it clear - the Tyler Clementi suicide was not the only one on the list, there were several suicides on there, but this user chose to remove this particular suicide from the list. Besides, we're not talking about categorisation here... we're talking about a template. However, the issue here is this user's repeated removal of one suicide from a list of suicides with no explanation. Arctic Night 22:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC) The user's still editing and still continues to ignore my questions. Arctic Night 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Lack of effective communication is one reason why Wikipedia is failing. If an editor declines to discuss a topic with his or her peers, there is no point to this being a collaborative project. I don't care about the template, but I do care about communication, especially as I've experienced time over time again that nothing productive comes out of not talking. I'm tempted to fully protect the template, but I'm not sure that would solve the underlying issue. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Well, there is plenty of time to see if they are moved to respond. If this section archives without a response from PM800 or a resolution otherwise, ping me on my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Fetchcomms, you're absolutely right - if an editor just ignores repeated requests to start discussing an issue, that's not only rude but also detrimental to the project as a whole. I'm not sure if it would be such a good idea to wait until this section archives - PM800 is clearly still active and continues to ignore this ANI notice. Arctic Night 23:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC) I've warned them on their talk page. If they revert again with no discussion, I will block them. Let me know if they do. Fences&Windows 01:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for that, however it seems that PM800 just waits for a month or so and removes the content. I'm not entirely sure what we could do to get this to stop other than warn - another admin offered to indef-block until the user provides a rationale for their actions. So far, PM800 has completely ignored this ANI thread also - his user contribs show him clearly still editing despite this ANI thread progressing. Arctic Night 01:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC) OK, so now for some diffs... PM800 was repeatedly requested to explain his actions: here, here, here, here and here. PM800 ignored each and every request. Arctic Night 01:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC) I also noticed this, this and this - maybe it's time for a Wikiquette alert. Arctic Night 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC) Note: there is also now a discussion at WP:AN3 ongoing about this user's conduct. Arctic Night 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Christopher Monsanto

Resolved

 – An editor has made a good faith AfD nomination. The process is in place. No sense in adding pointless grief!

This user is constantly nominating the articles about different programming languages for deletion without proper research of the actual programming languages' notability. Taking into account the number of articles that he has tagged for deletion, I highly doubt his good faith. We are talking about such languages as Nemerle, Alice ML, etc. We've tried to provide the notability of these languages (for example, there are plenty of academic papers and publications about Alice ML, there are official published research papers about Nemerle, published through Microsoft Research, there are many articles about Nemerle in RSDN Magazine, official Russian science magazine, ISSN 0234-6621, included in the Russian Science Citation Index). However, he disregards all these source as either non-reliable or not notable enough. I don't really see how Microsoft Research or official science papers may be non-reliable. It seems that Christopher has some personal interest or offence for doing that. He has also stated that "his mission" is to remove "redundant" programming languages from Wikipedia, which I am afraid may result in deletion of interesting and valuable articles.

I urge moderators to look closer at this user, his actions, and his actual motivation.

Don Reba (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then the AFD discussions will bear that out. There is no need to think he is acting in bad faith, or needs to be stopped from starting AFD discussions. Indeed, by letting the discussions run to the end, and letting him start them, it actually works to disprove his thesis, which will only make it clear that the articles (if they are about notable subjects) aren't going anywhere. I don't really think your description of events describes any actions that require sanctioning at this point. Trust the Wikipedia community on this one. --Jayron32 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't the time to explain myself in detail for the n-th time. I believe my reasoning to be clear on the AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nemerle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice (programming language), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afnix (programming language), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bsisith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aikido (programming language). Not a single specific source has been given for any of these articles that I or others haven't given (what I believe to be) a specific reason for not establishing notability.

I can't verify the RSDN sources, but two other commentators on the AfD with more familiarity with the reputation of the source 1) have said that this is not a sufficient amount of coverage establish notability and 2) the articles were written by the key developer of Nemerle, and therefore they do not count as independent, third-party coverage.

Furthermore, I have acted in good faith in every single edit I have made, and I have assumed good faith of all other editors involved until recently. Note the first comment on my talk page -- I didn't know whether this project was notable or not, so I added a notability tag, which resulted in sources being added to the article. At this point I conceded that the project met the notability guidelines. The exchange was civil and rational between both parties.

From here on out, I will not be replying to complaints by non-administrators. I've already been accused of COI, which an administrator cleared my name of. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris, you are so concerned about your name, but you are quick to harm somebody else’s reputation. NoAccountNameAvailable (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Off topic; NoAccountNameAvailable, why does your name sound so familiar? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I mistook you for User:TheLastusernameLeft. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 20:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Christopher, others can verify RSDN. For example myself. I could say, it is reliable source (I'm not a developer of the language). It is logical to write articles about the language by people who are familiar with the subject. However the articles about Nemerle on RSDN are not from the author of this language. I also do not like that you change facts, for example: you said "2 articles on Stackoverflow about Nemerle" instead of more than 100. I hope it was just a mistake but it gives wrong impression about notability of the language.--Sergey Shandar (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) I'm marking this as resolved. The article is going through the AfD process and there is no evidence that the nomination was not made in good faith. Given the flak that the nominating editor has received (the AfD page makes interesting reading), I suggest that we let the process play itself out and give everyone the chance to work on neglected sections of wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian/Viriditas

There is an accusation (that the accuser refuses to back up or act upon) that User:Jack Sebastian has had a previous account with which he has engaged in conflict/tendentious editing [[75]] or is an SPI [[76]]. The user has (reasonably) refused to state the ID of his old account , but has also refused to state that it was never subject to any community sanctions [[77]] claiming that it would be possible to ID his old acount if he did so (or at least that what he appears to say) [[78]]. This refusal does raise concerns that the account whilst it may have been 'in good stead' at the time it was retired may still have had issues relevant to his current activaties (also note the above ANI [[79]]). I wonder if an admin could ask him to just confirm that he has no previous (and to confirm it) and post here that there is nothing to see (and to tell User:Viriditas to drop the matter, indead his actions also need looking into in this respect (given his refusal to act)). Or alternatively to say that there may be issues that needs dealing with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I have (in hindsight) decided that the scope of this needs widening. This is not just about Jacks second account. There is a major issue between these two users that is disrupting the project over multiple pages. I think it may be time that both users need to be separated. Neither seems to be able to work with the other in any way (and in both cases it does not appear that this is restricted to each other, both users have major problems with interacting with edds they disagree with).Slatersteven (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, I am not going to out myself while Slatersteven - who bears me no wikilove - seeks to OUT me by proxy. I have done nothing wrong aside from oppose his viewpoint on a single subject. Indeed, considering Slatersteven's prior contact with me, I would suggest that his view on the matter is substantially skewed. As for the background of Slatersevens' comments, I state unequivocally that I have no interest in editing in the same articles as Viriditas. He jumped in on on a previous AN/I complaint (and one that happened to involve Slatersteven - imagine that) with some spectacularly bad faith accusations/attempt to OUT (1). When I asked Viriditas to elaborate, he shut down and ignored any request for supporting info. He then warned me off his page and his articles, which I did. Less than two days later, Viriditas is all over virtually every article I edit in, dropping personal attacks and driving away at least one user from the Project. Currently, Viriditas' behavior is the subject of a WQA elsewhere; I am attempting to follow Dispute Resolution to the letter. Slaterstevens, (who has a well-documented axe to grind here) has been unable to force me to self-OUT there, now seeks it here, which I find unacceptable behavior. I had suggested there that Slaterstevens drop the matter; we can see how well the user took that request to heart. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate it greatly if Jack would stop with the uncivil comments and personal attacks and accept consensus on the articles in question, stop editing in a tendentious manner, and get back to editing the encyclopedia. Jack has been engaging in this behavior since October 2010 in regards to editors who disagree with his position in the Chaplin "time travel" articles. I only became aware of it recently in January and stepped in to try to help resolve the dispute. As far as I can tell from the consensus on the matter, the dispute is at an end, and I would appreciate it if all involved editors would accept the consensus and move on to bigger and better things. I want to thank Jack for participating in the discussions and look forward to working with him constructively in the future. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You might have considered that before you began your wikistalking of me, Viriditas. Unless further expansion is requested from an uninvolved party, I am keeping further explanations of your behavior within the WQA.

That said, I will say that you have deeply misrepresented your actions here. I have had no interest in editing with you since your oblique accusation of socking three weeks ago in this very noticeboard. I would like you to stay away from the articles I edit in. An easy matter, since you never edited in them before demanding that I stop "hounding" your articles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I have launched this, to get some outside input into your dispute with this user.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jack, Would you be willing to submit the name of your former account to an Arbcom member? That way it is not necessary to spread it all over Wiki but we can verify your previous account was not under sanctions. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly, no. I am unsure why I have to surrender my privacy for a fishing expedition. As before stated, Arbs are just admins, and admins are human, prone to making mistakes, like OUTting me offlist and whatever. All I have done is oppose three other editors who seek to reframe a content issue by making it about me. By submitting myself for subjective examination, I am being stripped of my privacy - punitive action for simply disenting - while those casting aspersions and calling for said scrutiny face no negative repercussions when it is verified that my old account was not under sanctions.

