Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Noticeboards and related pages (Dashboard)
General
Content
User issues
Noticeboards
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcuts:

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.

You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.

For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please attempt to engage in discussions with the admin before posting here.
Are you in the right place? How to use this page
  • Please add new incident reports to the bottom of this page. New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral: ==Example title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider instead placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion.
  • Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically.
  • When moving long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "~~~"; this prevents premature archiving. Move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/[concise title]. Also consider adding/updating a status tag (e.g. {{unresolved}}).
  • Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment.
  • If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, place your comments on this page and they will be addressed accordingly.
  • When an issue is resolved it may be marked with {{resolved}}. If it is misplaced it may be marked with {{NOTHERE}}
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages


Certified pages

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kolins – potential editing against consensus and lack of discussion on talk pages.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino – alleged persistently uncivil edit summaries.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ - allegedly misleading citations, disputes over BLP sourcing and WP:CLEANSTART.


General
What this page is not

This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues.
See also
Click here to start a new discussion thread
Archives This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 24 hours may be automatically moved.

Contents



[edit] Admin needed to act on article probation violation re: Men's rights

One month topic ban for Cybermud from Men's rights article and closely related articles on the same topic. No support for Cybermud's point of view, some support (but no clear consensus) for an indefinite ban. Breach of this ban before this date in March will most likely result in a block and a longer topic ban. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

User:Cybermud has repeatedly engaged in incivility, violating the terms of article probation described at Talk:Men's rights/Article probation. He was warned about the incivility by User:Kaldari and User:Kgorman-ucb on his talk page, and he responded with "...do whatever floats your boat princess...", calling Kevin Gorman, a campus ambassador for UC Berkeley, a "princess". Kevin and Kaldari were pointing out to Cybermud the following infractions of the probation: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. In response, Cybermud told them to "STFU on my talk page".

I see the foul response by Cybermud as a signal that he is unwilling to follow article probation terms. Cybermud should not be allowed to continue in this vein. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have placed Cybermud under a one-month topic ban.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
According to your comments on my talk page you have banned me for this edit. Just how does this diff merit a one month topic ban? Or is asking you to justify something, that's as as clear as mud to me, in violation of some other unknown policy that I also can't be informed of?--Cybermud (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"Should WP not refer to Nazi's as Nazi's because people have taken a dim view of the things they've done historically? Because you seem to be implying it might be okay to whitewash the fact that some sources have discredited themselves by not clearly acknowledging them." - commenting on editors, not edits. "Michael Flood/Messner/Kimmel have well established reputations of being pro-feminist misandrists." - violating BLP with regards to Flood, Messner and Kimmel. A couple of days ago, you stated "I'm trying to add balance to the subjective edits of the feminist task force that descended on this article and defaced it with Wikilawyering and excessive demands of "higher quality" sources and then, once they had driven the non-feminist editors out, allowed you to use crap sources so long as they confirmed their pre-existing biases." More recently today, you made a factually untrue statement in an attempt to discredit another editor. Here you threatened to out another editor. As the probation page says, "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with all of your characterizations of those diffs, but more importantly, why not just admit you made a knee-jerk reaction based on the misrepresentations of my edits made by other editors? For starters, it's never good to start shifting the goal posts for why did you something, much less after the fact. According to you, YOU BANNED ME for this edit not any of the other ones you are now backtracking and trolling for in an attempt to justify an action you've already made. Some of these new edits you're scrambling for are not even in the Men's Rights article. Secondly, contrary to your BLATANTLY AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE allegation that I threatened to out anyone, I suggested to an editor, who used his own name and is a faculty associate of the person whose article he's editing that there are COI policies on WP he may be violating. Read the edits. They are clear on this point. I do not take your banning me personal, I know admins deal with a lot of crap here, but I do ask that you give me valid reasons, not make them up as you go, and put forth the effort to understand the situation you jumped all over once you start getting feedback, like mine, which claims your actions were unjustified.--Cybermud (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
"To avoid potentially outing an editor I will refrain from expanding upon that point for the time being" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you frequently find evidence that supports the exact opposite of your contention and put it forward to advance an argument anyway?!--Cybermud (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Deja Vu Binksternet?[[5]] In any case, it's all about context.--Cybermud (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that the diffs speak fairly well to why sarek was justified in topic banning cybermud, especially this one and this one, so I'm going to let them speak for themselves.

Cybermud has continued to edit the article on Michael Kimmel, in violation of his topic ban, even after being warned that continuing to do so was a violation of his topic ban. (Michael Kimmel is a sociologist whose work frequently deals with men's rights issues, and the use of his writings on the men's rights page was one of the major issues that cyermud disagreed about.) Although disagreeing with an administrator and questioning their actions is fine, choosing to ignore a topic ban - especially one stemming from community sanctions on an article - is not fine.

I think that Cybermud's responses to this post have demonstrated that he cannot be a productive editor on men's rights or related issues at this point. I would request that Sarek's one month topic ban be extended to indefinite with the option of appealing at some point in the future if he can convince the community that he now sees what was wrong with his behavior, and convinces the community that he will not repeat his former behavior. I would also request that he be blocked if he continues to fail to respect the terms of his topic ban. Kevin (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also support an indefinite topic ban, as Cybermud's edits are a clear example of POV-pushing and his incivility related to those articles has been disruptive. Kaldari (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I would not support an indefinite topic ban. While I agree that he was uncivilized in some regards, he brings up some valuable points. I admit I haven't contributed to this article in awhile, I think the 1-month ban is enough, and if he re-offends after the ban to re-evaluate. TickTock2 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support an indefinite topic ban. Cybermud is clearly a POV warrior that is not going to contribute anything uncontroversial on this topic, ever, judging from the talk page. It's time for such folks to pick another topic and to get busy improving the encyclopedia or get the hell out of the way. All this perpetual drama/verbose talk page war garbage needs to be snuffed, not coddled and enabled. Ya want adrenaline, buy a video game or grab a soap box and head for the nearest streetcorner. Carrite (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support indefinite topic ban. After being banned for one week in October 2011 [6], Cybermud is back to the same problematic behavior. Not only does he continue to accuse various authors of misandry [7][8], but he also refers to them as "gender ideologues who support the feminist view that all men are rapists" [9]. His fellow editors are also misandrists [10], according to Cybermud. I find his agitated rhetoric very unhelpful. That he calls a male editor "princess", goes beyond the pale. Back in 2010, he wrote that Kimmel and Flood are considered "manginas" [11], so this theme is not new. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
So far three people have suppoted an indefinite topic ban and one has opposed it. With only four people responding and no further contribution for more than 12 hours I'm reluctant to see this as a consenus for an indefinite ban. On the other hand, I don't see anybody here speaking up in Cybermud's defence; nobody is suggesting that his edits were OK and that no ban at all should be enacted.
This report has been open a long time and while I don't want to close prematurely, I'm not sure how much more is going to be said. I will close this report in a few hours (not less than five) if there are no further responses. When I close, I will leave a firm note for Cybermud about the ban, indicating that a breach will lead to an immediate block and the possibility of an extension of the ban. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Another external link to Beatles music

There have been previous discussions here regarding external links to copyrighted Beatles music. In this edit 78.106.83.130 added a link to [12], which appears to have copyrighted Beatles music. I reverted the edit, but it was restored by 176.15.136.73, stating "Vandalism: Internet Archive can not contain illegal material - this is impossible". What is the appropriate next step? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert again and issue a warning to the IP, then take the link to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Jeremy! GoingBatty (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Please be gentle. The IP most likely doesn't understand what you're saying and from their perspective is genuinely trying to help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You're right - I should assume good faith instead of assuming these IP addresses are related to those who added inappropriate external links in the past. Thank you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This IP editor has had our copyright policy explained to him/her over and over and over and over again and still refuses to accept it. The IP may come from a country where flouting copyright law is a way to stick it to The Man, but that's irrelevant: s/he is not ignorant of policy but deliberately acting in contravention of policy. We don't assume good faith indefinitely, not when faced with evidence that an editor knows s/he's contravening policy and does not care. --NellieBly (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Nellie. I don't see much reason for good faith here--unless it's that the IP only added one of those links instead of dozens. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
As noted earlier, the IP in question is one of a series used over time by some guy in Russia who won't listen to repeated assertions that these are copyright violations. I thought they were going to set up some kind of edit filter, but maybe the Russian guy figured out a way around it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Echoing Baseball Bugs' concern; this is not a complete newcomer, and he has been told repeatedly to stop this for quite some time, now. See his various discussions on Jimbo's talk page over the past month:

His response to my last (umpteenth) attempt to tell him to stop, which has failed miserably. Now, I understand there is some sort of a language barrier, as English is not his first language, but that still does not excuse one from blatantly and freely ignoring everybody else's concerns. --MuZemike 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This has been going on since at least November 21, when 128.68.192.115 (talk · contribs) started posting this stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we were supposed to have a filter. MuZemike, that's the same guy, judging from grammar and style, if memory serves me right. What can a rangeblock do in this case? Bugs, can you dig up the last ANI thread? (While I crawl in bed with Thomas Mann?) Drmies (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say, make a list and post it to the meta spam blacklist (this needs to go there if this is a copyright violation - other mediawikis should also not be able to link to this stuff then). That should deter this quite a bit. I wonder why the original website does not exist anymore, and why this is only available from the archive - that already should give a hint that this is a copyright violation.

Even besides the copyright problem, I wonder whether these are external links in the spirit of WP:EL (they are certainly not 'must have' type of links, and except for the copyright violation they are also not really 'must never have' type of links), and when questioned, this should go onto the talkpage for further discussion. Alternatively, we could use User:XLinkBot to bash some sense in this - hard override and overruling of standard warning practice for this specific set of links. But I would say: Defer to Meta blacklist (you'll have to collect all the links, if you give me a handful of the IPs who spammed this to mainspace for this, COIBot may be able to help in collecting the links from the last couple of weeks). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I became aware of this situation in late November, due to having some Beatles songs on my watchlist. It's pretty clear that rangeblock is not a practical solution, and it doesn't seem like the filter is working either. Semi-protecting all the Beatles articles also seems impractical and overkill. Blacklisting the URL seems like the best solution. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I can block it on meta, but I indeed would need specific urls - \barchive\.org\/details\/NoReply\b seems to be one of them, I guess the others have other terms in stead of NoReply, so \barchive\.org\/details\/(?:NoReply|<Term2>|<Term3>|<etc.>)\b will do the trick on the blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As one who has explained the situation to the editor multiple times on OTRSN and on my talk page, I assert a positive DUCK test. Best we can hope for is RBI and DENY the editor any attention. Hasteur (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and blacklisted the one added by the editor in this thread, please ping me if there are more. Hasteur, RBI may here just give more frustration, some people don't do things for the kick, they simply persist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The link has returned to No Reply (song) via this edit by [Special:Contributions/2.94.173.212|2.94.173.212], who accused me of a "long pattern vandalism and war of edits" [sic]. GoingBatty (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree it's probably a good idea to tell archive.org. It's unlikely they want this content even with its 'impressive' list of UN treaties and conventions. IIRC someone had planned to contact them. Does anyone know if anything happened with that. Edit: I see it was User:NellieBly who said they intended to contact archive.org. P.S. [13] shows there's a lot of this on archive.org. If they expand to other articles, it looks like there's a lot of possible targets. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I did contact archive.org's admins, but they didn't seem as responsive as I'd hoped. I'll try again. --NellieBly (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
They do get those reports all the time and they act on them. They don't have 1000's of admins online 24/7 like Wikipedia does, so it may take them a little longer than we're used to here. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
749 currently active admins out of barely 1,500. Many of them work odd volunteer hours and don't deal with reports to begin with. Doc talk 08:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
FYI: With that article being monitored, other articles are now also having the link added. I was glancing through this link, and spotted this edit. adding archive.org/details/PleaseMisterPostman to the article Please Mr. Postman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Bl'd this link as well. Any others? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sadly this is what I expected to happen as mentioned above. Given the number of songs available on archive.org I'm guessing just about every Beatles song is a potential target. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
So? Every link that gets blacklisted is one that they can not use anymore. Every IP you block will result in a new IP being used. That, or even rangeblocking will have significant collateral damage. Blacklisting the specific archive links is taking them out one-by-one, and it will get more and more annoying for them to find yet another link to add (one that is not blacklisted). And this can be done pre-emptively, has no collateral damage, and I hear that archive.org is already starting to remove the links. The other option is to write a proper edit-filter, but I am afraid that for that to function properly one would also need to know all the links, otherwise an innocent IP out of the range using a valid archive.org link would also be blocked. XLinkBot would have a similar problem, I could Whack-A-Mole using that bot as well, but then still, I would also whack the innocent editor adding an innocent url. IMHO, the only real solution is RmBI - Revert-metaBlacklist-Ignore. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to simply block each IP sock after a single instance of re-adding any of the offending links rather than go through a more lengthy process of warnings? Sure it's whack-a-mole, but I've had some success with persistent vandals using this approach. In the long run, the effort to breakt he rules is much greater than the effort to undo the damage and block an IP. Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That's already the process being used by myself and others. I'd like to suggest that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Crazy1980 be added to whenever another IP is added to act as a repository of sorts. In addition... - The Bushranger One ping only 09:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I've removed a bunch of stuff mostly from November that was already deleted on archive.org (so they are taking action). The only recent on I came across was [14]. Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] ban discussion on AN

A related ban discussion is here. Nobody Ent 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:TheREALCableGuy

resolved to satisfaction of OPKim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

I have been having problems with TheREALCableGuy (talk · contribs), who refuses to engage with anyone using his talk page in any manner about any issues, unless it involves removing fair use images from his user page, which he was blocked for a week last week and involved one revdeled threat (last ANI incident). I have begged, pleaded, asked for a compromise and reason for why he continues to revert my template on Milwaukee Public Television over the last three months, which I feel is needed for explanations of what exactly airs on their station's subchannels, but he continues to ignore me and revert me blindly, even when I asked him to post what he feels is wrong with it and trying to compromise by removing cable channel slots, just reverting and refusing to respond on my talk page, as I asked (I'm scared to modify further because of 3RR). He refuses in any way to discuss anything on his talk page with anyone, which I feel is absolutely needed to build up Wikipedia. I also feel he violated his last block by using a college computer under IP 152.43.1.234 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) to round his block. I would like to cooperate with RCG, but without being able to discuss anything with him via his talk page in any way there is no way I can compromise with this user. Nate • (chatter) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The standard ANI notice on his talk page has been blanked and disregarded without any comment. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I left them a note on their talk page. I'm still looking into their behavior, but it's worthwhile noting that the suspicion of socking while blocked is easily confirmed per DUCK. I'm not sure what the consequences for that might be, but I'm not entirely done yet with snooping. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, it's the typical uncommunicative editor who knows everything better, so they don't have to explain anything. They reverted themself on that Milwaukee article (probably after you either asked or started this thread, I don't care enough to check) and they possibly think that's all there is to it. There's a few things here. First of all, if they continue to revert you on that article, report them as an edit warrior--were they warned at 3R? Second, another admin may come by and comment on the block evasion: perhaps the original block should be reinstated. Third, well, I don't have a third just now. Drmies (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • One more thing. You are both guilty of edit warring on that article, 3R or not. I am going to give you both a warning. You reverted them a couple of times before you explained in this edit; to your credit you have continued to try and explain yourself, while they haven't. Still, you both deserve a warning, and that suggests that next time such a revert happens that editor can be reported for edit warring. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Understanding on the warning (it is deserved), all I'm asking for from RCG is an explanation of why they want it that way, that's all I ask. I try not to edit war, but it's frustrating to edit and try to figure out what's wrong with my template's style when the other editor will not even communicate why. I also was discouraged to report to the 3RR board due to the lack of communication. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. And 3RR can be tricky anyway, but it's a lot easier if the other user has been warned (and in this case, by someone who is not you). Drmies (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally have a response. "I reverted it. Now please let me be. Thank you." When I asked for further elaboration..."You liked it the old way, so I changed it back so I could stay out of trouble, okay?" I don't really know what to make of that. Nate • (chatter) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC) (original timestamp of 5:55 UTC removed to reflect latter edit.)

  • OK, here's the deal. I've reverted the blanking of their talk page to respond to that teenage comment. I am blocking them for a week--the period they were blocked for in the first place, during which they used an IP to continue the edit war on Milwaukee Public Television and to reinstate non-fair use images on their user page, the very thing that got them blocked in the first place; note that the war on Milwaukee Public Television was waged by the account, then by the IP, and then by the account again: persistent disruption. If any admin disagrees with this block (now their fourth), I invite scrutiny. Thank you Nate, and let's close this thread. I hope the editor will come back in a week with a more communicative attitude, though I doubt it. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I consider it closed too, and I finally got the answer that he felt it was "cluttered" after the block, which he could've definitely said beforehand and it didn't have to get to this point at all (usually I've engaged in discussion and it's all worked out before I ever need to get to ANI). I don't know whether making changes to the template further to de-clutter in a compromise is OK or not though, so I don't hit 3RR. If it isn't I will cool down at your suggestion. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, they changed to "your" version, so one can only assume that you are at liberty to edit to your heart's delight. When you edit it next you're not reverting them, so you can't be edit-warring--in my opinion. Does that help? Drmies (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It does, thank you. I am going to reduce it down, and we can consider this closed. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Drive-by tagging and removal of opposing comments

OP has claimed that s/he is conducting a "research experiment" on WP. I take that assertion at face value and have blocked them for a week.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

JasperDang is putting SEVEN tags on the article MongoDB without any rason multiple times WP:OVERTAGGING

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MongoDB&diff=475893466&oldid=475892060

And when I'm trying to ask him the reason, he is removing my comments from talkk page and warning me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MongoDB&diff=475893308&oldid=475892780

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MongoDB&diff=475893308&oldid=475892780

This is ridiculous. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • WP:BOOMERANG. The reasons are plainly obvious. This board is not for bringing in a content dispute.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is NOT a content dispute. I am not opposed to tagging of the articles with RELEVEANT tags. I am questioning your bad-faith tagging without given ANY reason whatsoever - your behavior in putting 7 tags and when others post a detailed point-wise talk page comment asking for reaosns - you remove their commets - not once but twice. Then you attack me mock me for using capital letter for emphasis and paradoxically warn me for personal attacks. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes it is. WP:AGF. Tagging is a content dispute. Speedy close now please.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jasper, Sorry. This was part of a research I'm doing on how seriously are anon users' opinions taken on Wikipedia. I'm trying this from different IP addresses on different pages with different combinations (personal attacks, semi-uncivil, civil comments, reasonable comments, irrelevant arguments, spelling/grammar mistakes etc.) This was the "semi-uncivil with spelling/grammar mistakes" category of experiment, and is now over. I apologize if you were hurt during the experiment. 203.99.208.3 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:POINT, anyone? I generally frown when researchers do not disclose things to me.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Given my recent block, I'll refrain from commenting here, beyond suggesting that so-called 'research' based on such behaviour is not only unethical, but worthless. Actually, I'll ignore the block, and suggest that it blindingly obvious to anyone that either (a) this isn't 'research', but trolling, or (b) the 'research' is a waste of time, money, and entropy, in that it tells us nothing that anyone but a total halfwit couldn't have figured out without engaging in such idiocy. If you are engaging in this 'research' as part of a course of study, I'd ask for your money back... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What research, affiliated to what academic institution? Where is your plan? Where is the approval from your institutional review board? Where has the Wikimedia Foundation and the community agreed to your research project? Where will you publish your results? You should cease your "research" immediately and answer those questions instead. Franamax (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd suggest it's either sarcasm or a rather naive self-construction to get out of tense situation. I can't imagine any legitimate research would take that form (and I've seen some fairly odd stuff at university) and the edits don't look like those of a troll or one seeking to provoke an outcome - they look like the edits of a very inexperienced newcomer entering into conflict for the first time (and we've all been there!). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 08:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, please also see WP:HOSTAGE, and feel free to expand. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Hats off to Jasper Deng - admitting you may have been wrong is a rare tactic here, but one guaranteed to warm the cockles. I think we are done. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Now that we've thoroughly shot and hung the messenger out to dry, the tags on MongoDB were in fact excessive, and Jasper Deng was being unnecessarily combative and uncooperative in his placement of them. Jasper did nothing to really explain his placement of the pile of tags in the first place, and when he was reverted, he responded with a further unhelpful and combative edit summary. He further claimed that all 7 tags needed no further explanation on the talk page, which is just absurd. 7 article level tags on an article of that size certainly do need further explanation. Always a proud moment when I see one of these.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the relevant article talk page - I for one don't think that a section like this should appear in a Wikipedia article:
Capped collections
MongoDB supports fixed-size collections called capped collections.[8] A capped collection is created with a set size and, optionally, number of elements. Capped collections are the only type of collection that maintains insertion order: once the specified size has been reached, a capped collection behaves like a circular queue.
A special type of cursor, called a tailable cursor,[9] can be used with capped collections. This cursor was named after the `tail -f` command, and does not close when it finishes returning results but continues to wait for more to be returned, returning new results as they are inserted into the capped collection.
AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That would be best I think. I'm not necessarily convinced by the experiment explanation although of course we have to treat it as though it's true—we have nothing else to go on. There are some obvious problems with the article, but I too feel that Jasper Deng could have made a more convincing effort to explain the tags promptly and courteously, and treated the IP user with a little more good faith. EyeSerenetalk 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That section about capped collections looks fine to me (informatively describes something unusual enough to be worth mentioning). It is pretty typical of how articles about software and programming languages are written. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the tags themselves can be discussed on the article talk page. I'm discussing Jasper's behaviour in getting them on that page. There seems to be a whole slew of poor edits made around this situation over at MongoDB. In addition to forcing the tags onto the article without explanation, and assuming bad faith, he also made edits like this which are clearly against our policies [15]. Altering others comments is a no-no. The IP tried to engage him on the talk page, Jasper reverted it. I'm beginning to think if we really need to block the IP out of this situation, it shouldn't be the only one.--Crossmr (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Didn't know this discussion hasn't ended yet, was trying to discuss. Yep, I admit my faults here, and I won't try to fault the IP. I just don't like it when my name is mentioned in a section header on an article talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, but if you're going to edit an article in that manner, it's almost inevitable that you're going to end up being discussed on the talk page. You don't have any rights over your name on wikipedia, other than to ensure someone doesn't impersonate you, and others are free to refer to you as necessary, which may include using your name in the header of a section, especially when it directly concerns the edits you've been making. You had zero business removing another person's comment from the page as it contained no excessive personal attacks, and even then you're limited to removing the personal attack itself.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have some concerns (first raised by the other IP) that Jasper Deng may have been editing tendentiously. I'll try to look into it further tomorrow. I also think some of AndyTheGrump's complaints about the article were unhelpful, though well-intended, and resulted in good content being removed. I left some comments about the latter on the article talk page. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC) Added: Viriditas's WP:HOSTAGE essay discusses tag-bombing of controversial articles, but that's a somewhat separate problem than what happened here. IMHO the contents of the MongoDB article (including the earlier version that Jasper added the tags to) are mostly uncontroversial. At worst there are a couple places where the wording edges away from neutral, or a little too much space is given to unimportant info. All of this can be touched up pretty easily and I might try. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I now believe 7 tags was not appropriate especially since some could've been consolidated into one (OR can morph into the V part, for instance). I've talked with my mentor about this, and I think I deserve to be trouted on this. If it were a valid personal attack, I've been told that just removing part of the comment is worse than removing the whole thing; it's moot here - I need thicker skin.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. If you're concerned about your name appearing on externally searchable pages, that's understandable too. You might consider WP:CHU to deal with that. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Jasper Deng's Conduct (continuing previous discussion)