I have asked Viriditas elsewhere to submit the name of the admin who apparently seems to think they know who I am, or the Arb he says he is in contact with. Alternatively, they could contact me. He has chosen not to do so. As I lose more than I gain from surrendering my privacy, I am hesitant to do so. The four accusing me lose nothing but an argument of distraction. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Thats a fair answer. I have to agree casting aspersions is basic WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, violations and if persistent closes into WP:NPA territory. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

If there is evidence of Jack Sebastian being a previously sanctioned user who is violation of WP:CLEANSTART then it needs to be presented or Dropped entirely. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. This is not just about Viriditas accusation against Jack Sebastian. Its about both users general attitude. Moreover I do not know what evidance Viriditas may or may not have (one of the oddities wiht this is that if I AGF with Viriditas I have to assume he has good reason to have his doubts, but if I AGF with Jack Sebastian I have to assume he has not). Given teh amoount of spavce that the teo users are taking mup with thier sniping I felt that as neither was willing to act someone else ahould. I agree that (and I have said this) that if Viriditas cannot produce any evidance then he should shut up. I just wonder why the simple question w'as your previous account ever blocked?' would be such a tough answer your Jack to answer. It would make (and would have made AGF on his part easier if he had just said no. How is that asking him to out himslef?Slatersteven (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a reasonable request. After all, Jack is often harping on the block logs of other editors and at the same time, boasting about his 6 years on the project. It would make sense for Jack to contact our trusted arbcom and reveal his previous account and associated logs. Otherwise, it does sound like he's gaming the CLEANSTART policy, and if his previous account was reported on the noticeboards for the same behavior that brought him here again, the community would certainly want to know. I hope Jack will contact the arbs and put an end to this. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Personnel officer: Mr. Sebastapol, you say you have six years' database experience with TechniCorp, correct?

Mr. S. That's right.

P.O. But no one at TechniCorp has ever heard of you.

Mr. S. That's because I worked there under a different name.

P.O. Oh, that explains it. And what name did you use there?

Mr. S. I'm not going to tell you.

P.O. Hmm.

- brought to you by Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The best bet at this point would be for Viriditas to take has concerns to his most trusted admin and have the admin check to see whether the previous ID left under a cloud or if it's a non-controversial change of name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that it was non-controversial; I was not shown the door, so to speak. I've committed no offense except for being stubbornly adherent to policy in a content dispute and (rightfully) intolerant of being stalked and harassed by another user. Are we engaging in witch-hunts based on that now? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Without giving away the game, can you tell me, in general terms, why you abandoned your old account and created a new one? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Boredom, largely. Really, there was no grand secret plot or mad dash for the border. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If there were no issues with your previous account, why the secrecy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, I also abandoned an old account which is not linked to my current account. I will not state the reasons for that other than to say that the old account never in came up on an admin noticeboard, much less had any blocks. Just because there were no issues with the old account doesn't mean you want all of wikipedia, and in extension, the world, to know. If there is no good reason to disclose it, then don't disclose it. _WM^O 08:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed but this user has been accused fo abusing fresh start, and his evasive answers at the time I ask him to deny he has ever been subject to any actions by admins caused concern. I would argue he continues to not deny he was ever subject to admin intervention. Nor has he been asked to provide account details, just to deny the account was ever subject to sanctions (at least by me). But I also note that Viriditas not only does not provide any evidence but also now seems to be using the same kind of weasel words to avoid making black and white statements. I begin to believe that in this case not only are both users not acting in strict good faith but also both are in fact being disingenuous.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Simply put: unless you have evidence the user was previously a blocked/sanctioned account, this is going nowhere. Asking him repeatedly to deny the accusations is McCarthyism. Either present evidence to ArbCom, or drop it until you have evidence JS is a bad-hand account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be okay to discuss the wikistalking and problematic behavior on the part of Viriditas now? WQA suggested that the matter should probably be brought here instead (they only deal with solvable issues between users).

After his comment on this board three weeks ago (the one that initiated all this prior account bs), I asked the user a few times what they were talking about. Viriditas deleted the question, unanswered. Then, in a conversation with another user, he stated (actually tweaking his post to make it more offensive):

"The fact is, at least one administrator is fully aware of the real situation and watching it closely. That's about all I can tell you at the moment. However, many editors know who Jack really is, as his game is very poorly played. It's actually quite sad and pathetic to watch. My best advice to you is to stay away from him. I plan to do the same unless I see more of his nonsense on the noticeboards or on my watchlist. This guy is bad news, trust me"

Now, that was a hot mess of personal attacks, but I decided to instead focus on finding out the name of the admin he was referring to. My question was first avoided and then deleted. The next day, he posts an 'official notice', asking me to not stalk, hound or follow his edits around, "trying to annoy him".
Less than 48 hours after this post, he begins showing up at virtually every page I edit in, concentrating on one article in particular, often baiting me with comments about my being a "new editor" - a belief he has admitted here and elsewhere he has never held - and reverting my edits. Granted, this isn't someone screaming that so-and-so is a total pig-f***er, but the wikistalking and the personal attacks are pretty clear. And constant. Wikistalking and personal attacks, with lots of bad faith added. That's got to be some sort of trifecta, right?
I readily admit that many of the content changes Viriditas has added to the aforementioned article have improved it via expansion, but the cost in civility and snarky personal attacks and game-playing seems a bit high of price to pay, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Indeed, one editor (who had created over 100 article), retired his account immediately after a long, drawn-out exchange with Viriditas.
Clearly, I am not neutral in this matter - the guy has worked overtime to poison the well where I am concerned, and I am deeply bothered by the tone of his comments about me that I wonder where its going to stop - when he shows up at my front door with flowers and a knife? Or maybe something less violent-y but ruinous anyway? (not offering up any ideas, as per WP:BEANS)
Even if Viriditas was actually correct in knowing about my previous account, he readily admits that the "conflict" with this other user was over three or four years ago. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work now? Some guy seeks to dismantle a user he has a single article content dispute with by any method at his disposal, and it's tolerated because they are a veteran editor? Man, I hope not. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As I have said (twice) this is not just aboiut your actions. I want the pair of you to bring your complaints about each other here rather then gloging up notice boards and talk pages with your dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, we shouldn't encourage these two to bring any further complaints here either. If I read the situation correctly (I have a pretty clear idea who the previous account is), then these two users just need to step away from each other completely. I suggest a no-interactions rule and blocks if we ever hear either of them making negative remarks about the other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That seems OK. I wanted the dispute to end as its taking up way to much space. Neither user was (or is) willing to resolve or report this So i thought I should. I think a restraining order is the best solution. How will it work?Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with Slatersteven's position, and I've already responded to Jack's allegations in a previous discussion. He ignored my responses and raised the same claims again, pretending I had not already responded to them. I don't believe I require a "no-interactions rule", and I think I've used the noticeboards and talk pages in the manner they were intended, for the sole purpose of working towards resolution of content issues and improving our articles. Jack, not myself, has continually referred to his previous account[80] before I even made my first comment on the subject.[81] I also believe that by contacting an arbcom clerk, I acted in good faith with the desire that someone other than myself deal with this issue, instead of attempting to "out" Jack on-wiki as Slatersteven demands. Therefore, I do not agree to Future Perfect at Sunrise's "rotten apple" solution, as I believe it attempts to sanction me for following our best practices and procedures. Viriditas (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Viriditas has been acting to uphold policies, and has been met with a barrage of complaints and nonsense from Jack Sebastian, including an overblown WQA case that was just tossed out. I first stumbled upon this situation when I saw the "1928 cell phone user" nonsense posted on the fringe noticeboard at the end of October. Re "cleanstart," I have no idea who this user is but I do know that he has used his mysterious former account to bludgeon others in content disputes. See, e.g., [82] (claiming had been onwiki "years longer than you") and [83] in which he told me "If you'd like to consult with an admin on this matter - as you seem to be unwilling to take the advice of someone with almost 30,000 edits and 6 years of experience - please feel free." I looked at his contribution history and saw someone with less onwiki experience than me, and a clean disciplinary record. If this is a veteran user with a problematic history, it seems to me that editors have a right to know that. He has been warned by an administrator concerning his problematic behavior [84][85] but it didn't take. When a user behaves in a problematic fashion but has used clean start to get a fresh contribution history, it presents a special burden for other users.ScottyBerg (talk) 18:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would agree to a 'no contact' ruling, even though I did nothing to initiate contact with him for the simple reason that I am very uncomfortable with the apparent level of dedication this user has in trying to hurt me. This matter has all been of his doing, as I did not initiate contact or comment with Viriditas in the first place (he did so, with a well-poisoning hint of outting). After that comment here in the widely-read ANI, I simply posted on his page asking him to detail his accusations; he deleted the conversation, requesting that I not to "hound his edits". Again, I complied. Less than 48 hours later, Viriditas was all over me like white on rice (that is to say, over almost every article I work within regularly), reverting me and making further personal attacks, challenging me on noticeboards, starting subpages about me, etc. It might seem unfair to say, but its all a little creepy..