Beyond this need to archive so quickly getting out of hand, I don't think this situation is entirely done yet. I didn't really do any background on Jasper, and simply looked at this incident as it was. While I was away, Jasper mentioned being under mentoring so I did my due diligence. After doing so, I have some increasing concerns over his behaviour. There seemed to be incredible concern over his editing last april [16], on multiple levels regarding multiple things including competence. Including this bizarre exchange [17]. Again in September we have more concern over his behaviour [18], including biting newbies as he just did here to this IP editor. Eagle points out in that discussion that this was not an isolated incident and that he'd been repeatedly warned about this behaviour. As this is a furtherance of the behaviour for which he was repeatedly warned, this gives me some grave concerns here, as this has been going on for quite awhile despite apparently being mentored by 3 people.--Crossmr (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

What did Jasper say when you brought your concerns to his talk page? 28bytes (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
April was a long time ago; I've changed since then. 28bytes is my most active mentor (the other two are not as active).Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
There are two incidents, the second one is in september, it's much closer, and specifically addresses you biting newbies.--Crossmr (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion (despite trying to jam it closed) was already here. There is no reason to take a discussion from AN/I to a talk page, especially when the behaviour has already generated consensus twice on an admin board.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I saw initially, this user was apparently not a new editor, judging from the other contribs; all that matters is that I stop my own behavior.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossmr - As you know, we are trying to clamp down on the improper use of AN/I. I'll note that you have opened a discussion concerning a user that you have not contacted directly in the past several weeks, nor did you post a notice on their talk page concerning this AN/I case. Also, as you seem to be concerned about an issue that happened in September, so this isn't exactly an "incident". Please take this matter up directly with the editor, and then take it to the appropriate noticeboard only you cannot find resolution. Manning (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Manning. If you have not discussed this issue with Jasper directly, it shouldn't be placed on ANI. —Dark 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
On this matter, I've started a discussion on Crossmr's talk page about my behavior.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
(Ecx50)The issue was being discussed with Jasper directly above. I did not bring this issue here. I continued the discussion as new evidence was found regarding his behaviour that indicated this was not a one-off incident. This is not a new discussion, it's a subheading to an existing discussion of which he was already aware.--Crossmr (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Crossmr. Jasper has a history of biting the newbies and overdoing things. This is yet another example of a long term behavioral issue--Guerillero | My Talk 01:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Just in passing there seems to be confusion about what triggered Crossmr's complaint about Jasper, it was something in the immediate preceding closed discussion. (biting an IP) I don't think that's clear to some here and I don't know if that would effect you're propriety analysis of the report but I do think it is important that you understand each other first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossmr - My sincere apologies. The problem with this archiving trend is it isn't immediately obvious the new item is connected (of course I should have looked a bit more closely). I suspect I'm not alone in this. You are perfectly justified in continuing the discussion from above. Manning (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Reblock of User:Mistress Selina Kyle

User has been unblocked - with mumblings of 4 to 1 is a consensus? - Youreallycan 21:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

A day or so following her unblock following a five-year absence, this User:Mistress Selina Kyle was reblocked by User:Courcelles for allegedly breaching the conditions of the unblock. I found the reasoning highly suspect and unilaterally unblocked her. It turns out, however, that over two years since I last used my blocking tools, I've become unfamiliar with the processes (and will be taking myself back to WP:NAS as a result), and so have been encouraged to replace the block and attempt to gain consensus for the unblock here. I still stand by my original reasoning, however, which you can find at User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle#Blocked, however the brief version is that the rationale given was that she broke item 4 of her unblock conditions, which stated "Persuant to the conditions above, if problems arise regarding any violation of Wikipedia policies or behavioral guidelines, a reblock shall be swift and unforgiving." Now, the incident in question, as I have noted in more detail at User talk:SalopianJames#Unblock of MSK, revolved around a report of a WP:LEGAL breach at WP:ANI and the subsequent fallout from that, where she was the recipient of a number of WP:PERSONAL attacks and attempted to deal with this. Now, the initial reporting was entirely within policy and, whilst her reponse to the attacks was misguided, it was not meant with any malice, instead representing an unfamiliarity with policy after five years of absence, for which I feel she should be given the benefit of the doubt. As a result, I do not find the block reasoning convincing, and am not the only one who takes this view, as can be seen from the comments in the two user talk page threads I linked above. Furthermore, in the intervening time between my unblock/reblock, she took several editor's advice to avoid political pages to prevent herself getting into trouble, for instance reporting a POV-pushing editor on her talk page rather than at ANI, who was later blocked. She also spent a lot of effort spreading some WP:WikiLove, always a good gesture, and various other constructive edits. As a result, I believe the block should be lifted forthwith. SalopianJames (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An unblock of the reblock's unblocked reblock, right? Doc talk 09:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Amazingly something good did come out of all this. The BB-MSK event did shake the collective hubris. Threads here on ANI are now closed promptly with a resolution instead of being let to degenerate. Given that BB has been unblocked (although he was also blocked by an Arbitrator), I don't see a compelling need to keep MSK blocked given the subsequent developments outlined above. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I could not agree more. We needed a kick in the behind. We may need more, but it's a good start. Manning (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll spank you as well, Manning, if you like. ASCII, I agree. I hope it lasts for more than a week. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Unblock (edit conflict × 2) The circumstances surrounding Selina's reblock were controversial. As SalopianJames notes, Selina was subjected to attacks crafted to skirt the boundaries of what we consider 'personal' but were clearly and deliberately intended to bait her into a response. This was an agent provocateur action by editors, one of which was later blocked and nearly given an indefinite community topic ban from admin noticeboards. It's my view that Selina's response was inappropriate and she did deserve a short term block (which she got) but I don't believe it's fair to indef her again over a situation that was clearly engineered to elicit this kind of response and result. She is freshly back, has barely had time to brush up on the changes to the rules in her five year absence and was immediately forced into a situation where she had to make a snap response. I don't see anything malicious or even intentional in her technical breach of the rules here. Further, as SalopianJames points out, in the period after she was unblocked by him she showed an immediate change in behaviour and demonstrated clearly that she had listened to criticism and had taken the advice of people trying to mentor her, myself included. She reported a problem with another editor on her talk page even though it would have been well within her rights to make a report at ANI, because she responded to advice that she should ask others for help and stay away from the boards. I believe Selina is showing a genuine desire to contribute constructively to the project and I strongly believe she doesn't deserve to lose her chance because of this. This was an accident, she has acknowledged that she made a mistake and she has shown positive signs of not making the same mistake again. We don't punish people for accidents. She's gotten enough of a scare from this whole mess that I don't believe she'll misstep again. And she's aware that I'll be here supporting her block if she does. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I continue to support the unblock: after Mistress Selina Kyle was unblocked by SalopianJames, she clearly showed improvement and did begin to demonstrate that she was following the advice that myself and several others have given her. As has been said above, when she had a sock to report yesterday she reported it on her talk page and the sock did get blocked (this actually would have been a good report to AN/I just as her previous report was), but she stuck to the advice she was given and reported it on her talk page). Evidently, she has made some mistakes, but I don't believe that she has done anything with bad intentions in mind, and there is nothing that she has done so far that I consider to be too serious or that warrants re-implementing the original ban; besides, there are a few users, myself included, who are willing to work with her/help her out along the way, as we have been doing. I think she should just be unblocked and we go back to letting her edit, and when she makes any good-faith errors we help her rather than hold blocks over her head. The other night's drama has cooled off...let's keep it that way. Acalamari 10:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it would not have been a good AN/I report -- sock reports go here: WP:SPI. Nobody Ent 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Unblock - "He hit me first" is not a defense for bad behaviour. However MSK was IMO deliberately baited, and her inexperience led to her getting trapped in this manner. Also mitigating is the fact that the admin corp did NOT handle the matter well, any of us could/should have stepped in much sooner and prevented the debacle (myself included). As with Techno above, my advice to MSK is to stay off AN entirely, even if more deliberate baiting occurs. There are other editors who can handle the matter on her behalf, if needed. Also as Techno said, if there is a genuine transgression, I will be in full support of a permanent reblock. Manning (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Unblock per Manning, and, well, peace really. Begoon talk 10:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock per TechnoSymbiosis; I am a little worried that an arbitrator's actions (when acting as an administrator) are seeming to be given more weight here than any other admin's actions. pablo 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Unblock - the current situation seems a bit unbalanced. A topic ban in regard to anything wikipedia review connected might be a good resolution in regard to helping the user stay out of conflict. Youreallycan 10:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. MSK was targeted for harassment by one of the gadflies that constantly buzz around this page. That user was lucky to get off with a voluntary recusal and it has all led to Manning Bartlett and Kim Dent-Brown taking a stab at reining in the chaos. SalopianJames has outlined most of how this went and Mistress Selina Kyle didn't really do anything wrong here. This is a simple procedural step; MSK should be given a fair chance without harassment. Alarbus (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock and topic ban on discussions related to Wikipedia Review. Nobody Ent 11:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • first - I'm not anybody here. My observations do leave me with a concern though. I'll note that Jclemens also issued a block a while ago, one that I personally thought was excessive - I brought his attention to the unblock request - told the blocked person I'd look into it, and watched. Lets face it - a week away from this place isn't going to hurt anyone. My concern is that 2 out of 3 (arb) blocks were pretty much "I know better" overturned. Sure, all well meaning I'm sure - but it's a concerning trend. It shows a lack of unity in the admin. community. It shows a lack of respect for people who obviously have earned the respect of the community. Good intentions are fine, but maturity and common sense are needed if we're going to head in the right directions. Sorry to have troubled you folks - but my understanding is that this is an open discussion. — Ched :  ?  11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Ched, arbs, individually, are at least in theory no different from the next guy. They are not elected because they are infallible at adminship and are entitled to no particular deference. Indeed, the fact that they are arbs is all the more reason why they need to be really, really careful when acting individually.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree 100%. I'm just saying we need to communicate more, and not be so all fired up to rush to judgment. If we take the time to talk to one another - we may still disagree, but in the end, the calm measured response is going to be a better educated one. I'm not suggesting there's a hierarchy to be feared, simply I think that judicious and prudent ways forward are always going to be the best. — Ched :  ?  11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock Unable to comment. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock I cannot see anything in MSK's editing before or especially since their unblock that leads me to believe there's anything fully productive or collegial goign on here. I'm always willign to be convinced, but I'm still not convinced the FIRST unblock was wise in any way, shape, or form (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Only 26% of your edits in the main space. Any plans to do anything fully productive yourself in the near future? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock at this time, without prejudice. I was the admin who declined the block review. Part of it was procedural (wheel warring concerns, and barring that, it's just common courtesy to discuss with the blocking admin first; furthermore, a block this high-profile would mandate community discussion from the getgo; thus any admin should have declined/held pending further discussion). Part of it was that any restrictions or agreements need to be worked out before any unblock. And part of it was seeing the wide-scale disruption at ANI; 4-5 quite virulent threads from the same user. I understand that she was provoked, but it takes two to tango in this situation. In addition to this, it seems that she feels that she has the obligation to report every instance of bad behavior she sees on the site; not a good thing, borderline Wikilawyering. Sometimes you've just gotta let things go. This disruption also carried over to the already badly damaged FAC and FAC RFC, where MSK repeatedly and forcefully made suggestions regarding overhauling the process entirely, where it was clear she didn't know the issues at hand. There have been suggestions that a lot of users have been visiting the RFC because they have "an axe to grind" with Raul654. I'm not entirely convinced that this will be the final discussion regarding MSK, either. I probably could add more to this, but it's 4:30 am my time and I'm going to bed. --Rschen7754 12:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock - Unconditionally, unrestricted. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • O_O — Ched :  ?  12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just a note. I don't doubt the sincerity here for a second. I remember when Bugs was willing to extend an olive branch to CoM years ago. He is always willing to put the past in the past, and does not carry grudges. Noting just so my "holy cow" funny eyes aren't taken the wrong way. — Ched :  ?  13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock Let's not reward baiting. Consider also a topic ban from anything related to wikipedia review, so she has a clearer guidance that we are here to write articles, not to pick political fights. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock Courcelles' explanation for the block was cogent, clear and backed by the facts. No matter who one holds as "responsible" for the dust-up between MSK & BB, there was no symmetry between their situation. MSK was on a conditional unblock from a community ban, Bugs was not, so there is no reason they need to be treated the same in the situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reluctantly support unblock This is from a pure procedural standpoint. MSK was unblocked and given a loosely defined parole. After a few drama inducing threads the conditions of the parole were listed more explicitly. One admin blocked based on perceived violations of the parole. A Block appeal was denied. Another admin initiates a unblock based on no block appeal, but rather re-trying the previous appeal without consulting the blocking admin. Unblocking admin is questioned at length by blocking admin about the Wheel Waring aspect of the unblock. After several editors weigh in on the unblocking admin the admin reluctantly reblocks and posts this block review to establish consensus. Having looked at the thread so far I'm inclined to endorse the unblock with the cast in stone warning to MSK regarding the terms of their parole (Don't involve yourself with drama, neutrally report instances of harassment/baiting, let others stand up for Wikipedia Review, don't take everything as an attack on you) and they won't be in danger. This constitutes a absolute last chance. Hasteur (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • 👍 Like Well said. One thing I would add is: report does not mean report in five different places and post at least ten times in each thread. (see WP:NCR) The community doesn't have the patience to build Betacommand-style restrictions for Ms. Kyle because insofar the positive contributions made by Ms. Kyle are quite modest. So, Ms. Kyle should absolutely not test the boundaries again if she gives a damn about her editing privileges here. Whether she likes it or not, Ms. Kyle has put herself in a position where from now on she's going to have to turn the other cheek to anything but the most severe transgressions of policy. And I hope her experience from yesterday clarifies where the community currently sets the bar on that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unblock - There is some supreme and petty bullshit going on around these parts. This user was baited and harassed by one of the more egregious ANI gadflies. Courcelles' judgement was exceedingly poor. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Unblock MSK, but other questions need answering SJ's original unblock was a text-book example of how not to use the unblock button. I disagree with Tarc - there's nothing petty going on here. MSK was unbanned after 5 years and was unblocked unstrict conditions. She has since been misbehaving. If after 5 years and a second chance MSK hasn't got it then MSK shouldn't be here. That said I agree with ASCIIn2Bme and Hasteur - in light of Baseball Bugs's unblock that MSK should be unblocked too (but by someone uninvolved in any of this thus far), but under a very very clear & final warning.
    Frankly I think that's what would have happened here anyway if SJ hadn't intervened. The unilateral reversal of Courcelles' decision, by SJ, an admin who admits to not using the tools in over 24 months & is obviously not up-to-date with dealing with DR or sanction/ban enforcement, is far more of an issue than anything MSK did--Cailil talk 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    "She has since been misbehaving", that is the bullshit I was talking about. We have a user here who was held to a completely unreasonable, break-one-sliver-of-an-eggshell standards of the earlier unblock. If you're going to hold someone to a "one-strike" rule, then that's the prerogative of the community to decide. But to reblock, that admin best be damn sure that it is a "strike" that occurred. Courcelles was unreasonable to call that malarkey a strike. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    Note to Tarc - Fluffernutter's explanation below makes it clear why your argument is incorrect.
    Note to would-be censors - It's best to leave vulgar comments in place, as they help to reveal the character of their writer.
    ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    I don't think we have to put up with his rudeness and belligerence. [19] He brings the tone down. Gets people's backs up. Sets off little wars everywhere in situations that might easily be resolved with reasonable discussion. In short, he's the last person this board needs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    Perhaps you're right. But I still don't think a user's comments should be censored unless they're a blatant and gross rule violaton (such as outing, socking, or whatever). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict × tons) What happened to your self-imposed one month vacation from ANI, BB? You've made your opinion of MSK abundantly clear in multiple threads on ANI and AN. I don't think many here now want to hear your opinion of Tarc in this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    Cole, mind your own business. Bugs, why are you here? Didn't you agree to an ANI vacation as a condition of your own unblock? I do not agree with fluffernutter's assessment of the situation; you and others baited her and began this whole mess. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    I have the right to respond to discussions that involve me in some way. I am staying away from discussions that don't. I say again that the editor Kyle should be unblocked, without conditions and without restrictions. Ya got a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    I'm very close to having a problem with that Bugs, as we're discussing Selina's position and not yours. However now you've made your position clear, provided that is your last contribution to this thread I'm content. But the number of edit conflicts immediately after you dipped your toe back in this pond suggests your reappearance made a number of people very twitchy. You won't find the fourth power of the Sphinx mentioned on Wikipedia but it might be a good one to cultivate. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock—unless or until the community agrees on terms to unblock her going forward. Mistress Selina Kyle violated the conditions of her last return from a community-imposed block. I don't condone the baiting tactics, but BaseballBugs opened a door that she willingly walked through. She must take responsibility for those actions. Until she does, and the community allows her return, she's not welcome back yet, and Courcelles' original block should stand. SalopianJames was not in the right to unilaterally substitute his judgement for that of the community; the proper course of action would have been to initiate a community discussion with the goal to set limits (including the option of no limits) on extending a new option for Mistress Selina Kyle to return. Imzadi 1979 → 14:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The oddity with that user Kyle is that they were indef'd in June of 2006, yet somehow were able to edit on January 28th. Since then the block log looks like a ping-pong match. As regards "opening a door", I called the editor for making a false accusation against me. Perhaps I should have taken it to WQA instead of here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock - she's not here to improve the Encyclopedia. She's here to create and enhance drama. Her contribs before and after the previous community ban should make this obvious. Raul654 (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock - purely on the basis that the block may have been questionable from a procedural perspective. I have seen no evidence to disprove what Raul654 above has to say regarding MSKs propensity to create drama, and see little reason to assume that a further block will become necessary. I would of course like to be proven wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose unblock, reinstate community ban. Working backwards from the present here, we have:
  1. An admin who is patently unfamiliar with blocking policy unilaterally reversing the reinstatement of a community ban, which he failed to research the existence of, then repeatedly refusing to acknowledge or undo his wheel-warring and moving the goalposts until someone (not the blocking admin, for what that's worth) pointed out that admins have lost their bits for such actions.
  2. A previously community-banned user, unblocked with strict instructions to adhere to our behavioral guidelines, who within day or two commences violating those same behavioral guidelines in a series of ANI threads: Wikilawyering (attempting to characterise people's commentary about a website as personal attacks against her), accusing people of harassing her by commenting about Wikipedia Review, accusing admins of giving the "all clear" for a user to "insult" her, continuing to accuse users of trolling and harassment, more trolling. Again, this entire thing was set off by her wikilawyering in an attempt to shut down criticism of Wikipedia Review by claiming any commentary about the site was personal commentary about her, which is a bit amusing in light of this claim that she is "not WR" and "WR shouldn't even come into it". Each of these behaviors - wikilawerying, accusations of bad faith, accusations of harassment and trolling, accusations of conspiracy among admins - is a violation of our behavioral guidelines. Mistress Selina Kyle was offered an unban with the strict provision that she not violate our behavioral guidelines, and then went almost directly to the most visible drama board on the entire wiki and began agitating and violating those guidelines. She is patently in violation of her unban conditions, has used up the one strike the community offered her, and as such should be rebanned. I quite frankly can't see how any other conclusion could be reached. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • and this is why any unblock needs an accompanying topic ban from any topics related to Wikipedia Review, broadly constructed. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • AGF, as we all know, is not a suicide pact, Nobody Ent, and when a user has exhausted every drop of the community's AGF, and then five years later is lucky enough that the community is able to scrape up a smidge more AGF, and then proceeds to trample on that...AGF can be depleted, and we are not required to AGF to the detriment of Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The editor was repeatedly told that criticisms of WR do not qualify as a personal attack, yet the editor continued to repeat that claim. Does that fact nullify the good faith assumption? Or is it possible the editor truly did not understand the distinction? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The true power of AGF is that it doesn't matter; we can take the same action in either eventually and don't have to stress about it. Nobody Ent 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • @fluffernutter The number of support unblocks on this thread is irrefutable evidence MSK has in fact not exhausted every drop. Nobody Ent 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, as I posted above, having reread the policies (which I fully admit I should have done prior to this all kicking off rather than after), I realise the way I went about things was not correct, hence why we're now going through this. Again, as I said before, I'll be back off to the WP:NAS with an apple for the teacher. However, in response to the 'moving the goalposts' comment, the items I listed were what occurred, and the reasoning given for the block was violation of the unblock conditions. I failed, and still fail, so see how those two match up in any way. On another note, I know I personally would construe an attack on a website I ran as a personal attack, with a further point being that views on WR were irrelevant to that discussion. SalopianJames (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock: while Selina does have a rather quirky style (both in terms of prose and in terms of approach), I'm rather certain that she genuinely wants to help improve Wikipedia (IOW, she's not a member of the "hasten the day(tm)" faction on WR). To borrow a famous quote from a fictional book cover, she's "mostly harmless". --SB_Johnny | talk 16:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. At the very least, indef is completely out of proportions. In fact, I think we should focus more on the inappropriate action by the blocking admin here, it is much more worrisome. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock The editor has been blocked for several years. She appears to be genuinely trying to follow policy. The community and policies can change over time, she just needs time to get up to date on policies and guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. I wasn't around when the original block came in so I don't have the history. But based on the last few days even the most cynical interpretation of MSK's behaviour is that she came back after her community ban, tried to see how much room for manoeuvre she had and got the message really soon that she has none. Since then she has been the model of restraint; the cynic will argue she is just biding her time but if she is, we can of course (and will, I suspect) reinstate the ban instantly and permanently. But if the cynic is wrong and she can contribute productively then for as long as she does that I have no problem. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 16:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. I find the block well-intentioned but a misguided and overly strict interpretation of MSK's unblock/unban terms. It's quite possible she'll do something that warrants an indef but filing a couple of reports at AN/I isn't it. 28bytes (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. Discrepancy between crime and punishment "preventative measure". The Mistress will be on a tight leash anyway (hey, that's kind of saucy--I like it) given the attention this has received. It's a good time to start creating article content, Mistress. Annemarie van Haeringen, for instance, is still a redlink. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock. I understand that the block was given in part because drama was really escalating, but Bugs' block was shortened and I think letting MSK back is a good idea too. While she perhaps should have acted differently, she didn't do anything that makes me think she was acting out of bad faith/trolling us. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support unblock, obviously. Have already explained why in other places but basically there was no basis for the original block and in fact it was a good bit in the "blame the victim" (of personal attacks) spirit.VolunteerMarek 17:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • note - at this point the consensus for an unblocking is twenty four in support and six opposes. Youreallycan 20:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • mumbles something unclear about 4 to one not being consensus, involved admins, and various randomly-directed obscenities--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Given how contentious this series of unblock/block/unblock/block has been, I would really recommend that we stay away from calling an early consensus about anything and let the thread run for a minimum of 24 hours, especially since the blocking admin doesn't seem to have had a chance to weigh in yet. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I unblocked her. Let's get on with our lives. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can hear some more mumbling... Youreallycan 20:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Request for block explanation