I could either get chased away from the articles I was working in, or respond to the editor. I restate this background because I feel it necessary to emphasize that I have not sought out contact with the editor. I have done everything Viriditas has asked of me in avoiding him, but he clearly doesn't feel beholden to follow his own request. Without some reason to stay away, I am concerned that his behavior could escalate. If I am as exposed as he seems to think I am, I am very uncomfortable about the idea of Viriditas showing up on my doorstep, or calling my employer or such. Without a clear statement to stay away, I have become convinced that he will not choose to stay away. He might not be this type of person, but why bother taking the chance. Ask him to stay away; I have no plans to contact him. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
And to respond partially to Scottyberg's post (I consider the former account discussion a nonstarter), the WQA was closed (not "tossed out") because the issues (accusations of SPI, HARASS) were beyonf the capabilities of WQA to resolve. I further note that the closing admin suggested it be initiated elsewhere (read: here). I'll close by pointing out that Scotty isn't really a neutral party in this discussion; he immediately contacted Viriditas to seek out details of my former account to call for my head - all based out of a content discussion. (For all I know, Viriditas could have shared more details of his suspicions via email, which presents it's own set of problematic issues). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The three editors closing out the discussion on WQA all concurred that your complaint had no basis. Also, if you go to the top of the WQA section, it says "No clear indication that this was a wikiquette violation on the part of Viriditas." ScottyBerg (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

A fairly bold misrepresentation of the facts, Scotty (and bizarre, considering how easy it is to check). The three edits said no such thing. Additionally, the full text of the closing comments by Eusebeus was as follows:"No clear indication that this was a wikiquette violation on the part of Viriditas (talk · contribs); WP:SPI and WP:HOUND issues are beyond the purview of this board and should be taken up at AN/I or other more appropriate fora. If you aren't prepared to offer neutral information, perhaps you should step aside, allowing those who can to do so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. Enough already. See the comments by Eusebeus, Figureofnine and Ncmvocalist, concurring. Eusebeus said "I do not see egregious violations of our civility policies on the part of Viriditas, who, as a seasoned and veteran editor, well-knows the limits of what is permissible engagement." Figureofnine said "I agree in all respects. The complaint has no merit and the allegations need to be pursued elsewhere." Ncmvocalist said "I'd also echo that." Bizarre indeed.ScottyBerg (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Enough. This needs to stop, right here and now. I will block either V. or J.S. if they continue commenting on each other, here or in any other related thread. Moreover, I very strongly recommend both should avoid following the other into further page or dispute they are not already both involved in. I hope they can handle this without the need of a formal community sanction to that effect. If there is any unavoidable open business in any content dispute they are already both involved in, such as that "time traveller" issue, they can finish that off, as long as they both stick very closely to the "comment on content, not contributor" rule. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

So, the "I hath spoken" choice. Okay. I never started the issue and never wanted the escalation. I don't see myself seeking him out for long walks on the beach. So, does one or the other of us run to you if the other start up? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Both sides are being asked to drop the matter now. Johnuniq (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe we figured that one out, John. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority

Sorry to bring this up yet again but there seems to be a bit of edit warring going on on this page (it's under a 1RR restriction)and my request for page protection has now languishged for over 8 hours at WP:RFPP despite every other request having been dealt with. Could someone else also take an attempt at educating User:Eliko on what this merge decision at WP:TfD actually means. They seem to be taking it that it means the template has to be merged and don't seem to understand that what should be merged is it at editorial discretion and that if there's disagreement this should be discussed on the talk page and it can't be forced thorugh because of the "resolution" (their words) at TfD. Additionally, given that the closing admin only changed their original delete decision to merge at the request of this user it's clear to me that they weren't commenting at all on what should be merged. Dpmuk (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Waiting until 4 minutes past 1RR to revert is not a defense against edit warring, IMHO. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Eliko's response:

The sequence of events was as follows:

• On 17 December 2010, it was decided (per this resolution) to merge a template into the article.

• On 9 February 2011, it was decided (per this resolution) to delete the template, which was userified to Eliko's userspace by Dougweller.

• On that very day, few hours after the template was deleted and userified, User:Eliko merged it (i.e. parts of it) to the article.

Now please pay attention to the following 5 points (please don't skip any - if you really want to know what's going on here):

1. Notice that the first resolution to merge - has never been canceled.

2. Notice that any legal attempt (not violating any Wikipedia rules) to comply with the first resolution to merge - should not be regarded as an attempt to "force" anything (as you called that), but rather as a definitely legitimate attempt to comply with that resolution - i.e. to contribute to Wikipedia; just like the other legal edits in other articles on Wikipedia, which should not be regarded as attempts to "force" anything, but rather as definitely legitimate attempts to contribute to Wikipedia.

3. Notice also that the merge carried out by User:Eliko on 9 of February (at 20:26) and by User:Alinor on 10 of February (at 13:05) - was the only merge that has ever been carried out - since the first resolution to merge was made, so your edit summary here - which was made on 9 of February (at 14:49) before User:Eliko's merge - includes a wrong claim.

4. Notice also that the merge edited by User:Eliko and by User:Alinor on 9-10 of February - is rejected by a single user only, and is supported by two users, i.e. User:Eliko and User:Alinor.

5. Notice also that no Wikipedia rules (nor Wikipedia policy) were violated by the merge edited by User:Eliko and by User:Alinor on 9-10 of February; On the contrary: this merge complied with the first resolution (that has never been canceled) to merge (parts of the template to the article).

Hope this helps to figure out what's going on here.

Eliko (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If you want to get technical (and I'm only doing this to humour you), the version that ruled to "merge" was vastly different from the version that you did merge, since you "updated" the template during its second deletion nomination. So your "merge decision" doesn't apply here, does it, since that's not what you've done? Any "merge" should be proposed beforehand on the talk page, and a consensus should be reached. That is proper editing policy. There's now a discussion at WP:AE about me, with which you might be interested. Nightw 06:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You know the truth. You know that what you call: my having "updated" (the template) - is nothing more than copying from the very article into which the template should be merged. Regarding the "discussion" on the talk page: the addition that was merged - has already been discussed on some talk pages, including the talk page of the template, and including the page of this discussion, which resulted in the resolution to have a "merge" - while you were the editor who rejected the suggestion of "merge". As for the "consensus" you're talking about: it does not mean 100% of the editors: Even when most of the editors are in favour of something - against a single editor, it's still a "consensus". Eliko (talk) 08:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Egypt Pages Needed

Reports are coming out that "Egypt's president Mubarak will transfer powers to vice president", according to al Arabiya. With that, all Egypt pages should be watched if not semi-protected pre-emptively. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I just listened to the speech live, and it looks like he'll be staying on until September, according to Twitter and what he was saying. Looks like there's no issue. Arctic Night 21:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just went with what I had heard. Bad information on my fault. The people in Tahrir Square are NOT happy. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

They are now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova

Resolved

 – WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that this article be reinstated. I looked at the history of this article and the same user by the naame of user:Daedalus969 within the span of a few months tried to speedy delete the article once and full delete it three times. He failed every time except on the third time...supposedly. Upon further review the consensus was overwhelmingly to keep it but a couple of editors against a strong consensus to keep the article decided to redirect the article. I think the article should be reinstated on account of abuse of process by the repeated delete attempts by the one editor and the rogue redirect by the administrator. Tear it up and kill it (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You should take it to a deletion review if you wish to contest the AfD result. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The redirect decision was made by community consensus at AFD; if you think the wrong closing decision was made then the proper forum is deletion review, this board is for actions needing immediate admin attention :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Quack, quack. The poster of this complaint is a rather easily recognisable sock of a user who originally wrote that article and has been trying to restore it through several socks for a long time. See Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

... and I have modified the edit protection for the redirect to admin-only - it previously was move-protected only. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wilspaul (talk · contribs)

Resolved

I have no idea about the subject, but the rants posted on Talk:Roman Catholic Brahmin by this user are getting somewhat out of hand; s/he is now apparantly IP-socking as 136.8.2.69 (talk · contribs). Could someone else try? I did. Twice. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

... and I had already began blocking them before this ANI was filed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh... I see. So just keep an eye on the IP then. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to see how dynamic his IP address is - I did block the underlying IP in this case, but it might change. Let us know. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Unblock request

7Mike5000 (talk) (contributions) was blocked for making this comment about an editor, in this August 2010 AN/I thread, which was construed as a threat:

I also think your twisted behavior and medical disinformation you are disseminating via Wikipedia is harmful and egregious enough where something needs to be done, I think somebody needs to notify The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan or at very least the staff of Wikimedia should be made aware.

Mike was unnecessarily combative, overly sensitive to actual or perceived insults, impatient, and prone to assume bad faith. He is aware of this behaviour problem and has resolved to change. He has contacted me and asked if I would keep an eye on him, and offer advice and guidance where appropriate. I have agreed to do that for a couple of months six months a year. Mike has created some very worthwhile content and, if he can reign in his impetuosity and adopt a temperate and cooperative approach towards others, will be an asset to the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 10:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

His request is well spoken and seems sincere. I'd be inclined to give him the chance. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'd very much stand behind this. Mike is an outstanding contributor, something wikipedia is lacking. Occasional hot-headed moments aside (we're all guilty of becoming impatient at some point or another and losing our cool (and this is an aside from the issue of threatening off-wiki action)), Mike's comments were never suggestive of any realistic action being taken. His edits to various eating disorders have made them into great articles. Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but rather preventative, and Mike's apology is an indication of genuine reform in my opinion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a clear threat for off-wiki action, or at least to instigate such action. Yes, there are people who will take the comment literally and actually do it. Apologies that suggest "oh, I'm just a hothead", or "I'm just a whiny bitch" cannot retract the action. Can you imagine the absolute shitstorm if someone actually already has taken the off-wiki action? This is not the type of behaviour that can be readily forgiven - people's livelihoods must be protected. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as Anthony is willing to mentor, and the unblock request shows awareness of what the block was for and commitment to not repeat the behavior, I see no reason not to give Mike another chance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• I might be mis remembering things—didn't he actually end up contacting The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan that same month (Aug 2009)? Although we have a policy against legal threats but none against legal action (which really ought to be remedied), I think we can still apply the same principles here—no unblock without a full redaction and withdrawal of case. NW (Talk) 14:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, that was a completely different case: this regarded suicide and a particular image said to glamorize it, and your link talks about the Rorschach test. Besides, the date of your link is 8/23, and the date of the diff above is 8/25.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • And it was also 2009, not 2010. My bad. NW (Talk) 14:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Absolutely regardless of whether Mike has made a legal case, that is beyond our reach. By announcing you are a doctor on Wikipedia, you very much leave yourself open to criticism on your ability as a medical professional - This is the risk you are taking by using your career as a levy behind the edits you make. A formal complaint to the COP are up to the COP to deal with, not us. We deal with an internet site, they deal with the livelyhood of patients. Threats are prohibited because of their manipulative effect. Contacting a body that manages the medical profession for a perceived threat to the safety of human life is the right of every person. If someone comes here, says "I'm a doctor", and then publishes incorrect medical advice, I would implore users to make that kind of decision; just as we would contact the police if somebody threatened causing harm to others. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • If you threaten a person's livelihood on Wikipedia, you "severely inhibit free editing of pages, a concept that is absolutely necessary to ensure that Wikipedia remains neutral. Without this freedom, we risk one side of a dispute intimidating the other, thus causing a systemic bias in our articles and create bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, damaging our ability to proceed quickly and efficiently with an assumption of mutual good faith." And that's just from the no legal threats guideline. How much worse is an actual legal action? The policy is clear on that too: "If you must take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels." We don't prohibit anything, but I think it should be made clear that employing both the legal or professional system against another editor for whatever reason and also expecting to stay in good standing on Wikipedia is an insane proposition.