Moved from discussion above Nobody Ent 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I would like to see a fuller explanation of the block by Courcelles, here, at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't know if he is online, but [20] [21] should be relevant. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I did read all of that, I would just like a summary after consideration. My initial reaction is that Courcelles, as an arb, should have considered that if MSK's conduct was that blatant, another admin would have taken care of the matter. In addition, Courcelles is a drafting arb in the Civility Enforcement case, in which there was an admin who unblocked without consultation a user who has been repeatedly unblocked by admins who did not consult with the blocking admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
        • And Risker, who blocked BB, is another drafting Arb in that case. Go figure! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
          • No. It's not the same thing. Courcelles has said he's considering filing a wheel warring complaint on SJ. He is a drafting arb in a case which will be precedent for that case if he files the complaint. I see a conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I haven't checked, but I would assume Courcelle's comment about a Wheel-war case was posted prior to SJ's corrective action above. SJ has corrected his actions, so there is nothing to answer for. Manning (talk) 10:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Manning, this whole mess could wind up in the lap of ArbCom, and SJ's actions could be an issue. There's an appearance issue, to my mind, and possibly an actual conflict.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) My "go figure!" puzzlement was over this part of Courcelles statement: "she [MSK] committed nearly all the personal attacks that were done, (being critical, even dismissive, ofsomeone's website is a far cry from attacking the person)", which implicitly disses Risker's block as hardly justified. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
              • With such a difference of opinion between arbitrators, we should probably consider ourselves lucky that arbitration is done by panel, rather than Judge Dredd-style =) TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Well, I'm not that shocked seeing arbitrators bitterly divided in an actual remedy vote, but I am a bit more surprised seeing two of the Civ Enforcement drafting Arbs applying principles the committee hasn't even published yet. And the two blocks were a bit Arb Dredd-style, given that an WP:IBAN between the drama protagonists was being proposed (by me) on ANI at that time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to all - As Ascii said above, let's embrace this new world of AN/I. The topic here is the unblock review. Discussions of arb motivations, arbcom cases, etc belong elsewhere. (I'll trout myself for my earlier comment about the wheel war, not helpful). Manning (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Manning, whether the blocking admin has or has created a conflict of interest is plainly relevant. However, this could be a separate subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Not that my opinion matters, but you'd have my full support for opening a separate discussion. I just think we all just need to work on reducing the chatter within threads. (And comments like this are just more chatter - so yet another trout for me)Manning (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back :-) — Ched :  ?  13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like to see justification for an indef block. What has MK done (diffs, please) that according couldn't have been handled by a warning, or even a short block, and instead needed, in his opinion, and indefinite block? Votes above clearly show that such an approach is not supported by the majority of the community. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • That's irrelevant. The nature of the lifting of the community ban was that infraction of the rules would lead to a reban. That's it. There is no mechanism to give a user a whole new set of chances in that case, and whether you or I agree or disagree with it doesn't matter; MSK accepted those conditions and then violated them. Everyone is taking some sort of moral indignation at the whole thing as the basis for unblock. Now, if MSK didn't like the conditions, she did not have to accept them. She did. For us to complain about that after the fact is pointless - if the deal was unfair, there was always a right of refusal. MSJapan (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This is my understanding too - that, per the provisions of her unban, any violation of behavioral guidelines, etc, would result in the ban being reapplied, according to the will of the community as expressed in her unban discussion. Courcelles would have been on much shakier ground attempting to apply a time-limited ban of some sort, because that would have been voiding the community's will to impose his own. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem with that interpretation is that it leaves no wiggle room for cases where the blocking admin is in clear error. I think form these discussions we're seeing a general disagreement that Selina violated much of anything. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Summary?

Sorry. Cleanup. The summary of the decision box at the top is unsigned and in otherways oddly phrased, but I don't know who to ask about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be Youreallycan, here. Probably just forgot to sign. I think 4-1 is a pretty solid endorsement, though. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. The question mark is odd then. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The question mark was an allude to the fact that WP:Consensus is not a vote - so technically, 6 to 1 still needs interpretation. I will sign it now. Youreallycan 21:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] ARS Canvassing at AfD

Although there is strong disagreement here I do believe all sides are sincere and genuinely believe they are doing the best for Wikipedia. This is not a topic on which consensus is likely and none has been achieved here. I am closing this as no consensus for action. It is an appropriate topic to raise at AN/I and in general the tone of the discussion has been civil - it's good to see disagreements can be brought here and aired without unnecessary drama. I don't doubt that eyes will continue to be kept on the areas of concern, but I would suggest that some time now elapses before a similar complaint is raised, unless there are significant new developments. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Per the suggestion of an admin I am focusing the issue with the Article Rescue Squadron on the specific AfD that prompted my previous report. Here is the deletion discussion. User:Northamerica1000 voted keep within hours of the AfD being listed, but this vote was followed by two delete votes. After three days with no activity on the AfD, North listed it at the Article Rescue Squadron. Looking at the discussion it is clear what the result of this was. Within minutes of commenting at the ARS list User:Milowent and User:Drmies, the admin who closed the previous ANI thread, each comment on the AfD. Drmies makes a clear keep vote and Milo leaves a comment that is clearly pushing for a keep. At the same time these editors are commenting, User:Dream Focus from the ARS also makes a clear keep vote. The timing is pretty straightforward, that after nearly three days with two delete votes to his one keep North decided to list this for rescue seems more like he was trying to stave off a likely delete. What happens after listing is evident, a clear shifting of the discussion towards "keep" as ARS members notice the listing of the article at the Wikiproject. I don't really see how this could not be interpreted as a violation of WP:CANVASS by North and it reinforces my concerns about this list being an inevitable tool for such canvassing. If you look at the article itself there is no indication of actual improvements to the article. Unfortunately this is the same sort of activity we saw with the rescue tag, which North was also accused of regularly using to canvass inclusionists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You aren't going to keep doing this every few days whenever someone disagrees with you on anything are you? The last ANI addressed this issue didn't it? [22] The arguments made by people, not the numbers that show up, are what are used to determine whether the article stays or goes. Do you believe the administrator Drmies is conspiring against you somehow? If he was truly up to something wouldn't he not participate in the AFD, but instead wait until it was time to close it and close it as keep? How many articles have you sent to AFD so far, and how many of them have ended in keep even when the ARS wasn't around? Dream Focus 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, someone could simply create an ADS (Article Demolition Squadron) and template AfD nominations they see as valid accordingly. In fact, they could use the ARS page in order to save time reviewing nominations for possible tagging. This would keep the playing field level without actually creating even more rules. Rklawton (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Upon closer examination, I see that WP:ADS is already taken. So I propose calling this new group "Article Rescue Squadron Exterminators" instead. Rklawton (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • [Sorry AQ, but I'm venting for a moment.] I may lose my temper here. The Devil's Advocate may not know me, but I am the mortal enemy of Dream Focus (BTW, DF, well put, above! thanks), and a longtime collaborator with Milowent. I am friends with User:MichaelQSchmidt, whose RfA I supported, and with whom I have turned many an all-too speedily nominated article into DYK. I am also, I guess, a deletionist of some sort--though Wikipedia Review lists me somewhere as an old ARSer. I participate occasionally on their pages, usually playing the devil's advocate (yes), most recently here. I got close to a hundred thousands edits on my belt. The Devil's Advocate seems to think that I'm some kind of pussy who purrs keep when poked by Northamerica1000 (I think our dislike of each other is well-established) or when some article appears on a list. Bullshit. (Anthony, I pre-dacted myself--I wanted to say worse.)

    That this list would be "canvassing" is total crap. I don't see why the ARS shouldn't have a right to list some (not all!) articles that they think are worth saving. Every WikiProject that's current and active does that, and Northamerica has every right to make this list and maintain--I can only hope that they do a decent job of selecting what's worth saving; some of you will recall they got slammed for tagging every other article with the Rescue tag, for which I took them to task as well. Devil's Advocate, I don't give a good g-----n for your concerns, and if you had been conscientious you would have looked around to see the other "votes" I engaged in following from that list, such as a "Merge" and delete (but I would leave that up to the closing admin) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Leopard (newspaper). Or you could use Snotty's tool to see how I vote in AfDs, or some other fancy tool that says how I close them. I find this accusation directed at me repugnant, and I find the whole issue, of this list on one of their own pages, to be moot, vindictive, and baseless. Grrr! I'm sorry if I lost my temper. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not seeing consensus for close. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#archivetop_and_collapse_tags Nobody Ent 18:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The "ARS is canvassing" claim has been brought up repeatedly at AN/I recently. It's time to drop the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe if the problem repeatedly being reported was not continuing, there would be no need to keep reporting it. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a user conduct dispute. It more than likely requires some form of mediation. However, ANI is not the place for that. There is no immediate administrative action needed. The Devil's Advocate needs to actually try to discuss the issues with the other involved parties before running off to ANI to file complaints. He keeps filing reports, and he keeps getting told that ANI is not the place to discuss the problem. He still has not discussed the problem with the other involved editors outside of ANI and he is still filing reports. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Canvassing is an ANI matter as it's disruptive, and admin action may well be appropriate. While one might view repeat filing as redundant, another might view it as providing evidence as to the scope and seriousness of the problem. Rklawton (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, canvassing can be dealt with. With that said, this editor has filed three reports in the past three weeks. A new report is opened right after the previous discussion closes. He has been told that there is no alleged canvassing, and that if he has a problem with a particular ARS member, he should bring the issue to their attention. He has not done this, he just keeps filing reports. This unwillingness to engage the editors in a talk page conversation, running straight to ANI, is disruptive and a waste of other editor's time. On the top of this noticeboard it states: "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." He is yet to follow that requirement. There is no immediate concern here that requires immediate administrative action. If he can't resolve the dispute through reasonable discussion, then he should try a dispute resolution process. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
As Rk notes, WP:CANVASS is very much a user conduct issue that is something for admin intervention, especially when it comes to repeat offenses by an editor. Your comment about discussion is not accurate. When I first brought ARS up on ANI I did try to discuss beforehand to no avail and clearly the discussion a few weeks ago at ANI and the TfD have not gotten across to North. An admin, Salvio, suggested that I file a new report here following the close of the last one that focused on the specific case regarding the AfD above and so I did. I must say that a member of the group that is being mentioned here should not be jumping in to close the discussion ten minutes after it opens, then reclose it four minutes after an editor re-opens it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
At some point NA1K is going to get himself blocked. I don't know when that day is, but his conduct wears even on his supporters as I've seen on WT:ARS. Just be patient. At some point, the ARS itself is going to open one of these threads about him.--v/r - TP 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
That's possible (that block)--but I thought (though I might be wrong, it is hard to tell) that this was a complaint about the very existence of the list. If The Devil's Advocate wants to accuse Na1000 of canvassing, they'll have to do better than point at the existence of the list. As it is, they seem to be arguing that because Na1000 posted something on the list and Milowent and I voted for something, therefore it's canvassing. But as far as that concerns me and my behavior, they'd have to prove that I am likely to vote keep on things I'm being canvassed for--and that I have a reputation of voting keep. Anyone with half a brain/memory knows that most of my votes on AfDs are directly opposed to An1000's. In fact, if Na1000 would contact me, directly or indirectly, about some AfD, they'd be less likely to be canvassing. You'll note the glaring absence of Na1000's messages on my talk page. I've been on theirs, to give them a piece of my mind about those rescue tags. Now doesn't that prove that the current complaint, in all its vagueness, simply holds no water? Drmies (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I see that you made two comments on January 11th in attempt to resolve the first issue, which ultimately failed. The issue did not require immediate administrator action, and should have been taken to WP:WQA. If that had failed, then it should have been taken to ANI or to an RFC/U. Instead you have filed thee different ANI reports on the Article Rescue Squadron, rather than a particular editor.

While the user is a member of the ARS, the problem is with a particular editor, and the report should be on that particular editor. As was discussed on the last ANI thread, the Article rescue squadron is not about canvassing keep !votes, the purpose of the project is to cleanup articles on potentially notable topics. There are quite a few WikiProject that use Article Alerts, which notifies the entire project of project related articles up at AfD. It allows editors interested in the topic to work on potentially notable articles up for deletion. Sometimes it results in the article being kept, sometimes it results in the article being deleted.

The concern you originally brought up on the 11th had nothing to do with ARS canvassing. The issue you brought up was over the fact that he notified all editors that contributed to the article's talk page which is technically canvassing. With that said, the problem was not the ARS, it was a particular editor. The other two incidents you reported did not even attempt to resolve the dispute first. The list you are so concerned about being a canvass board was taken to MfD. There was a strong consensus there to keep the board and that it did not constitute canvassing. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at that again, I said plainly that the rescue tag skewed the discussion and requested that he notify other outside editors to balance the discussion. That editor's response was to say there was nothing wrong with using the tag. Honestly, the fact North created the list within a day of the rescue tag getting deleted and is already using it like this is enough reason to question whether the list should remain. After looking over the MfD for the list I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be re-opened. Five of the twelve keep votes came from ARS members like yourself, one vote was nothing more than a keep vote with the comment "you've got to be kidding me", two votes from non-ARS members claimed there was no policy-based reason for deletion (even though in the TfD on the rescue tag the closing admin plainly said canvassing was such a reason), and two other voting editors do not appear to be impartial. That these votes were used to close the MfD within two hours is an oversight I think. Of course, it helps to demonstrate exactly how an AfD can be quickly dispensed with by a flood of editors and why "immediate" action should be taken.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, the fact North created the list within a day of the rescue tag getting deleted and is already using it like this is enough reason to question whether the list should remain. Apparently it's also a reason to assume bad faith, too. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Where do you get an assumption of bad faith exactly? North created the list and is using it essentially as a way to canvass keep votes. Saying an editor is doing something wrong is not assuming bad faith.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
@Drmies North's addition of it to the list clearly had the result of skewing the voting towards at least no consensus away from a delete vote. You can say that it would be up to the admin and that consensus is not about counting votes but the reality is that enough votes one way tend to be more convincing than a few good arguments in the other direction. Rather than waiting to see if the result of canvassing is as desired or if a closing admin sees through the canvassing, when it is not plainly noted is not something that should be expected of any editor.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, do you prefer that this perfectly legitimate list (your arguments about that MfD are silly) be written in invisible ink? Better yet, shall we keep the log secret so that those ARSers don't know what's up for AfD? Invisible AfD templates? Or maybe a topic ban for Northamerica? and me?

I don't know why you're talking about a tag, up above. The tag is gone. I didn't participate in the AfD; I don't think it was so canvassy, but I do think that Na1000 used it haphazardly, inappropriately, and uselessly. But the tag is gone. So now the poor ARSers have nothing but a list, and you want that taken away? Drop the stick, The Devil's Advocate: this is getting tedious. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • What a misguided ANI to bring. DA's beef has to do with the ARS flagging an article for further examination that has in turn improved the quality of the AfD discussion, instead of leaving it to the random fate that awaits many borderline articles depending on which 3-5 editors show up to comment. This article, in fact, is likely to be deleted and at least it will be deleted after a fair hearing. DA claims: "Milo leaves a comment (at the AFD) that is clearly pushing for a keep." Really? If I wanted to keep the article I would have !voted keep. My comment, in fact, pointed out that some of the delete votes were weak on their rationale and incorrect about the amount of local/regional coverage of the restaurant in the press. And my transparent comment at ARS pointed out that the ability to rescue the article was questionable. I stated "As notable as Mzoli's? There is not a lot of consistency at AFD on single-location restaurants, as best I can recall, its often just a WP:GNG debate unless its Michelin or similarly rated (see my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L'Auberge (restaurant) for Michelin notability). The number of local stories on it [23] does show local popularity." If this is an incident of horror to be condemned, please shackle me, dear comrade editors. I ask DA to assume a little more good faith; he is free to comment in any AfD regarding any votes he think were "canvassed," but I think his real fear is that his nominations might sometimes be proven hasty, otherwise what does one have to fear from examination?--Milowent • hasspoken 02:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, note that there is significant precedent for Wikiprojects to maintain Cleanup lists. See This search for a search list of cleanup listings that numerous WikiProjects maintain. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Now that ARS follows the same conventions as other porjects (i.e. off the article page, manual list, notification of listing in the Afd) all my concerns have mostly vanished. I take into account the effect that this listings have when closing an AfD, and beleive that this would be common practice in any closer who is not simply counting noses. Propose this thread be closed. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any problem with ARS (including with this specific complaint) now that their obnoxious tag is gone. The solution here is for everyone who hates ARS to simply watchlist the list themselves. If you think they are crusading to save a bunch of crappy articles, just put your own opinions on the same AFDs (within reason, of course). Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - For shit's sakes, this is the stupidest ANI whine in recent memory. AfD is not a vote. 500 vapid "votes" for keep SHOULD be defeated by one intelligent argument for deletion if the closing administrator is doing their job. And, by the same token, 15 people braying "delete" should lose a debate with a well constructed defense. AfD is not a VOTE, it is a TRIAL. Five attorneys do not trump one if their case is weak and the judge is following the law. Why does it matter if ANYONE "canvases"? It shouldn't. The facts of a situation are the facts. Sources are sources. Rationality would deem some things necessary and others inappropriate. Have a little faith in the system, please. ARS has been kneecapped by a very bad decision to eliminate their Rescue template lately. It will take some time for them to reestablish themselves on a new basis. Give them a break. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Time to close. There is nothing here that requires administrative action. I suggest that ARS be set up with a delsort page just as do other projects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With a heavy sigh, I'm "unclosing" this. (See my talk page.) I'd also stress that putting a little box around a discussin is an edit that, like almost all others, isn't owned. So if you think someone has closed wrongly, please be bold and unclose, with a little note that says why. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Assuming even that the AfD closes with a keep, someone who disagrees would still have two good ways of proceeding, the easiest of which is to nominate it again in 6 months or so, and the more complicated alternative is to use deletion review. Since the AfD was at the time of posting and still is ongoing, an even better way is to continue to discuss it there--and indeed, DA, you actually and properly made a further comment in the discussion as well as your nomination before coming here. Given your comment has now been followed by 6 straight delete opinions, 2 before you came here and 4 afterwards, it is hard to see why you would be complaining. When an AfD discussion goes the way I think it ought to go, I don't usually complain about it. Even if I don't like what someone said there, if I get done what I want to get done it usually satisfies me. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • This discussion, despite the good faith of all involved, seems to me to be a whole lot of nothing. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm thoroughly confused as to what valid concern there could be. WP:CANVASS says that notifications are appropriate if they're "Limited posting AND Neutral AND Nonpartisan AND Open". Posting to one page is pretty limited. The [24] shows the notification was phrased in neutral terms discussing reliability of sources and asking for more reliable sources. I suppose you might consider it partisan if you thought that membership of ARS is equivalent to asserting that you believe every article should be kept, but that'd be like believing that membership of Wikiproject Glub is equivalent to asserting that you believe every article about Glub varieties should be kept. Membership of ARS only means believing that some articles should be improved so that everyone will want to keep them (hence asking for more reliable sources). And finally, obviously it was posted openly (though repeatedly bringing up spurious complaints about canvassing seems like a brilliant plan for driving ARS underground). Being an ARS member myself (when I feel the urge to research-and-fix, it's quicker browsing a list of articles someone already thinks are worth saving than the list of articles someone thinks are worth deleting) no doubt I'm biased, but really, what exactly is the problem with someone asking a bunch of people who like to research-and-fix, "Here's this article that can be fixed by adding reliable sources, can someone do that?" --Zeborah (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Were it only about fixing articles or establishing their notability that would be one thing. From what I can tell this is the only Wikiproject devoted to reaching a specific outcome in an ongoing deletion discussion. The whole theme of the group suggests it is an audience that is likely to be more favorable to inclusion than others. Honestly, who doesn't want to "rescue" stuff? That you are rescuing "knowledge" makes it even more compelling. When a group has as its set purpose preventing the deletion of articles it covers it is hard to see why anyone would think that is the same as a group of film aficionados directing people to AfDs that concern movies. Really that is directing a group of people who are well-versed in the subject on Wikipedia to judge whether something fits the relevant notability criteria. The specific problem here is, as I noted above, North lists this apparently several days after voting keep when the discussion was favoring delete and the result was that several editors stepped in to vote keep. At the same time North made no noteworthy contributions to the article, nor did any other editors popping into the AfD. So it wasn't a case of "research-and-fix" at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you comment on the fact that 2 of the first 3 items in the AR List have drawn ARS responses amounting to "they're not notable" -- including one such response from NorthAmerica1000? I'm not counting my own Delete vote (and delete-leaning comment at the List) regarding Sal's Pizza (which is, as an aside, a complete joke for an article subject). As I say below, if this is a keeps-only canvassing machine, it's obviously not working. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Some people are terrible at making insults, it doesn't change that they are insults. I think there is an obvious question of intent and ultimate effect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not following. Is this ANI intended to be about NA1K's conduct or a(nothernothernothernother) review of ARS practices in general and the List in particular? If the former, I have no comment -- I'm unfamiliar with controversial behavior on NA1K's part. If the latter, I have to suggest that you reconsider that POV, given that Lists such as this are firmly grounded in precedent and policy, and given that there are a number of articles listed on that List where ARS members have chimed in to basically say that the subject looks hopelessly non-notable and that there's nothing to be done. If it's a keep vote canvassing tool, it's certainly a very weird and ineffective one. I have absolutely no idea if there is an issue specific to NA1K regarding canvassing, but the canvassing argument with regard to the ARS and the Rescue List has gotten so weak as to border on give-me-a-fucking-break territory. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It is hard to distinguish the two honestly, especially when members of the group tend to circle the wagons every time this sort of issue gets brought up. What makes it even harder to distinguish the two is the fact that North created the list in the first place. Here I think you should look at the specific case. Does it not seem clear that discussion was trending towards delete at the time of its listing? Does it not seem clear that the effect of the listing was a marked increased in editors pushing for the article to be kept? Given the listing was at a group specifically about moving deletion discussions towards keep does it not seem clear that this effect was the result of appealing to a skewed sample of editors?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This I understand, and that is a reasonable reply. I have certainly noticed the same circling-of-wagons behavior in the past, although I suggest you consider what effect your continued crusade is going to have on the amount of wagons in the circle. Nonetheless, with specific regard to Sal's apparently fantastic Pizza (good pizza in Dallas; pish), I see the ARS listing drawing a keep vote from Dream Focus (shocker!), who basically has yet to meet non-notable subject he didn't want to keep. I also see a qualified Keep vote from Drmies. I also see a Delete vote from ARS member Ginsengbomb, and I see Drmies basically reversing himself afterwards, followed by a string of delete votes. This well-oiled keep canvass machine managed 1 Keep, 1 semi-reversed Weak Keep, and 1 Delete. So, no, in this specific case, I don't see something hideous and sinister happening. The group is very clearly not specifically about "moving deletion discussions towards keep." It is about moving deletion discussions towards keep when there's a valid reason for doing so. That's a significant distinction. And, again, if you're going to focus this on Sal's Pizza, focus it on Sal's Pizza, because your argument taken to the List and to the ARS as a whole looks extremely weak when you consider that Keep votes don't come flooding in unless there are ARS members who actually think the article should be kept. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - Just so it isn't missed by anyone, please note that the ARS Rescue list was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2012, and the result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. Furthermore, the nominator later commented regarding their nomination on the Rescue list talk page located here. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    I don't find any "snow" decisions made 2 hours after something is posted very compelling.--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • [25] I've read through all of the above. The only thing I see is continual waving of the stick. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • comment the key difference I see between an ARS notification list and a project notification list is that ARS has a specific agenda in regards to AfDs. While we expect the projects themselves to be interested in those topics and possibly capable of giving more expert opinions on the subjects or finding sources if necessary, we don't necessarily expect them to argue for keep on every single article. On the other hand, we do expect that of ARS, and just as if there were a Wikiproject:Deletionists group, it would be inappropriate for them to create a similar kind of notification system. One of the ideas behind canvas is to avoid notifying people specifically because you know how they'll !vote. They are a partisan group. This is votestacking per the table on WP:CANVAS--Crossmr (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator observation) and comment:
    • The {{Rescue}} template was deleted because, from my reading of the discussion, there was a consensus it was used indiscriminately; the template was viewed as disruptive, as it was used all over the place and regardless of the merits of its application.
    • Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list was SNOW kept. It's one list, in the one place, and closely watched. It was not in any way of the magnitude of the disruption to the project that {{Rescue}} was argued to be. And as it stands, it a useful reference for both the Article Rescue Squadron and those of a more deletionist tendency.
  • In legalese, "in the matter of interlocutory application The Devil's Advocate v Article Rescue Squadron and Anors [WP:AN/I 794] I agree with my brother Bushranger J. that this serves only to re-agitate matters already decided in other tribunals, and must be dismissed."
  • In plain terms: The TfD is over. the MfD is over. Nothing more to do or see here. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] User:Twomorerun