      In any case, Mike has apologized for his statement, so I think NLT is no longer a major issue. Still, this issue impacts more people than you might think, and imagine if you were forced to drop $10,000 or more on legal fees because of something you did on Wikipedia. Even if I were completely innocent, that would be enough for me to never edit Wikipedia again. I think we should take his words more seriously than you seem to be doing. If I said "over the next six months, I am going to be suing you and contacting your state board, and you're going to have to pay $5,000 a month just to appear in court with a halfway decent lawyer," wouldn't you be pissed and expect at the minimum, that the Wikipedia Community™ not treat the two of you exactly the same? NW (Talk) 15:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for Mike, but my impression is he understands the destabilising effect of his comment and regrets having made it. I also get the distinct idea he doesn't share Floydian's languid view with regard to occasional hot-headed moments, but deeply regrets every outburst, and has sincerely resolved to eliminate that behaviour from his repertoire permanently. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

We're all human. We all make mistakes. I do not condone those moments, I'm merely stating that we're all subject to them. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not convinced that we are all subject to moments of threatening legal action against people. I'm fairly certain, for example, that I've never done that myself, and I very much consider threatening legal action against subject-matter experts to be inimical to our project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I certainly didn't mean to refer to that. I just meant heated discussions in general. Threats are a very different matter, as they undermine the very basis of our community and everything WikiPedia stands for. That said though, I reiterate that I believe Mike's commitment to reform himself is genuine and that he has enormous benefit to offer the encyclopedia as a contributor here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• The key issue would seem to be that we need to know: (1) did anyone ever actually follow up on that threat? and (2) did the editor himself actually follow up on it? The threat was a severe attempt to intimidate. Is the target of that threat still feeling or being threatened? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like the target has given his OK provided it includes some editing restrictions. If the admin is willing to shoulder this problem, then OK. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• To be candid, I'm not happy about the prospect of unblocking this account. I want to be forgiving, and perhaps Mike could become a consistently useful contributor, but I have very little hope for long-term success and less trust that today's apologetic approach will be present next week, much less next month. I realize that such candid comments must be painful for Mike to read, and I am sorry about that, but this is the direct and unavoidable legacy of his previous choices. I wish my experience had been the same as Floydian's seems to have been. I found that Mike created a high volume of problems, rejected advice, was frequently insulting, and turned simple little things, like 'Please stop WP:COLLAPSEing content, because it harms people who use screen readers', into dramatic discussions. I do not think I could support unblocking this account without a clear topic ban for anything even remotely related to mental health (which is, unfortunately, what he wants to work on), and a specific and not especially sympathetic admin publicly identified as a parole officer to whom any complaints could be directed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • James has suggested a topic ban and Mike has. agreed. I wonder if James would consider being his parole officer. He's not especially sympathetic to Mike but seems to think he deserves another chance. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: People should be trusted to do what they say they're going to do absent a convincing reason. What he says he is going to do is enough. Most importantly, reblocking him if he stepped out of line would be no big deal. It's far too hard to get unblocked around here. Egg Centric (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
• oppose I can see that consensus will go against this !vote, but speaking as a licensed Physician it seems clear to me that this user is not aware of the seriousness of a threat to report allegedly inappropriate behaviour to the Royal College, however unjustifiable such a threat is; as is the case here. I also note a long string of adverse comments made by this editor relating to at least five other editors working in articles on mental health issues. I would only support an unblock in the presence of a topic ban on all mental health articles for at least six months, and longer would be better. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • We have no idea how long it will take for Mike to demonstrate an ability to operate collegially here. Nominating an arbitrary length of time for the topic ban is crystal ball gazing. Whatamidoing has suggested his behaviour be monitored by a parole officer. Let's leave it up to that person to decide when lifting the ban is appropriate to propose lifting the ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Updated 10:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Is the topic ban the right thing, or is it better to insist he never makes threats such as that again? How does a topic ban help? Incidentally, is it possible to say if he ever does make a spurious complaint to the GMC-equivilant he is immediately and irrevocably banned? I think that should be a must. Egg Centric (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Or possibly, seeing as Mike has a lot to offer to these topics in terms of content and research/sourcing, a no-drama talk-page approach? Allow Mike to edit the talk page of these topics, but institute zero tolerance on escalating any contention or issue while he is mentored though the ropes. Six months seems to be what most are suggesting. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Mike feels very strongly about psychiatry and mental health issues. The proposition is that the best place for him to learn to collaborate with and trust his fellow editors, and improve his understanding of (particularly sourcing) policy, is on other topics. He knows the consequences of taking off-wiki action against other editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Good. Looks like a solution is very close that should satisfy everyone :) Egg Centric (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I how this will work out: "he feels very strongly about X," "he has strong opinions about X," those strong opinions have led him to make serious threats in the past," therefore a mentor will help him avoid those problems. I wouldn't mind an unblock if he agrees to post to Anthonyhcole's talk page every time he posts more than one time to a talk page, and so long that he knows that any hint or threat of real world action will be met by an instant site ban. NW (Talk) 19:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
          • The crucial points are insight and decision; help and guidance are important but without the former, the exercise is futile. I'm here because I see the former. Even with all these factors in place, there are no certainties but, because they're in place, I think an unblock with the abovementioned restrictions is appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Whoah: I just saw what he was complaining about! While the user has of course obtained permission from the patients, and thus these images are ethnically acceptable, it should be incredibly obvious why people could have strong feelings about this. Therefore one should be especially happy to cut the chap some slack. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the authorities ought to have been contacted! That a user asserts consent doesn't mean they had it. This is not in support of Mike's position, as per my philosophy I am perfectly happy to trust the uploader, but it is in understanding of it - I can see how others would be skeptical. Egg Centric (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no excuse for Mike's behaviour towards editors he's been in conflict with. He needs to make a behaviour change so dramatic that many of the above reasonable people are skeptical it can be done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I want to clarify that my concerns are completely unrelated to the circumstances that (finally) produced Mike's block. Even if he'd never said a word to Doc James, I would still have concerns about his behavior. I suspect, for example, that a person who really had developed insight and discretion, or even a very moderate level of skill at manipulating people, would use less disrespectful language when asking for discretionary favors (e.g., to be unblocked). Mike's unblock request shows skill at self-flagellation and a passable level of giving the "right" answer, but not skill at dealing with people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
      • The only thing that will demonstrate an ability to (radically) change his way of dealing with people is a trial. I've got a life, and I've got goals here. I'm not going to let him waste my time. I certainly don't see my role as making excuses for him. Either he can do it or he can't. We'll know soon enough. As for Machiavellian intelligence, he's working on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• I don't want to be the cause of delaying the outcome of this appeal (whatever that is) but we really need a numbered list of what restrictions are going to be in place (and if we need to make any modifications, this would also be the time). Frankly, in the absence of Anthonyhcole being willing to sort of bend over backwards for him, I'd have opposed downright as there isn't a great deal to consider due to the seriousness of the behavior being reviewed. That is, this is by no means an ordinary violation of policy. That said, Anthonyhcole seems to be willing...so here we are...let's get on with it. Obviously a topic ban would be indef, but as things are never permanent on Wikipedia (in theory), we might need to put a restriction on when he can appeal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• My default reaction would be that anyone who makes a legal threat as egregious as the one that was made in this case should probably ought not ever be allowed near a "Save page" button again anywhere on this project. Legal threats — especially ones that threaten the livelihood of an editor — are insidious and we are lucky that the one in this case did not end in the permanent loss of at least two editors (the one making the threat and the one on the receiving end of the threat, as well as anyone else editing Wikipedia who could be similarly vulnerable to such threats). If this block is lifted, the one restriction that I think is essential (in addition to any others) is that anything even remotely resembling a legal threat at any point in the future will result in an immediate indefinite block, along with a resulting community discussion on a more permanent ban. jæs (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's perfectly reasonable. Would an admin be prepared to volunteer for the parole officer role? I'll stay in close touch with Mike (as much as being in opposite time zones will allow) and keep the admin informed of his progress (or otherwise). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
    • So amongst all this discussion where various concerns and proposals have been raised, the final list of things includes a final warning about legal threats (?) and a binding Community topic ban from psych and mental health issues (?)...is that it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think since an editor is willing to keep an eye out for a while that this editor should be given a chance back into the project. It seems this editor, 7Mike5000 understands what the problems were and has acknowledged the problems that we should allow the unblock. If editors prefer a restriction to psych and mental health issues than just do it for say 3 months and then see how things go. Let's please be fair and allow him back to prove he can be the asset that some think he was and can continue to be. I think Anthonyhcole volunteering to watch over is a good plan. I say lets please give this editor an opportunity. It's real easy to reblock if things don't work out, but if they do, we get an editor that helps us build an encyclopedia which is what we are here for. Good luck, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment To clarify a few things. It was another Wiki editor who sent complaints to my college and they had nothing to do with Mike. The college has verified my written consents that I obtain from all patient who images are identifiable and have no concerns. Comment such as this "Indeed, it is not unreasonable to wonder whether the authorities ought to have been contacted!" and this "Mike's comments were never suggestive of any realistic action being taken." leave a sour taste in my mouth. That some here do not consider threats a serious issue is a concern.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm not an English Scholar, or maybe I'm from some backwards crazy loopy part of the world (I am from Canada, its possible), or maybe Doctors are just special fuzzy people... But there is no intent of action, or any sort of threat, blackmail, prejudice, etc in the statement that someone (ie, not Mike) should report a person. Thats an opinion and a statement, not a threat. I'm sure we as a community in "consensus" can manipulate it to be whatever we want, but the fact is that a threat is a communicated intent to do harm (physical or otherwise); not a communicated "somebody should report you" (but not me). Here's a comparison: I wish you would die vs I'm going to kill you. One is clearly a threat, one clearly not. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to recall a recent issue where a certain former Vice-Presidential candidate made a comment about a certain Arizona politician being "in the crosshairs", and lo and behold, said politician was shot in the head by someone who failed to notice that the comment was somewhat rhetorical (or at least symbolic). Suggestions of action can lead to literal action. (...and yes, I'm Canadian too) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but should the vice president have been jailed before it happened for threatening to shoot her himself? The restrained person isn't in the wrong, its the person that actually commits to performing the actions. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh. Bwilkins, with the greatest respect in the world, that is a terrible example. Her quote was victim of the circumstance (and chance), it did not incite the action (at least, there has been no indication that it did so). The takeaway from it is; be careful what you say, because if it chances to come true you could get blamed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Here's a comparison: I wish you would die vs I'm going to kill you. One is clearly a threat, one clearly not" - this is also a terrible example. The question you have to ask is "was the statement intended as a threat", or was it just impotent handwaving. I mean, if I was to say that 23-year-old college students don't have the emotional maturity to deal with something as serious as this, that's not an insult; it's an observation, an expression of a personal belief. When I was 23 I was full of myself and I look back with embarassment at my youth. Nonetheless you're offended, aren't you? And so it is with I wish you would die or I hope someone reports you or it would be a shame if the red Ford Focus parked on your driveway had its tyres slashed and so forth. In my opinion this Mike character's words were probably closer to impotent handwaving that a call to action - if he had believed what he said, he would have picked up the phone and done something - but it was clearly intended to intimidate his opponent. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