User warned for final time that talk pages must be used to discuss disputed edits. Short block will follow if user refuses to do so again. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Twomorerun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

  • Username is created at 3:13, 8 February 2012
  • Like Athena from the head of Zeus, user arrives full-grown, with full Wiki-knowledge
  • First edit: 03:14, 8 February 2012, with edit summary: "clarity/redundancy/pov fixes"
  • user begins editing rapidly (eg. 51 edits in the first hour and six minutes)
  • most of the user's edits are to remove descriptive adjectives from the lede sentence of articles, even when sourced [26]
  • other editors revert Twomorerun's edits, put warnings on his user talk page [27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32]
  • templates are removed as "vandalism" [33],[34]
  • Twomorerun "retires", puts "retirement" template on user page [35], redirects talk page to user page [36]
  • "Retirement" last 6 hours and 9 minutes, plunges into undoing other editors' reversions of his edits, without discussion except in edit summaries, continuing new edits per his previous pattern
  • more warnings on his talk page [37],[38],[39], plus a suggestion that he needs to talk about his edits on the talk page not just in edit summaries [40]
  • the editor tries to have his talk page deleted, [41],[42], but his speedy is turned down [43]
  • editor has still not responded to any comment on his talk page


This editor has a long history of editing with precisely the same pattern, as an IP, beginning (at least) in August 2008:


That takes it up to October 2011

So far as I know, this editor has never responded to the many, many requests for discussion made on their talk pages. Discussion between editors is an essential part of the collegial Wikipedia process. I can certainly understand that discussions, once started, can become unproductive and are sometimes better shut down than continued, but never talking to any editor who has problems or concerns with your editing is not something that we should allow to continue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the editor. Also, note that the person attempting to interact with the IPs on their talk pages is me, under my original ID. (See this for an explanation). Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • BMK makes a convincing case. I've checked with some IP edits, and they agree in content and style. There is no doubt in my mind that we're dealing with an obsessive editor who is likely to sock. I'd like to hear what they have to say, but I am also interested in hearing whether the community would block for the editing behavior in the first place (even without the IPs). Drmies (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If I have the timeline right, Twomorerun's response to my notifiying them of this discussion was to request that their user page be deleted, and also that the page I had assembled this information on be deleted. (It's already been deleted at my request -- once I had filed the report, I had no further need of it.)

    To be clear, I am not making the argument that Twomorerun's edits are all problematic: some are, some aren't, some are debatable. But it is incumbent on an editor to discuss their edits when disputes or concerns arise, and not simply to plow ahead and then move on to another IP (or another ID?) when things heat up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Not that it is ground for action, but I find it odd that their speedy deletion request on their talk page was made with an edit summary of "for privacy/safety reasons and to avoid harassment." They did remove valid inline citations: [44] and [45]. And then the removal of the same reference over and over on the same article, Phillip Johnson: [46], [47], [48], [49] that supported the architect as being influential in his field. Violated WP:3RR also on Phillip Johnson article, but did undo their own 3rd revert. Altairisfar (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Template:Music of Canada

Apparently a misunderstanding. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Editor Roux created a !vote section with this language:

Since Miesianiacal is unable to provide a single source from the government claiming that GSTQ is official in any way, and it is agreed that the song has no more legal status in Canada than Happy Birthday (a song in far wider daily use than GSTQ, and an assertion supported by an actual source from the only organization on the planet able to comment definitively on legal and/or official status), GSTQ simply should not be included in this template

I observed his language was not neutral and changed it to:

Should the song "God Save the Queen" be excluded as the royal anthem of Canada in the navbox Template:Music of Canada?

Roux reverted my neutral language. I request admin intervention to restore neutral language, and a block of Roux if his disruption persists. – Lionel (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you go back and look at the history. If you were to do so--I know, I know, it's a lot to ask Wikipedians to be informed before they wade in and start whining--you would note that I had not one fucking thing to do with adding that RfC tag, and the section I created was made quite some time before that tag was placed on the page. But, jeez, that would mean you'd have had to actually pay attention to a) timestamps, b) history, c) my edit summary. → ROUX ₪ 04:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I did read the page. You still have time to make your !vote language neutral before the entire community arrives and begins commenting. – Lionel (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I was unclear. Let's try this again:
I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PLACING THE RFC TAG. THE RFC TAG WAS PLACED BY MIESIANIACAL SOME TIME AFTER I MADE THE NEW SECTION. I NEVER HAD ANY INTENT TO CREATE AN RFC.
Do you understand yet? → ROUX ₪ 04:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A) The content issue isn't going to get resolved here, that's what talk pages are for. 2) Roux is about to get a warning from me for civility, and possibly a few more will be handed out. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Appears to be a simple misunderstanding + nothing good will come out of reporting this matter on ANI. Closing. —Dark 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Death threat

Sock & open proxy blocked. EyeSerenetalk 09:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

See [57]. Similar edits to those made by recently-blocked Death to leftists and Arabs (talk · contribs). The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably related to 96.49.76.98 (talk · contribs). The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Blocked by Bongwarrior. 28bytes (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Case of LTA. Just report these to AIV directly and quickly rollback with no questions asked, next time.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed as being the Grawp/JDH dude. I've just blocked an open proxy - Alison ❤ 08:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Canvassing

IP user has been warned about canvassing and Nocturnal had added some advice on the title war at the article talk page. The article itself may indeed be a candidate for WP:AFD but we can leave the decision to nominate or not to individual editors. No further admin action required. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

Two groups of users are constantly arguing over the name of the page Ermenikend, I tried combining both names to help both sides reach a consensus but the users kept going on with one name they prefer, I didn't take neither of their sides as I'm not interested in warring with them. But I noticed this contributor, 88.224.158.240 mass messaging users talk pages which is going to cause more trouble by his disruptive behavior, I noticed he might be violating this rule: Wikipedia:Canvassing. Nocturnal781 (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

They've been bickering for a month about what amounts to a transliteration dispute (not even a name dispute) on an "unofficial district" with no sources at all, never mind any that attest to its notability. As it is the article is worthless, and if no-one is making a good faith attempt to actually improve it into an acceptable stub, it needs to go to AfD. 87.113.204.4 (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
You HAVE to notify editors if you discuss them here; I have done so for you. GiantSnowman 10:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
User given some advice about what is, and what is not, acceptable. If they continue after that warning, then please let us know. However, 87.113.204.4's point is extremely valid - the introduction of reliable sources to verify your information would make this all so, so much easier. GiantSnowman 10:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree he has valid points. On the talk page the use of the name is discussed by users but they can't come to a consensus. I just used the talk page to hopefully help them. Thank you! Nocturnal781 (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Reversed file deletion - more opinions, please

I just restored File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg, which was promoted to Featured Picture on Feb 6, while Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 February 2#File:Girls Generation 2012.jpg was running. Fastily closed that as delete, because a redirect had been created on Commons to make it english-searchable, which was the main objection raised at the FfD. However, since it was a featured picture, I have restored it. Should the FPC take precedence here and require another discussion before deletion, or should we just go with delete-as-dup-of-Commons anyway? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Does a featured picture have to be posted on enwp, or can it be at commons? If the latter then I see no problem with it being deleted. I'm pretty sure I've gotten images featured that were only on commons... all we had here was the page indicating it was featured. Now, if you're talking about the article for the picture, rather than the picture itself? I say keep it, otherwise we have no indicator it's featured. But the picture itself could probably go away. --Golbez (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
This English-language-titled image was created to satisfy WP:IFN (an enwp-specific guideline) in that a title name be "descriptive or at least readable". FPC determined that a Korean title does not satisfy this guideline, and since Commons would not rename the file and instead suggested the use of {{Do not move to Commons}} on the enwp file with a rationale for the redundancy, this file was created and eventually promoted to FP status. Given the IFN guideline, I think this file should stay. —Eustress talk 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
As I noted above, there's now a redirect on Commons that gives the picture an English-language title. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If the picture is now searchable using the Commons redirect, I'd delete the local copy. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I outlined at the deletion discussion, FPs also have pages created for them on en-wiki for different related templates and categories. With the redirect, theoretically this could be on the Korean-named page as well. However, the title of the page will not display for readers without support for Korean characters. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] NewsAndEventsGuy changing votes to Keep in an AfD

No admin action needed. User has been approached on his talk page and has not repeated the edit. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

In [58] NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs) turns a comment into a keep vote. Specifically, this AfD had been prematurely closed, then got reopened. One user didn't seem to realise it had only run a few hours, and posted.