• Support with qualifications I am okay with Mike being unblocked with the following conditions:

1. Anthonyhcole provides mentoring for a minimum of a year specifically addressing issues of WP:MEDRS if he edits health care pages
2. Mike be restricted from mental health topics broadly construed including talk pages for a minimum of six month to give him time to get a better understanding how the community works.
3. A block will be reapplied if further civility issues were to arise.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Doc James' proposal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support as proposed by Doc James. In case it is unclear to users who comment in this discussion, civility issues include (legal) threats (which is why the latter is not being singled out). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC) P.S. Should these conditions pass with community consensus, they will be listed at WP:RESTRICT. I also note that I specifically agree with Doc James that the topic ban is banning him from MH talk pages as failing to do so is failing to appreciate the inherent concern which gave rise to the MH topic ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I advocate opening talk pages is because blocks are preventative, not punitive. He has expressed his sincere desire to reform, and he should be allowed to do that in the place where he'll gain experience with MEDMOS and MEDRS. Learn by doing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The ban extends to talk pages of the mental health topics - the ban is not for all health care topics (and that extension is necessary to prevent the issues that were caused by his involvement there). He continues to have the ability to gain direct experience with MEDMOS and MEDRS because he can edit medical or health care topics with guidance from his mentor (aka he can learn by doing); he just needs to steer clear of the mental health parts of the health care topics. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support with allowance for talk pages, so that he can actually participate in the consensus building procedures, and be forced to work alongside other editors, learnign to cooperate rather than acting in his own direction. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My involvement depends on this temporary topic ban including the talk pages of MH articles. The point is to create a period where we can collaborate with Mike on less emotionally charged topics. This is a well-intended, good idea--Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Doc James' proposal, parties agree, everything reasonable - how could I not? :) Egg Centric (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I think the third condition needs to also explicitly state that anything resembling a legal threat (as reasonably interpreted by any uninvolved administrator) would result in an immediate, indefinite block. I hope he now understands why these sorts of attacks are completely unacceptable, but I think it needs to be entirely clear. jæs (talk) 09:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support I support this per the proposer Doc James and with the agreement of Anthonyhcole. I also agree that this should be posted WP:RESTRICT. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: does anyone believe I would be horrifically changing things if I change "where" to "were" in restriction 3 ? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Definitely a typo that can be fixed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yes always feel free to correct my spelling.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  I strenuously object! NW (Talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  Careful, you'll pull a muscle or something :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Doc James' proposal, without modification, looks fine. I think we have general agreement to unblock? NW (Talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Question. What happens in six months, if Mike has been editing on policy? Does he apply for a lifting of the topic ban here, or does it just expire? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I would think that it would expire, unless you or another editor raises an objection to it before then. NW (Talk) 17:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • What NW said; if more time is needed under condition 2 or if there are issues that require the conditions to be modified further, then come back here (and notify the users who commented in this discussion). Mentorship would (per condition 1) continue for the 6 months after the topic ban expires (particularly as the topic may be emotionally charged in the transition period). At this point, there are enough comments to show a Community consensus. The reason this is open is for any last minute questions from either you (the mentor) or Mike (the user who would be subject to these conditions) about the practicalities of this. If there aren't any left, this can be closed and logged, while he can be notified of the restrictions and unblocked accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I would have been happier if this user had given some indication that he realised the magnitude of a threat on a medical practitioner's livelihood or integrity, but if Doc James is comfortable then I must be. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, we all know that I'm the one who really believes that everyone has something to add to this project. However, for the sole reason that Anthony mentions in his first phrase above, I have to vehemently object to his reinstatement at this time. The original comments need to be struck, and Mike needs to understand that it's a human being at the other end of the IP connection. He needs to realize the potential from every comment is huge. Until he does, we need to protect individual editors and the project as a whole. His comments were as bad as a violation of WP:NLT due to their chilling effect. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In his request, he admitted that his behaviour was "Totally inappropriate and over the top." –xeno^talk 20:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Mike's talk page

If you're okay with the arrangements at ANI, say the word here and I'll pass it on to ANI for your unblock. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine from what I read:

• 6 mos. prohibition from articles on mental health related topics, even the ones I started like Depression (differential diagnoses) or Cognitive Remediation Therapy and also the talk pages.
• If I make any comment that anyone even perceives to be a legal threat it results in a indef. block or ban.
• I can edit articles on medical topics/conditions sans the aspects that apply to mental health, such aspects to include the cognitive aspects of said topics/conditions. 7mike5000 (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Following on from my comment above at 06:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC), it seems the practicalities of this have been understood and accepted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I edit warring? (with a bot?)

Resolved

Addressed on talk page.

See [86] --Perseus8235 21:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

SPA Trolling

Resolved

 – Sock blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Jigokuniotirokusogaijin (talk · contribs · count)is only using he account to put POV templates on every single Criticism of country pages[[87]]. I have attempted to undo them (Note no discussions have been opened up on the alleged POV) but its getting a bit much (so far he’s done it to 12 articles).Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I did warn him on his talk page before the last edit to Anti-Americanism. I also created a level 2 warning after that edit. User seems to be moving from page to page quickly and likely without reading the material. I suggested on their talk page that if they have specific complaints about the content of the article to bring it to the article's talk page.--v/r - TP 15:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That is why I think he's a troll. I was undoing his edits as fast has he was making them.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Something about "bullshit foreigners" in their username makes me think they're indeed a troll. Could use a username block anyway.--Atlan (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It means something like "Be buried in shit in Hell, Foreigners". JanetteDoe (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A laudable sentiment indeed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sock of Sinehannitikyokuugaijin (talk · contribs)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Block the user. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

For reference see here. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Suspect User:BKLisenbee is evading topic ban

I strongly suspect BKLisenbee (talk · contribs) is editing Paul Bowles, Mohamed Hamri, and Tangier via 174.46.116.2 (talk), and is thus editing in violation of the topic ban that User:FayssalF imposed in July 2008. I have already blocked 174.46.116.2 for 24 hours, but I believe I should give notice here. This has been going on for 5 or 6 years but I don't recall an occurrence more recent than a year ago: [88],[89]. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

FayssalF does not appear to be active. I suggest that you leave a note about this at User:FayssalF/JK because people may look there to find out the current status of this dispute. If you can't persuade the person to follow the topic ban, a longer block of the IP might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did leave a brief note (which links here) at User:FayssalF/JK#February 2011. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion and salting requested of Jonathan frankline

Resolved

 – Thanks Amatulic --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Over the last hour, several new accounts and three different IPs have been attempting to create, recreate, and remove speedy deletion tags from Jonathan frankline. The article's been deleted once so far, but was immediately recreated. The article is about a completely non-notable high school student from New Jersey. Speedy deletion tags have been removed six seven times in the last 30 minutes. A salting might be useful. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. A sockpuppet investigation may be in order, if not started already. Looks like several accounts were conspiring to delete that template. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth the effort. Pretty blatant socking, but it's most likely a drive-by. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I reported it anyway; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cardstand if you want to add anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Banned User:Moulton being disruptive, continuing to out editors

User:Moulton who was banned for persistent disruption, has been editing the last few days via IP addresses where he has continued to try to out the same editors he had a beef with before his ban. This is the most recent example. A block would be helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why JoshuaZ is on the warpath against Moulton, but Moulton allegedly posted some comments to a BLP Talk page, and JoshuaZ removed it. [90] Read it for yourself if you want to decide who is being disruptive. Roger (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Coonsidering that multiple admins just removed those difs, deleted them, and then blocked the IP address, this seems pretty clear cut. Anywas, problem resolved. I'm marking the section as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, one of those admins was me (coming across the issue via WP:BLPN on my watchlist); I've blocked the IP for one month and deleted some text and revision-deleted some things. I was going to ask someone else to take another look at the incident in case any further action is needed, as I need to log off now. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Marking as unresolved. He's continuing to evade the block and reposting his outing User talk:Schlafly and at Talk:David Berlinski. Suggest semiprotection of that page, and this page (since he's now posting comments here) is in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't his only IP - I recently blocked user:68.160.132.4 as Moulton too. Raul654 (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's used other IPs on BLPN, Schafly talk page, Talk:David Berlinski, and User talk:rd232. Hence my request for semi-protection. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He's threatening to continue saying he has access to vast numbers of IPs if we don't negotiate a resolution. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I find these kinds of threats laughable. I say bring it. He's got vast numbers of IPs? We've got vast numbers of users tirelessly getting rid of crap that doesn't belong. He's just one person, hmm I wonder how long he can keep it up? -- œ^™ 12:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't something be done about his posts at User talk:Schlafly#David Berlinski -- including the fact that his signature links to his Wikiuniversity page rather than the IP he's using to evade the ban? Dougweller (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And I presume here, using another Wikiversity ID [91] as a link instead of the IP address. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 10:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In view of this and this combined with the general threat/boast from this character, I have semi-protected ANI for three hours. Favonian (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And again, another 3 hours Dougweller (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Help request

I have been watchlisting several Singaporean/Malaysian/Indonesian TV and radio articles as they have been targets for an individual, or individuals, that are intent on formats contrary to the MOS. Most recent in a long list of IPs is 125.162.18.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with this elaboration of a redirect (that has stood since 2008) into content whose sources are to a suspended internet account, and this version of an article with heavily linked dates and interlinks that are quite redundant. Posting to the IP's talk has resulted in the usual silence that I have come to expect when attempting to communicate with the 125.162 range. I have previously requested advice from the folks that monitor the MOS talks and the general consensus is that reversion of these edits should continue. That aspect of my actions tonight is also on the table if anyone has an opinion. Thanks Tiderolls 05:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify; my posts to the MOS talks were some weeks ago. The actions I refererenced above were the format reversions in general. Sorry, it's late here and it's been a long day. Thanks Tiderolls 05:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, these seem to be the types of edits where there are no problems reverting as they don't add any useful content. I've just reverted the last changes to Channel 9 (Malaysia) and TV9 (Malaysia) by this editor and semi-protected the pages for 72 hours to stop them edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what are the other IP addresses (and articles) in question here? Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I worked on this list for an hour and barely scratched the surface, Nick. I have saved the info I've gathered so far and will post it after work. Tiderolls 11:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It looks like there might be a case for a range block here - could an admin with experience in these kind of blocks please look into this? Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, all these IP's appear to come from two /19 ranges: 125.162.0.0/19 and 125.165.0.0/19. VQuakr (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle

First time reporting this sort of thing, couldn't find a specific Twinkle-abuse page. I gave BLGM5 (talk · contribs · count) a warning about putting [92]"fuck off" in an edit summary using Twinkle (and personal attacks on their talk page); BLGM5's response. Any reason not to remove Twinkle privileges? A block as well? User has been notified. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also bit a newbie, referring to them as a "dipshit". GiantSnowman 15:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Telling another user to fuck oof is gross incivility.Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I happen to know someone who got blocked for that w/o warning on first offense. Time to call Sarek :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The twinkle instructions make very clear that you are still personally responsible for all the edits you make with the tools, so I don't think this is a twinkle issue but a straightforward abusive editor one and should be treated the same as if they had made the edits by hand.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Twinkle instructions also say that abuse of Twinkle may result in the loss of Twinkle privileges, right? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with paint that whilst the user has breached civility (and should be sanctioned for that) that is a different issue from abusing twinkle.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate for me to block as the user (as the most recent recipient of a personal attack)? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say not as you are involved, but my interpritation of that tends to be rather less forgiving then its useral implimenation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48hrs. Someone else can handle the Twinkle issue (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this an overreaction. He was warned. Did he repeat the offensive behaviour after the warning? No, nobody bothered to wait to see if he would. (Saying "poof be gone" while removing a warning is not in itself an insult; it's just a harmless expression of being annoyed.) Incidentally, not that it excuses the "fuck off", but a certain amount of exasperation at the IP who was stubbornly revert-warring to include a piece of silly unencyclopedic peacock language into an article (which is what triggered the insulting summary) was understandable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'm removing the "not that it excuses" bit. This was a long-term disruption IP who had been revert-warring to include those words since at least last September ([93]), repeatedly forcing semi-protection or "pending changes" on the article. In solidarity with all those who defend encyclopedic quality against such people, I will here say too: yes, that IP user should fuck off. And I will oppose any good-faith contributor being sanctioned for loosing their cool once in a while when dealing with them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I took the "poof be gone" to imply that I was a Poof. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"Poof" is slang for homosexual in British English but not American English. The "poof" in "poof be gone" refers to the sound of something disappearing magically. 75.150.53.81 (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That's how I understood it too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, same here, hence why I didn't raise it earlier when I noted the "dipshit" comment. GiantSnowman 18:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew that "poof" was referring to a puff of smoke in this case, and was not a homophobic comment. I considered that this was well past the WP:WQA stage (minor warnings), and well into a preventative stage. Someone else's actions may explain extreme incivility, but does not excuse your own. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't change the basic principle: if an otherwise productive, good-faith user gets out of line, you warn them. And then you wait to give them a chance to stop. That is preventative. A sudden immediate block is not. – Unfortunately, this may now be moot, because the user is apparently now too angry to ask for an unblock (which I would otherwise support). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

He may have been overdue for being uncivil. The edit summary for this which is just a simple Engvar issue has a totally inappropriate response.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Its interesting the n umber if time this justification "well he's an experienced edd who's only offence is breaking rules he should be well aware of" crops up. If he is such a useful, and experienced Edss this is not an excuse or reason not to block him. He knows the rules and must know he was overstepping the mark with out being told. Indeed (if and I see no indication of this on his talk page) he is livid over this does it not tend to imply a "I don't expect to be judged like lesser edds" mentality. I think we need to make it clear (and do it ore often) that gross breeches of rules are unacceptable, especially from those who are supposed to know them (and indeed enforce them).Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Biffer1965 making repeated accusations of plagiarism

So Biffer1965 has been warned several times for specious material into Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers. If I were still an admin, I've have given him a time-out for not listening, but that's up to you guys now. He asserts that "someone" (likely him) originally created...whatever Jive Bunny and the Mastermixers did. It's not sourced, and it's usually added as a block of text at the end of the article. Since January he's decided to add it to talk page for the article as well. Clearly he has no intention of sourcing what he's adding, which accuses the subject of the article of plagiarism. We're in need of some intervention, here.  RasputinAXP  12:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Some clue injection needed

Anybody willing to provide some advice to this user: [94]? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Some assistance at WT:NFC please

There is an ongoing RfC discussion at WT:NFC regarding the use of character images. Yesterday, I began a subdiscussion in the RfC. My efforts, while admittedly containing sarcasm, were in good faith and were an honest attempt to generate discussion in another way. Yesterday, User:Jheald attempted to close the discussion before it even got started [95]. I re-opened the discussion [96], and some interesting discussion with other editors has since developed. Today, User:Jheald has accused me of trolling 4 times (and later a 5th time) ([97][98][99][100]) and twice called my efforts a waste of everyone's time ([101][102]). When I attempted to split off the accusations he made of me trolling into a separate discussion area [103], he agreed with the subsequent closure of the discussion [104], and then reposted in the primary discussion area calling the splitting off of the discussion "artificially separated and boxed off" [105] and effectively restated his opinion from the accusations of trolling section that this was all a waste of time. Two other editors contributed meta discussion to the primary discussion section, and I attempted to segment that discussion into a section titled "Meta discussion about the nature of the conversation", so as to permit the two separate discussions from interfering with one another [106]. I was reverted [107] and referred to as "page format trolling" (edit summary). I am attempting to have a productive conversation, a conversation others were contributing to, and am finding it impossible to do so because of Jheald's actions. I have asked one of the participants to hopefully overlook this fraying of the discussion and focus on the posts I made that I would like to see his response to [108].

I believe Jheald is attempting to disrupt this conversation and has been conducting a day long attempt to derail it.

I would appreciate it if an administrator would step in and allow the refactoring of the discussion similar to the attempt I made [109] to separate the discussion and the meta discussion of the nature of the discussion, with perhaps a word of caution to Jheald to cease his continued accusations of trolling. Editor has been notified [110] of this discussion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to burden AN/I with this, which seems pretty trivial.

Hammersoft put up a proposal he didn't believe in, which suggested repudiating the Foundation's resolution on non-free content -- which clearly wasn't going to happen. That's not productive; in my view it can reasonably be construed as trolling, so I thought it was useful to make him aware of that. This seemed to trigger ever more attention-seeking behaviour from him, demanding I start a thread about him here at AN/I. Yes, perhaps it was a bit short of me to respond to that with "DNFTT", but that short blunt refusal to engage further can sometimes be a useful response to someone seeking drama. Jheald (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• And on you go with your unfounded accusations of me being a troll and "seeking drama". Even if I don't personally believe in a proposal, I can still lay it out for discussion and see where it goes. Other editors found it useful. It has produced productive discussion. Your incessant attempts to interlace your accusations against my character, despite my attempts at appropriately separating the discussion is disruptive. We can't get anywhere in the discussion if you persist in attempting to close the discussion, incessantly accusing me of being a troll (six times now), and reverting my attempts to not disrupt the conversation. Look, I get it...I truly do...that you think I'm a troll. I'm not some gibbering fool that has to be told six times by you before it suddenly dawns on me that you think I'm a troll. That doesn't give you leave to do everything in your power to disrupt the conversation that is progressing. Would you please allow the meta discussion to be separated out so that the people contributing to the on topic discussion can continue with it? PLEASE? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• My response of 14:33, reinstated/summarised at 15:47 was made in direct response to Hammersoft's comment of 14:08. My response was emphasising that the relevant place to draw a line was not one "permissible within the limits of U.S. Fair Use law", as his previous comment had had it, but had to be one which recognised "that NFC content has to comply readily not just with U.S. Fair Use law for us, but also for our verbatim commercial downstream reusers; and that NFC is not going to be allowed, if it discourages substitute free images from being uploaded". In my view that is a directly relevant follow-on comment on what Hammersoft had just said, and I do not understand why he is so determined to have this response moved away from his comment. I object to the two comments being separated because it was a direct (and I thought significant) comment on what went before. Jheald (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hammersoft has long been a WP:FANATIC when it comes to NFC discussions, and that sub-section was one giant exercise in POINT making trollery, long before he started sub-sectioning it for 'meta' discussion. NFC is probably the top priority area at the moment for oversight from non-involved admins who are simply concerned with respect for the TPG and nothing more. MickMacNee (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This AN/I thread does not need to become a recapitulation of insults and accusations which caused the thread to come to be in the first place. Protonk (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Aaaand, a great big....nothing. Lesson learned; it's ok to repeatedly attack an editor as a troll, and intentionally disrupt a conversation so much that one of the principal people in the conversation can't find where to continue the discussion on the page. I appreciate the education, and I'll try to apply this lesson moving forward. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm unarchiving this section as unresovled. Having not got his way, Hammersoft closed it himself in yet another episode of POINTY childish foot stamping [111]. Rather than letting yet another one of these examples of his completely unnacceptable behaviour slide into the archive, can an admin please give him the third party feedback he clearly wants. Alternatively, Hammersoft, why don't you file an arbitration request citing every admin who didn't act on your complaints that you are wrongly being called a disruptive troll. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you for your compliments. Most helpful. There is nothing further to do with this thread/request. The conversation I was hoping to salvage on WT:NFC has been destroyed and is now continuing elsewhere. No further action is needed. Therefore, resolved. If you have issue with it being resolved, please by all means feel free to start a thread about my childish foot stamping. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to open a separate section for that, it can be dealt with here, you do not get to set the agenda just because you started the section. As with all ANI reports, the behaviour of the filer is under examination just as much as any accused party. That's perfectly normal ANI protocol, no amount of continued back handed commentary from you on what has and has not happened here, changes that. If you really believed that conversation had been 'destroyed', then you would not in all seriousness be insisting on closing this thread now would you? I say you aren't interested at all, that you are a disruptive editor yourself, that this complaint was entirely bogus, and if anything, it's you who was making a POINT on that Rfc, and it is you who is in need of admin feedback on how to be a productive and collaborative member of this community. And I really wouldn't mind seeing an uninvolved admin's opinion on that assessment. If they really decide your actions aren't worth bothering about, then they can close it themselves with that conclusion, and that can go on record for future reference, just as you have presumably put into your record that no admin took any notice of your complaints that you were wrongly being labled as a troll. Until then, this thread remains open. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning that my behavior can't be analyzed as a result of my bringing a concern to AN/I. I have attempted to close this discussion, despite your revert warring, because the situation truly is resolved. The discussion is evolving elsewhere at User_talk:JDDJS#Your_position, and there is no need for an administrator to step in and split the threads as I hoped to see happen. I understand you feel I am a disruptive editor. I understand you feel I have made a number of WP:POINT violations. I understand you think i am engaging in "childish foot stamping". Again, I thank you for your compliments. Your position has been clearly stated. I'm sure another administrator will agree with your summary and take appropriate action against me. Regardless, the reason this thread was brought in the first place has been resolved. If an administrator wants to take action against me, they are quite welcome to do so and my marking this thread as resolved has no effect on this.
• Nevertheless, I am not going to re-close this thread. It has turned into a welcome vehicle by which you can air out your complaints against me. Please, by all means, feel free to further expound on my childish behavior or other types of behavior you feel I have been engaging in that are in your esteemed opinion unwelcome on Wikipedia, along with perhaps some suggested courses of action. The stage is all yours. I look forward to your commentary. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I've no real need to thank you for not edit warring on the ANI page in an attempt to prevent examination of your behaviour, have I? This is not a requests board, it's an incident board. You might not have got your desired outcome, but the issues of your behaviour in that Rfc are still live, and evidently unchanged. If your disruption has caused the RFC to fragment onto personal talk pages, that's also a live issue that would benefit from outside intervention, for the good of the project. I've no real need to expand on the sort of trollery you engage in, you make it self-evident most of the time. In terms of less visible disruption, I've just had to remove your innappropriate and un-noted insertion of a section break above my comment of 18:31. That was a very basic violation of the TPG right there, which is again all part of the live issue, as you will presumbly keep doing this without correction. I seek no stage here, I am of course not complimenting you, and I of course believe you are what I say you are and you do what I say you do. You've provided half the diffs on that score already. That you 'understand' these objections is neither here nor there, it's just more pointless sarcastic noise, because you can't/won't do anything about it. I don't have an esteemed opinion, just an opinion, which I will express here, unless or until it's brought to a close in the way I suggested. MickMacNee (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • You've made accusations that I have been disruptive. Excellent! Would you please provide evidence that I have been disruptive? You've made accusations that I have engaged in "trollery". Fantastic! Would you please provide evidence that I have done so? If you wish to see my behavior change, providing evidence of that behavior so an uninvolved admin can analyze said behavior would be most helpful. I hope you'll take the opportunity to do so. I understand you feel my creating a section header to discuss me was inappropriate. I felt it was appropriate, given that it was a separate discussion. I thought I was doing you a favor by giving you an open stage on which to produce your complaints against me. I'm sorry it was poorly received. As to your not complimenting me, on the contrary. I take your personal attacks against me as compliments. Perhaps you intended to offend me, I don't know. That's for you to decide. The outcome is that I am complimented, so I do thank you. As to my expressing that I understand what you are saying, I am at a loss as to how you can construe that as sarcastic. I am confirming that I recognize you have that position. How is that sarcastic? Lastly, I requested you perhaps provide a course action with regards to my editing. Do you have such a suggestion? Would it be helpful to you if I started an RfC about me and my behavior? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
      • You didn't realise that going against the TPG to improperly refactor someone else's comments would be poorly recieved? How long have you been here? The evidence of your disruption is that sort of refactoring and that sort of implausible response/explanation, and all the previous examples in that RFC. And you wanted to do me a favour by doing that yes? To allow me a space to air my 'personal attacks' on you? Sure. The accusation that you are a sarcastic troll still stands, and the evidence for that is that post, and all other similar back handed statements before it. Maybe you see it, maybe you don't, but I'm not here to act as your self-awareness coach tbh, you'll get one straight observation from me, and that's your lot. As for this whole paragraph - As to your not complimenting me, on the contrary. I take your personal attacks against me as compliments. Perhaps you intended to offend me, I don't know. That's for you to decide. The outcome is that I am complimented, so I do thank you. - that is just incomprehensible to me tbh. What is it even supposed to mean? Firstly, what personal attacks? Second, I am supposed to decide if my intention was to offend you? Eh? What? It's hard to see that as not just more pointless noise - filling up sections with that sort of incomprehensible input is also a form of disruption. What would be helpful to me and everyone else is if you kept your input here simple and straight, without any inference or assumption, or if that's not possible, just stopped talking. Otherwise, making statements like " I requested you perhaps provide a course action with regards to my editing" - when what you actually said was Please, by all means, feel free to further expound on my childish behavior or other types of behavior you feel I have been engaging in that are in your esteemed opinion unwelcome on Wikipedia, along with perhaps some suggested courses of action. The stage is all yours. I look forward to your commentary just further illuminates the problem, piling example onto example. Whether or not I file an Rfc depends on what observers have to say about what I've said. MickMacNee (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Still awaiting administrator input here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

<crickets> --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism of Starwood Festival

An editor keeps adding unsupported claims of Satanists attending Starwood. When stopped, he/she just picks a new name or logs in with no name and adds it back. There's never any attempt to include a citation or reference, just repeated insertion. I would appreciate it if something could be done about this. Rosencomet (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected indefinitely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Good grief, is this vandalism still going on...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Harassment

An administrator by the name User:Maunus have had conflicts with me over content and references in some articles in the past. Articles about topics in which he identify himself as an expert in his editor page, something that always made me feel like he had somekind of a ownership problem. However those editorial conflicts had been solved, but I always felt a non necessary intromission of his part in some of the articles I edit after our conflicts were solved. In plains words, it seemed like he was "watching" my edits in order to provoke me. However, this was always ignored by me as merely a perception of my part.

Today, another user found offensive that I erased a message left in my talk page and made me notice it [112]. Well then of all the sudden and without being involved nor asked to get involved, User:Maunus wrote a defamatory and missrepresenting note in that discussion [113], labeling my actions as "standard" and threatening me to fill a RfC. Then he continued to harass me by almost "challening me" to proceed with the RfC if I had nothing to worry about [114]. That was not only uncalled for, but like I said, generalizing my actions as something wrong. Needless to say that I have the right to delete almost any content left in my talk page [115] and that I always delete the messages that I have already read.

Maunus' actions gave proof that he's got a personal interest against myself, given his past conflicts with me, now evidently by his meddling in a two-sided conversation. His actions were not in good-faith. This is not the first time I notice he has been watching my talk page, I just ignored that as merely my perception. His actions were uncalled for, defamatory and inflammatory. I now officially feel harassed and threatened by his actions and false sayings, which make me feel highly uncomfortable and discourage me from contributing. Needless to say that this confirms that I'm being watched in a not healthy way.

After almost six years of editing and producing graphics for Wikipedia, I find myself with no energy nor in the mood to fight for my rights. Events in the past had left me with little hope for justice in this project. Sorry, I'm just being honest =(. I need to add that recently, when I'm asked to "give an explanation" of an edit in an accusatory way, I just delete the message from my talk page (as usual for me after reading a message) but then I stop editing in the "conflicted" article. Like I said, I recently feel tired about how certains things are done in this project. No energy.

I just want other administrators to take notice on this and inspect the recent conversation in my talk page. It is not healthy to harass other editors based purely in what I can only call resentment. Thanks for reading this. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 03:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find it offensive that you deleted my edits in your talk page. It was more the reverting my contributions in the main namespace without bothering to issue a single reply after multiple offers to debate (which you still haven't done) that irked me. All Maunus did was to point out that this is a recurrent trait of your history when faced with editorial disputes. As I said in your talk page, "in a horizontal collaborative project, [your disregard for editorial discussion] is likely to generate friction, since people like to have their opinions taken into account before their good-faith work is undone, and is counter to WP:EQ and WP:EP". Missionary (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not see any animus directed toward you in Maunus's messages, Alex. Talk pages are open to be edited by anyone. You may, to a certain extent, control what is posted on your user talk. I did not see where you had requested that Maunus not post to your page. As to your statement "As a free editor, I have the right to answer or not."; that is certainly the case as long as you understand that not answering has its own consequences. Tiderolls 04:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I read User talk:AlexCovarrubias#BRIC and Community Etiquette and there is no harassment. It is perfectly acceptable for an editor (Maunus) to list examples to support a claim of "standard behavior for this user" (you). One of the reasons that user talk pages exist is to allow other editors to communicate directly with that user in order to discuss problems. While it's fine to reserve the right to answer, it is not fine to twice revert an edit to an article and decline to discuss the issue. Sure, you can do that a couple of times because of whatever reason, but rather than expending energy to raise a complaint at ANI, it would be more productive to engage with the issue raised at your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

• I obviously do not think that my comments constituted harassment, by any definition of the word, but rather saw it as a necessary step in dispute resolution. I regret that AlexCovarrubias feels that I have harassed him, that was not my intention at all, I would however suggest that that interpretation comes as he mentions from resentment - not mine but his. I don't think I can offer an actual apology, because I honestly think that all my interaction with AlexCovarrubias has been well witin reason. I do however reiterate that I do not have a wish for vengeance against him, bu only a wish for future collaboration in a more collegial spirit, including civil mutual discussion of disagreements, through talkpages. In order to determine whether I and missionary (talk · contribs) are completely wrong in our expectation that it be possible to communicate about content disputes through user talkpages and expect an answer either through modified behavior or through explanation I have filed a request for comment on the conduct of user AlexCovarrubias here·Maunus·ƛ· 16:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Competence is required...

I'd like to recommend User:PM800 for a gross incompetence block, or at least a very stern warning about one. This user ignores any request to start a discussion... on anything. There's already a discussion on here about his continued removal of content without explanation... any other user caught doing this would be blocked on sight. Examples of this user's gross incompetence (a blockable offence):

• This user refuses to engage in discussion about anything, and instead just keeps reverting and doing what he wants to do. For example, on She (Green Day song), this user reverted other editors (with NO explanation at all!) not once, not twice, but FIFTEEN times. These same shenanigans have been going on at Longview (song), Dookie and Shenanigans (album). Have you any idea how frustrating it is to try and resolve a dispute when one of the parties just IGNORES you when you try to approach them repeatedly?
• This user is just plain rude. "Nice try, asshole"., "That 'correction' didn't make any sense, you moron.", "You spelled "inappropriate" wrong, n00b." (this one was coupled with the reversion of a vandalism reversion of something to do with anal sex).
• This user repeatedly inserts factual inaccuracies into articles, and completely ignores requests to stop it or warnings that what he's doing is not OK.
• This user acts in a manner completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, leaving the following comment on an IP user's page: "Your mom did Abraham Lincoln."
• This user thinks it's perfectly acceptable to return every once in a while to an article to make unexplained content removals. When approached ([116]), this user ignores the offer for discussion and continues to carry on with the same behaviour.
• To tie all of this up into a nice conclusion, PM800 has put off a number of IP users from editing Wikipedia through his reversion of their valid edits and personally attacked others countless times. Interacting with this user is a painful process, as you can't interact with him at all... He knows how to 'flout the system' - by ignoring all warnings, he can never be held accountable for his actions.

This user is full of personal attacks, unexplained reversions and plain rudeness. What irks me most about this user is his ignoring of all approaches for discussion. It's gotten to the point where this user can just do what he likes, because when he is approached for discussion about his actions, he just ignores the request. Of course, once it's apparent he won't respond, he is reported to an administrator, by which time it's too late to block anyway.

There is precedent for 'gross incompetence' blocks for those who cannot comprehend (or choose to blatantly ignore) our policies and guidelines.

You might say, 'warn and move on', but it's not like that. He has had several warnings in the past, all of which he just completely ignored (literally - no response) and continued with his same old behaviour. I'm at my wit's end as to what to do - warnings just don't work. Arctic Night 02:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Calm down. This is already being discussed above. The user was notified of the ANI discussion above, was issued a final warning, and most importantly has not yet returned to problematic behavior. He was editing within the past hour, and has not done anything wrong in those edits. As has been noted above, when he starts up again, he can be blocked. But there is no impending need to block right now. I have no idea why you are starting multiple threads on the same issue across multiple discussion boards, or even worse, starting multiple threads at the same discussion board. Please take it easy. --Jayron32 02:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• We're not already discussing this above - the thread above was about Template:Bullying, whilst this thread is about this user's conduct in general (although I've consolidated the two now). He's had more than enough warnings and last chances ('next time, you'll be blocked!') - I honestly can't see why he should be given another one. He just ignores them. Arctic Night 02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• His last edits in the past hour are all quality edits, and none of them is problematic. If you really want to have this discussion, try WP:RFC/U instead of here. If he starts edit warring again, I will be first in line to block him. Please trust admins to do their job. --Jayron32 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Quality edits" - right. This user mixes in a bunch of rude and smarmy comments with a bunch of productive edits, and needs to stop it. An RFC/U won't work - PM800 usually bullies IP users, who are hardly likely to return to certify an RFC/U. That's the point about this editor - he's productive in the article space, but rather rude outside of it. The point is, somebody clearly hasn't been doing their job if he's been edit warring fifteen times in a row without somebody picking him up on it (actually, somebody did, but he just ignored the warning). Arctic Night 03:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Let me say this again. When he commits another violation, I will block him. As long as one of the other admins above, who also said that exact same thing, don't block him first. --Jayron32 03:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• This edit was made after the 'final warning'. Arctic Night 03:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• If I had seen that edit, I'd have reverted it. I don't see that one as a violation. --Jayron32 03:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, you would similarly be guilty of removing content. Look at the article now... Arctic Night 03:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, I never implied that my revert wouldn't have been a mistake, but I think you could have called it an honest mistake given the lack of reference and lack of edit summary. When numbers from articles are randomly changed, without source, its generally a bad idea to let it slide. --Jayron32 04:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• Since a block by me was cited as a precedent for this I suppose it is appropriate that I respond. With that user, and others like them, lesser measures were attempted such as removing any advanced user rights and blacklisting them from automated tools they were misusing. It didn't work, but it is something to consider in competence cases. Of course, most of the competence based blocks I have placed were on users who were perpetually clueless but not extremely rude as this user has been, and they were willing to engage in discussion with users who pointed out their various errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Three comments. This PM800 needs a harsh lesson in civility, and it looks like he will get it if this happens again. Secondly; you shouldn't be labelling his edits as vandalism, even if you are getting stressed by them, WP:VANDALISM. And a third comment on the factual inaccuracies; removing religion from the Portman infobox was correct per WP:BLPCAT, he just did not cite that policy in the edit summary (which should be encouraged). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe this user SHOULD be blocked, judging from the information above; however, I wouldn't recommend an indefblock just yet. Maybe a week? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, since he/she has been constructive since the Final Warning, maybe he/she shouldn't be blocked. But if he/she starts up again, yeah, 48 hours to a week. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This conduct sounds awfully familiar! Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Prestonmcconkie Hopefully I am wrong. Srobak (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU. PM800 = Prestonmcconkie. See the similarity in the name (PrestonMcconkie800) and the similarity in edited article areas (both users have been pulled up for dodgy editing at Natalie Portman, see here), and both users have been pulled up for ignoring requests to be civil previously. My recommendation: straight block for sockpuppetry. Arctic Night 16:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see a couple of issues with a sock block, not least lack of evidence for the use of two accounts to sway consensus (it cannot be for "good hand/bad hand", since both accounts evidence examples of incivility). Further, although I have not looked deeply enough to see if there are patterns of activity/non activity, these accounts have edited over the same period without being conspiciously devoted to the same subjects; it may be that they are both reasonably active content producers who are rude, and unresponsive when confronted - also noting that PM800 does not use a monobook script while Prestonmcconkie does. I don't think the two accounts are linked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a point for check tough. Do I need to formally file a case? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless a passing CU chimes in here, then SPI request seems to be an option. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)