  • Abuse of process - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. Greglocock (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy changes this to:

(Keep) Abuse of process - the correct conclusion from the above AfD was a keep, by my count. I know wiki is not a democracy. Greglocock (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC) To facilitate the discussion I added the keep to this comment.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "Keep" is what the user would have voted; but the user is clearly unaware of the reason why the AfD was relisted, so it would be for him to say, not someone who's known to promote the article up for deletion. He modifies a couple other comments as well. 86.** IP (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree adding keep to someone else's comment is a very bad thing to do. Let the closing admin decide how to consider their comment or ask the person who commented for clarification. Nil Einne (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to note, he was notified but has now removed the notice. He has instead User_talk:Greglocock#Your_abuse_of_process_.21vote canvassed the user, trying to get him to vote Keep 86.** IP (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Abuse of process is indeed the right description for the AFD, and 86's actions William M. Connolley (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, WMC, still think that WP:NPA doesn't apply to you, I see. 86.** IP (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] WP:RFPP

Issue is taken care of, thanks also to a run-through by Fastily (thanks!). Thanks also to Zagalejo. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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.

It would be very helpful to get some more eyes at WP:Requests for page protection. Unless I'm misinterpreting the timestamps, some of those requests have been sitting there for over a day. Zagalejo^^^ 22:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Salvio is on the case, it seems. Drmies (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Can that page be reset so that granted (and denied) requests don't stay on there for days on end? I hate looking at it, it takes time to load, and it's often hard to look through to find requests that haven't been dealt with yet. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[edit] Persistent off-wiki and cross-wiki harassment / Community ban proposal

Please see m:Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale, history http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Gwen_Gale&action=history. Meta wiki is not a place to appeal disputes from en-Wikipedia. ArbCom is the final level of dispute resolution. Two editors are carrying a dispute way beyond it's logical end, and have created an attack page on Meta for the sole purpose of defaming a Wikipedia contributor.

I would like the community to confirm that the following indef blocked editors are community banned from en-Wikipedia. This will help put an end to their activities on Meta.

Thank you. Jehochman Talk 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled why the folks over at meta are allowing that RfC to proceed there. It seems like a really bad precedent to set. 28bytes (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We have an official response from a m:global sysop [60]. Basically, it's allowed. I think the next logical step is to go on meta and start a RfC on the purpose of [meta] RfCs. Any single editor apparently can start a RfC on meta. Not even a co-certifier is needed. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That global sysop needs to have their bit removed by WMF. Meta is not a place for defamation of character. ArbCom is the final appeal on en-Wikipedia, not meta. A banned user may not carry a gripe from here to there. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
RFCs should not be defamatory, regardless of where they're located.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
A user's global sysop-flag has no bearing on the import of his/er statements, either way. So there's no flag to be removed. (I also removed the section-header, as this is no "official" response.)Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, so global sysops are not meta sysops? How can we get a meta sysop to respond? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed they are not. Meta-sysops are few, list is here. But they hardly ever do anything about the RfC's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Before you start a new Votes for Banning, consider this. Our collective inability to ignore silliness probably causes more "drama" on Wikipedia than anything else, by an order of magnitude. A meta RFC is completely meaningless; it will have zero effect here. Let anyone who wants to waste their time on it do so. Creating a similarly powerless section about it here was 100% the wrong tack to take. See Streisand effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Disagree. We need to take a stand against the harassment of our editors. Anybody thinking of copying Mbz1's tactics needs to understand, clearly, that they are just digging themselves into a deeper hole. Ignoring such harassment is not a good idea. Jehochman Talk 03:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Support community ban for Mbz1. An editor whose positive contributions were warmly appreciated here and all over the world, but, sadly, also an editor who does not fit into en.wiki's model of working together to build an encyclopedia. The negative contributions - in terms of disruption - were repeated and overwhelming. The involvement in the off-wiki email canvassing ring and the DYK fraud was the last straw as far as I was concerned, but the off-wiki (and on-wiki?) hate campaigns have continued unabated since then. It's time to draw it all to a close, I hope.

I have never encountered the other named editor. If it's the same person, a community ban applies to both of them and any futher accounts they may make, so it's irrelevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support Full siteban for both Mbz1 and Malcolm Schosha. I vaguely recall the latter has been a part of other offiste harrassment and threat campaigns in the past, and in spite of this it looks like someone was nice to him, renamed his account and added noindex tags to his userpages. (UPDATE: I see Malcolm Schocha is already community banned from Wikipedia via his User:Kwork account. Of course, nobody realizes this because someone went around and hid all the evidence. I'm sorry, but I'm undoing this. Night Ranger (talk) 03:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Unless they are handed a m:global ban from all WMF sites, this won't make any difference in their activities on meta. But I suppose a local en.wiki ban is a necessary first step in that direction. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • That's what I meant, I don't think a ban from en-wiki extends to meta, but that's for them to figure out over there. Night Ranger (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Night Ranger, when you say "someone went around and hid all the evidence", do you mean on English Wikipedia? I remember being told that I would likely be banned if I posted the evidence about the canvassing ring and DYK fraud, but were administrative actions taken on this wiki to hide that sort of thing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, it sure appears someone went out of their way to hide his identity and connection to the Kwork account. I'm not provy to what happened, but as far as I can tell from looking back through the block log and userpage histories: (1) The account Kwork was banned in 2009. (2) The editor later came back with the Malcolm Schocha account and proceeded to get involved in the I-P areas, apparently taking part in some off site harassment of administrators (this last part I also read about on WR of all places, where Schocha briefly participated). Anyway, the MS account was blocked, then it was later apparently renamed to Kwork2, and the MS account was recreated and blocked. I also vaguely recall him lobbing some legal threats around to try and get the MS account renamed... who knows why. This is all going back a couple years or so and I wasn't really active here at the time. Anyway I tagged the sockmaster and sock accounts appropriately so people can see the connection. If you look back through the edit histories you can see what was done and who did it. Night Ranger (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


    • (ec) That's right. This discussion won't have any effect. So you need to go to meta and institute a global ban. As far as en.wiki, they are already dead, but you can't make anyone "deader". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support site ban for Mbz1. It's clear that when an editor continues a dispute after all en.wp DR means have been exhausted, and this includes our ArbCom, [62] they effectively place themselves outside of the English Wikipedia community. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the WP:List of banned users he was banned in 2009 for abusive sockpuppetry. Seems he came back with a new account Malcolm Schosha, which was then blocked and at some point it was renamed to Kwork2 and then someone went and added noindex tags to the userpages. Anyway, I added the sock tags so now people can actually see the connection between these accounts instead of staggering around blind. Night Ranger (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Schosha, aka Kwork and Kwork2, was just a run-of-the-mill I-P topic area troll/warrior and frequent enabler of Mbz1, little more. He showed up at Meta just to assist. Honestly the entire site there is like some bizarre Dances With Wolves-esque outpost that pretty much everyone's forgotten except for the loyal ones left behind. I tried to make use of their deletion process to bring and end to the harassment but it lasted all of 6 minutes. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Users are a net negative to the WMF as a whole, not just en.wiki. Tarc (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I will support a ban for Mbz1 since I remember their time-sinking, unhelpful, and beyond-tedious battles, but a quick look around has failed to find the pages I recall. If anyone has some links (particularly for the other editor), please post them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks to someone for finally informing me of this discussion. While I am a global sysop, my opinion nor the opinion of any Meta administrator is important. One of the primary reasons that RfCs exist is to resolve unresolved conflicts or issues on other Wikimedia projects, and I personally believe this to be one of them. While I do not necessarily agree with the comments being made (or more correctly their relevance), I do see this as an issue which is being dismissed here off of hand. I don't edit here so I could easily be mistaken, but either way, surely a simple refuting of the evidence presented there would solve the problem. On a related note, quite a few Meta sysops also agree with me as seen here. On aside, this has nothing to do with my gs flag which is only used to fight vandalism and maintain small wikis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, you are seriously uninformed and mistaken. This is not an unresolved dispute. It is an obsessive, harassing, banned user going after a good faith volunteer beyond all reason and fair process. This dispute has no reason at all to be heard on meta. As a sysop, you should not take a decision without first fully informing yourself of the facts. In this matter you have enabled serious harassment. Please correct your error. Jehochman Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      • No, s/he has not enabled anything, it's not in Ajraddatz's scope as I pointed out before. So drop that "sysop"-talk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If folks can be sanctioned for what they do on other websites then there are a bunch of WR contributors who'll have a lot to answer for. I think that might be a good idea, but I just want to make sure that folks know the proposed action here would set a precedent.   Will Beback  talk  04:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Users can be sanctioned for serious off-wiki harassment. Moreover, I dispute the idea that en-wiki must ignore harassment occurring on a sister WMF project. Jehochman Talk 04:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support ban. Carrying disputes across Wikis does seem to be a problem here; just recently Mbz1 badgered me on Commons about a past grievance related to this project.  Sandstein  08:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Addressing the systemic concern

Just a sidenote: The above discussion contains a quote that was taken from a comment I made about the origins of Meta. Few Wikipedians would know that Meta was originally set up to handle all policy, policy discussions, noticeboards, disputes, etc for Wikipedia. This was around October 2001, several months before we had the Wikipedia namespace. When the Wikipedia namespace was created in 2002 there were a few of us (eg. Larry Sanger, myself) who actively campaigned for keeping all non-article-related material on Meta. Obviously we lost that debate, all policies moved into the WP namespace, Larry left the project (for unrelated reasons) shortly afterwards in mid-2002, and it's never been an issue since (so much so that most people don't even know that was ever the case). I was quoted as if I was currently agitating for a fundamental change to how WP works, whereas in reality I was simply relating a bit of ancient history. Manning (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] User:Orangewhitegreen

Resolved: 1 week block for disruption Manning (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Orangewhitegreen (talk · contribs), despite being warned, engages in WP:IDHT-style disruption via unsourced, self-referential, and/or anti-consensus edits ([63], [64], [65], etc); at least one bears a sarcastically arrogant edit summary ([66]) which indicates that this user knows that what he/she is doing, and that it is wrong. The key issue here is the willfully recrudescent and sloppy insertion and reinsertion of "sources" consisting of naked URLs to Wikipedia pages despite multiple specifically worded warnings issued over an extended period of time by several editors. He/she also continues to specifically target and repeatedly overturn painstakingly discussed and long-standing talk-page consensuses ([67], [68], [69], etc). A block would would send a non-ignorable message that further passive-aggressive time-wasting is unacceptable. Saravask 03:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the summary above. Orangewhitegreen has been at it for quite sometime now. They refuse to discuss but stop right before the situation escalates into requiring administrator intervention. They have received multiple reminders and warnings from other editors in the past. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Pennsylvania)

Resolved: SP'd for a week. Notify me if the trouble persists. Manning (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The page Brentwood High School (Brentwood, Pennsylvania) needs admin attention. I have removed an inappropriately written, partisan section on a recent incident from the article, but users keep re-adding it. (See my explanation on the talk page.) I don't want to be revert-warring, so I am reporting it here. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=476248946"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages