Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Stalked for a long time

Unresolved

I have been stalked from Commons to sv.WP to en.WP and back and forth for a long time by User:Pieter Kuiper. Before I created my user account, he had also stalked other editors, particularly User:EmilEikS, who quit those three projects because of it and turned his watch lists over to me. The stalking is always due to some kind of retaliatory urge on the part of Kuiper that he does not seem to be able to control, despite the fact that he has been warned many times by administrators about that and about uncivil behavior in general toward many other editors also (unconnected to me). The most recent occurrence in my case is this one, where Kuiper, blocked now for a month on Commons, puts in a brief appearance on this project, as usual only to try to find something to try to to irritate me with on en.WP. I have tried to get Commons adiministrators to help as you can see here. Can somebody please help us to get a ban enforced on interaction between us as started by either of us? I have never once started it, only reacted. I hope the links given here will lead to an investigation of this user's history, which pretty easily should reveal the inordinate amount of sarcasm and ridicule he always resorts to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple minutes looking into this. Previous ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing_behavor_from_User:SergeWoodzing_-_is_this_truly_correct.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter_Kuiper
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter_Kuiper

I've had some interaction with Pieter Kuiper in the past. He is knowledgable but very abrasive. There was apparently some conflict between Pieter Kupier and SergeWoodzing and/or EmilEikS on Swedish Wikipedia, discussed here with reference to sv:Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark though I don't read Swedish. 85.226.44.13 appears to be another svwiki editor, or at any rate I don't know who s/he is. 66.127.52.47 in this discussion is me. Physchim62 was one of Brews Ohare's angrier antagonists in that branch of drama, and Pieter Kuiper was beating him up over some dumb errors he had introduced into physics articles. Pieter Kuiper's reversion of "Vermland"[1] appears bogus[2] and may be retaliation for SergeWoodzing's removal[3] of a somewhat risqué cartoon from Sophia Magdalena of Denmark and other editing of that article, which was possibly also the subject of an edit war on svwiki. On the enwiki talk page, 85.226.44.13 made an angry post but nobody else seemed to care.[4] Some kind of DR is called for. I haven't looked into the Kuiper-Woodzing conflict enough to have a view of whether placing an interaction ban would amount to taking sides in a content dispute, and I haven't looked at SergeWoodzing's edits enough to say he's innocent himself, but Pieter Kuiper is acting at least moderately inappropriately. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The first problem is that SergeWoodzing is introducing anglicized names for Swedish places and people that do not really exist, according to his own ideas of what the anglicized (or Latin) form should be. "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland"; "Vermillandia", "Elsinland", "the Smallands" are not current. There is no basis for pages like Carl of Vermillandia. The second problem is that Woodzing tends to makes discussions very personal and dramatic, see Talk:Värmland#"Wermelandia" as Latin ? and Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Small_lands_equals_Smallands?, User_talk:Frania_Wisniewska/Archive_2#Accusation, etcetera. (And I have no recollection of interaction with the ip-number above, who seems to be keeping tabs on me.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Vermland" is just your invention, I will remove it and "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland" are not the same thing; do you understand why the difference shows that your interaction style has a problem? I'm not keeping tabs on you. I remember from one discussion involving Physchim62 that I linked above. The other stuff I found by clicking around, looking into SergeWoodzing's complaint after he made it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This suggested it was an invention, based on Woodzing's taste alone; "will look for sources later" is not appropriate editing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your diff shows collegial editing on your part. Deciding that "Vermland" was a Woodzing invention without bothering with a Google search shows serious lack of AGF. "[Famous athlete so-and-so] is gay (will look for sources later)" needs instant reversion. Treating this Vermland thing with the same urgency shows unnecessary combativeness on your part. It's better to talk it out, and explain your view with more tact, as you did here. My usual suggestion in wiki-disputes is to try to write neutrally to the other person, as if you were writing for article space, no matter how badly you think they are acting. If you find yourself reacting sharply, slow down and rewrite to cool things down. I think you're a good contributor so I wish you wouldn't find it so difficult to follow our norms. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I had become a bit too irritated after Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Removal_of_cross-reference. I suspect that terms like "Elsinland" may be hoaxes, to say it very bluntly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see some problems with SergeWoodzing's editing at that page. I can't find any English-language sources for "Elsinland" including in the OED. Google book search finds "Elsin land" is mentioned in The Faerie Queene and one other very old book, so Elsinland is either an error or a rare archaic word. Pieter, you seem to think SergeWoodzing is pushing some political POV about Swedish royalty. Is this some content dispute transplanted from svwiki to here? Anyway, getting into "street fights" across multiple projects isn't the way to handle such disputes. It's better to make a matter-of-fact complaint including some diffs, that uninvolved editors can look into. In this case we may need some help from uninvolved Swedish speakers--are any available here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing's anglicizations of Swedish names is mostly a local issue here on enwp. When this is about the names of ancient or mythical royalty, I am not really interested (which did not prevent Woodzing to start discussing me here anyway). But now he is introducing new names (or re-introducing antiquated names) of places and regions in Wikipedia that then spread over the internet. I find that undesirable. Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden is a good place to find uninvolved editors that are interested. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please let's discuss the bulk of these details about exonyms and such on the talk pages of those articles! If Kuiper feels he has a general case against me as disruptive or detrimental to the project with such or other things there are other ways for him to bring that to the attention of the community.

What I am asking for here is a further investigation into Kuiper's behavior and of mine. He is currently active on English WP only to nitpick and try to irritate an always easily irritated SergeWoodzing. Since Kupier is currently blocked for uncivil behavior on Commons (where he does most of his work asking for image deletions), in a way he is circumventing that block by attacking me here with his usual sarcasm and ridicule, as he considers me to be one of the several users there who have complained about him "for no reason" (as he always sees it).

I am glad to admit - again and again - that I make mistakes like everybody else and am truly grateful for the assistance of any constructive, civil user in correcting same. There is a big difference between that and the always abusive Pieter Kuiper, whose behavior has proven to be incorrigible (or I would never have asked this) and makes me lose sleep, even get physically sick at times - literally. I am over 60 years of age and have never in my entire life been subjected to anywhere near the amount of instances of sheer cruelty that this Pieter Kuiper has subjected me to. Not to mention the way he treats many other users, one of whom I know (above mentioned Eikner). That has nothing to do with the work issues on WP - just attitude and behavior.

There is sufficient evidence, I feel, to substantiate that that behavior stems from a very strong and thus scary personal animosity that developed long ago in Kuiper toward Emil Eikner, me, the Southerly Clubs and anyone else associated with that organization, for reasons that are unclear to us, perhaps political (wrongly assumed, if so). That animosity isn't going to go away.

So, again, what I would like administrators to investigate and neutral users to discuss here is whether or not we can get a permanent ban of this kind:

• Kuiper will not edit or comment on the talk pages of articles where I or my predecessor Emil Eikner (but not Kuiper) have done a lot of work, and I will not edit or comment on articles where he (not I) has done a lot of work.
• Kuiper and I well never complain about each others work except if we start a thread about it in this kind of forum.
• Kuiper will not comment on any other discussions where I became/become involved before him, and I will not comment on any discussions where he became/becomes involved before me, except where the behavior of either of us may be an issue, and then never on the talk pages of articles.
• Kuiper will not enlist known friends of his to represent him in circumventing the agreement, and I will not enlist any such people of mine to do so either.
• Kuiper and I will stay off each other's talk pages.

Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

PS If and when we continue to discuss them elsewhere, it is unlikely that many "uninvolved Swedish speakers" exist to discuss the issues of English exonyms and such - by nature and nationality they cannot be uninvolved. I am a professional expert on this subject, and I think such matters must be determined by editors who are qualifed to realistically assess the reactions to those items of all the readers of English (not just Swedes) who visit this project. Not many Swedes are qualified to do that, when it comes to matters Swedish. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of SergeWoodzing being a "professional expert". And on wikipedia, also acknowledged academic experts will get banned when they believe that arguing from "extensive expert research" and "reliable personal sources" can replace proper referencing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SergeWoodzing (SW's participation at Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong#Double_epithet_interpreted is pretty tendentious, enough that I wondered for a brief moment whether Ottava Rima spoke Swedish. He got considerable pushback from other users there too. This (after a disagreement with that user over another Swedish name) seems rather pointy. SW's enwiki edits are almost exclusively about European royalty (mostly Swedish, including historical/legendary kings like Styrbjörn the Strong), maybe making him unfamiliar with wider enwiki editing customs. He has 2390 mainspace edits to 890 articles, with 5 or more edits to 143 articles, and 20 or more edits to just 7 articles (a lot of the rest are minor stylistic edits). In the content debates I've looked at between him and Peter Kuiper (PK) so far, it seems to me that PK's arguments usually make more sense, and SW in some instances may be messing up wiki content. So removing one of SW's opponents via an interaction ban doesn't seem like a great idea on that basis. PK and SW have been / are in conflict on Commons (I haven't looked into that much yet), so maybe that is spilling over here. Short of a content RFC about SW's edits that would probably interest very few editors, I don't have bright ideas what to do next. PK, are there other issues with SW's editing that you want to bring up here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, this stuff about testing the reactions of English speakers isn't how we do things here--it is considered wp:original research and not allowed. When there is an issue, we go by published sources. I looked over the Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong discussion and I didn't find your "native English speaker" argument to be even slightly convincing. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATORS: In this section, can we PLEASE discuss Kuiper's uncivil manners as I see them - which is what I started it for - and start separate threads about any possible misdeeds of mine in article content? If they need to be addressed, what I am asking is that that is done by editors who do not go out of their way to insult me personally every time. Is that too much too ask? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do next here. I was hoping someone else would weigh in. I guess I can ask at WP:SWEDEN for uninvolved editor comments to Talk:Värmland etc. I'm a bit sleepy right now but I'll see if I can post a few more suggestions later. Pieter Kuiper has only edited at that page once since commenting here, and his post was within reasonable bounds of civility.[5] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have quieted down, which I guess is always good. It will probably get archived soon; please feel free to open a new thread if issues arise again. Some general requests/advice:

• (Mostly to SergeWoodzing): it's not worth getting stressed out (Wikistress) about editing conflicts. Of course it happens to everyone anyway if they edit enough, and it builds up over time. The most effective cure is to quit Wikipedia completely for a while (Wikibreak). I've done that many times. A lesser measure is to switch temporarily to editing a different set of topic areas. But there are various sources of annoyance in Wikipedia that simply never go away; editing healthily is partly a matter of learning to get used to and/or avoid such annoyances, rather than burning out trying to fight them. Also, while you've been around for a while, almost all your editing has been focused in one very narrow area, which makes you in some ways like a new and inexperienced editor. It could help your understanding if you were to branch out into other areas.
• (Mostly to Peter Kuiper): Thank you for being somewhat more diplomatic than before; please keep it up.
• (To both): My suggestion is that the two of you agree to never revert the other in the same article more than once, and any revert should be accompanied by brief discussion on the talk page which should be kept polite. If you don't reach agreement fairly quickly, ask for help from other editors at WT:SWEDEN (I'm presuming this would still be on Swedish-related articles) and accept their consensus. If that doesn't work, try content RFC's.

Let me know if the above sounds helpful. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I promise you sincerely, IP user 67.117.130.143, that I am always interested in learning as long as the working climate is humanely civil.

Thought I was right to contribute mainly in areas (Scandinavian history, entertainment, language) where I mainly know what I an writing/doing?

As far as thanking someone for being "somewhat more diplomatic" now, would you say this hoax accusation fits that bill?

My long and extensive experience of Kuiper is that he never is interested in being "somewhat more diplomatic". If I thought otherwise, why would I have started this discussion?

Why does not any administrator reply here? I thought that was what this page was all about. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Resonse to 67.117.130.143: I have not done that many reverts anyway, I mainly limited myself to questioning Woodzing's anglicizations on Talk:Duchies in Sweden and Talk:Carl of Vermillandia. Woodzing's responses have been high on rhetoric. He is still introducing names like "Elsinland", for which he has no evidence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pieter, the stuff about hoaxes is not nice. As far as I can tell, SW is at worst making some well-intentioned errors. Please, AGF, be civil, etc. Why do you find that so difficult? SW, please be aware of Wikipedia's concept of undue weight. Just because there is some tiny mention of a name or place in some obscure source, doesn't mean it's appropriate to make it the subject of a WP page or of a lot of prominence in an existing page. A passing reference is about the most that can be appropriate. Also: an interaction ban of the type you're asking for would (I believe) require reaching some kind of consensus for it in a discussion. Nobody but me seems to even be responding to this issue.

And both of you: persistent fighting on random talk pages over this type of dispute is completely inappropriate. It's best to seek feedback about the content from other editors (e.g. WP:SWEDEN) but if you feel you have to pursue behavioral complaints, since ANI hasn't done anything, the next step would be a user conduct RFC. If either one of you does file an RFC, I will certify it but I think a second certifier is required. My comments on it (if it opens) will be approx. the same stuff I've said here. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just added an unresolved tag to this thread, in the hopes of getting more people to comment. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your kind attention to this matter, IP 67.117.130.143, and your good advice!

I am very disappointed that not one administrator has commented here and hope one or more will soon.

I have not started any articles (that I know of) named with lesser known exonyms. Have attempted a few article name changes and failed as per consensus. Have also been supported in other debates. The disambiguations pages' talk pages speak for themselves (already or in future) re: my good faith intentions of making it easy to find people by any and all names used in English literature, where I feel I am free to choose which existing exonymns to cover and leave it to others to cover such exonymns as I choose not to cover. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making up names like "Carl of Vermillandia", and that's a problem of original research or even WP:MADEUP. Please stop editing according to your whims, and start using how English sources refer to things and people. If someone is repeatedly objecting to this kind of thing, that's not wikistalking, that's normal scrutiny of problematic edits. Fences&Windows 01:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Fences and windows: I have not made up anything and am trying to prove it.

More importantly that is not the issue here. The issue reported concerns Kuiper's uncivil behavior, notwithstaning article content or any possible mistakes of mine in that regard. Please address that issue if you are going to comment here! No matter what good faith errors I may have made, Kuiper's habitual cruelty in manner is not justifiable. I reported that here. It is not I who have been reported. Thank you for looking at this anyway! SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the template here.. they do not go in section titles.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Access Denied's bad-hand sock account

Stuck

 – He isn't talking. Mono (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Access Denied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wpeditmanbob2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From what I first saw of this editor, he didn't seem too bad. I remember him being brought to this page because another user thought his username violated policy, but community consensus found that it did not. I saw them again a few times, but I've been rather busy as of late, so I don't remember any of those times besides that one. For the most part, the appeared to be a constructive editor.

Now, when I see their user talk page, it seems that they are on an 'indefinite wikibreak'. Today however, I found this to be utterly false, it seems they had created a bad-hand sock account named Wpeditmanbob2 (talk · contribs), which they used to troll several pages including this noticeboard, and then their own talk page.

They were found to be a sock after smelling of one, and being CU'd when I contacted one in regards to the suspicious behavior.

I'm frankly disappointed that this user would do something like this, and I very much await their explanation. Below are two sections transcluded from their talk pages; one from their first user account, Access Denied, and one from their sock account, Wpeditmanbob2. Both master and sock have been notified: [6], [7].— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In case it was not obvious, I took their behavior to this noticeboard for review.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

AD's response

Ok, I created that account. I now realize how incredibly stupid that was of me. I was becoming increasingly desperate for a way to enforce my wikibreak and was starting to think that a block was the only way. Of course, it being late at night, I forgot that some admins are willing to block for wikibreak purposes. I never intended to cause so much disruption. I am truly sorry for all the disruption and wasted time this has caused, and I will accept whatever the community decides to do with me. access_denied (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Two of the three confirmed socks were editing on 25 November, before your "retirement" and while you were still actively editing. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion (AD sock thread)

Forgot to place this section here. But anyway, currently AD's main account is blocked for a week due to the socking. I would be lying to say I think that's enough.. the only other thing I want is an explanation.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is another classic false-positive case. There have previously been several false-positive cases. Many trusted users know who Access Denied is. There doesn't seem to be anything that explains why Access Denied, a well-trusted and established user, would operate a bad-hand sock puppet account. I'd like to know how strong the CU evidence is. HeyMid (contribs) 09:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean you're afraid it -could be- a false positive; you don't actually know. And it's  Confirmed, not  Likely or  Possible, but confirmed.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see the technical evidence. Yeah, confirmed is the closest connection possible. HeyMid (contribs) 09:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, can we add some more accounts to the mix. I'm stating that the following accounts are  Confirmed as being related to Access Denied (talk · contribs);

• Wpeditmanbob2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Smiling happy pie man (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dkfjb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

There are also issues relating to vandalism and block evasion around an IP address which I will not identify at this time. However, and I really feel that I need to state this here, the case is rather unusual in that all these vandalistic socks are created on a mobile device (an iPod Touch) that AD uses. AD also uses a desktop system & interestingly, this system has never created any sock accounts. These edits from the socks are so inane and puerile that I really kinda have to suspect the 'kid brother' card will be invoked here. These socks are mostly on-and-done in around 10 mins or so. I want to hear what AD has to say, though ... - Alison ^❤ 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Access Denied was caught in the autoblocks as a result of the blocks of Smiling happy pie man and Dkfjb, so this is correct. We can't exclude that his brother was operating the above accounts; mobile devices may easily be shared by others than the owner. And if AD forgot to turn off the iPod (assuming he owns it), his brother then could create new accounts. The behavior of the above accounts seems to be too abusive to be socks of AD. Why would AD operate vandalism accounts? Also, how could you identify that the accounts edited via an iPod? I, too, am interested in hearing what AD has to say. HeyMid (contribs) 11:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know the ipod actually belongs to AD, e.g. do AD logged-in edits come from it? Maybe we're seeing a wifi access point being abused. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the same iPod, over multiple disparate domestic IPs so that tells me it's not an abused WiFi node - Alison ^❤ 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also interesting that the edits all took place in a constrained period of time: Novermber 24 from 19:23-19:51 and December 18 from 1:41 to 2;38. If this has been an inappropriate use of AD's mobile device, perhaps this will help identify who the culprit is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a brother would have made an edit like this, which seems too timely to be happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by the fact that the most recent sock (Wpeditmanbob2) was knowledgeable about the help desk, WP:ANI, the blocking policy, and the {{unblock}} template. I'm really wondering how his brother would be that knowledgeable (if we assume that the sock was operated by his brother). Also, this inappropriate revert is interesting. I am fully aware of the fact that AD sometimes makes disruptive headers (see this edit, for example). Also, the "Wp" part in the sock's username (which is an abbreviation of "Wikipedia") is also something worth thinking about. If the three accounts mentioned above were all operated by AD, I'd support an indefinite block of AD. But before taking any further actions, I think we should wait for a response from AD himself. For now, I'd say we don't know either way (whether it was someone else or AD himself). HeyMid (contribs) 14:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is all linked in some way with User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, but I don't know quite how. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree; the first impression is TFM. However, the problem here is that CU confirms the sock edited using the same mobile device AD has edited with, and CU has never mentioned TFM. The poor text language in the sock's edits explains why a mobile device was used. It is very difficult to make two edits within 4 minutes using a clean language. Also, in this edit, several users are mentioned. HeyMid (contribs) 15:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless the TFM account and associated socks were being run through a different device, and the AD account and associate socks were being run through his ipod. The same person could be editing from both a desktop computer and an ipod and easily maintain the subterfuge of being two different people by posting within minutes or seconds of each other. --Jayron32 15:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the CU above (at least as I understood it) the AD account (but not the socks) did use a desktop system. I presume this is not linked to the TFM account although it's possible this was not looked in to specifically. Of course the TFM could be using a different desktop system perhaps in a different location (or just using a proxy or different connection) from the AD account. Note of course if the iPod was used at the same time as the TFM account and if they are the same person the iPod will need to have a wifi connection different from whatever connection the desktop is using or otherwise one of them would need to be using a proxy or whatever or there would I presume be some linkage. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

AD always struck me as an unnecessarily aggressive editor, though I wouldn't have predicted the socking. Go for a longer block if you want. Trolling that lame from a sock account sounds like a breaching experiment. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Very curious pattern. I would definitely like to hear from Access Denied over this. I do know that at the time he was asking for the autoblocks to be cleared, he was away from 'his desk' (ie the fixed system) and using the mobile device only. I believe he said he was at his parents. It does sound like an "ooh, can I play with your new iPod" scenario. Will we wait for AD to respond please. No damage is currently being done I believe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well this is extremely disappointing; I agree with others that I didn't expect such behaviour from AD, but nor would I believe a "my brother did it" response given the nature of some of these edits (one edit to ANI was "lol I wish eagles wuz here to see dis", referring to another regular contributor). I suspect AD was trying to see if they could get away with trolling from a sock account, and fortunately they cannot. I note also that while I usually found AD to be a good editor, I did once see cause to leave him a comment about the list of "funny" vandalism on his user page, after viewing a diff he had just added and having to promptly ask User:TFOWR to RevDel it (the diff to which he linked, that is) and asking AD not to feed the trolls by linking to offensive vandalism. If that's the sort of thing AD finds funny, I suppose I can't be too surprised by this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit you're referring to was not made at WP:ANI; it was made at their user talk page while the account was blocked. Also, do you mean you believe AD intentionally created a disruptive account in purpose of getting his main account blocked indefinitely? I do believe AD is aware that CUs can detect sockmasters of sock puppet accounts. HeyMid (contribs) 15:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, it was indeed the user's talk page. And no, I believe AD intentionally created an account to let off steam anonymously and to see whether or not it'd be traced back to him. Checkusers can and have confirmed the relationship, certainly, but that only happens when there's reason to suspect a connection already, since checkuser isn't used for fishing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How reasonably certain are we that AD is not User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I must admit, when I saw what Wpeditmanbob2 was doing, my mind instantly went to TFM instead of AD for a connection. this comment in particular is interesting, since as far as I know, SandyGeorgia has not yet been involved in this case, but SandyGeorgia WAS an ardent supporter of TFM in the last case. Why the connection drawn here? I know that AD and TFM were seen "fighting" during TFM's most recent block, but given the propensity of both of them to run good-hand/bad-hand accounts, couldn't that have been simply more subterfuge? I'm not sure this is anything more than me just thinking out loud, but has any checkuser been run to investigate THAT connection?--Jayron32 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Spot on what I've been getting at above. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

See also User:The Thing That Should Not Be. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? HeyMid (contribs) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at the contributions style. This situation seems to be growing like last summer's oil leak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me for coming out of retirement to poke my head in, but what does this have to do with me? The fact that we apparently retiredwent on an indefinite wikibreak at nearly the same time seems to be nothing more than a coincidence. The Thing ^T/_C 15:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Was AD involved in the Bad edits r dumb ban discussion prior to the Fat Man one, Jayron? I'm about to head to bed so I can't check, but wasn't it established that Fat Man = Bad edits? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about AD's involvement in that case, but The Fat Man has himself positively identified that he was Bad edits r dumb. --Jayron32 16:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no doubt at all that Fat/BErD was one guy. I wonder if his "brother", user Mike R, could shed any light on this saga? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Smiling happy pie man (talk · contribs) account sounds really ducky, as Access Denied (talk · contribs) was renamed from I like pie it tastes good (talk · contribs); you'll also want to block:

• Access Denied's left shoe (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's right shoe (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's left sock (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's right sock (talk · contribs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mono (talk • contribs) mono 19:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Those accounts have not edited, so have not been used against policy. Plus, it is pretty obvious they are not trying to hide. If he uses them to avoid his current block, we can block them in turn. But lets not go overboard here... --Jayron32 20:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• This incident is extremely appalling. Although I've found Access Denied to be an editor who tends to feed the trolls, I never would have expected that he would stoop so low to sock disruptively. I think that Access Denied is disgruntled with the The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) affair. His most significant edit before retirement was a reversion on The Fat Man's talk page. This socking is intended either as a protest, albeit immature, of The Fat Man incident or as an effort to dig a deeper hole for The Fat Man, incriminating him with more socks. If the latter, he probably did not expect a CheckUser to be run due to the ducky nature of the socks and so did it through his own IP/phone. Since Access Denied has shown himself unworthy of the community's trust, I would support a lengthier block, though first I'd seek to hear his account of this. Goodvac (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the kid brother hypothesis...You would be surprised how much information about Wikipedia friends and siblings can learn by knowing someone established on Wikipedia. If one of my close friends had the desire, they could easily cause issues on pages I frequent and with editors I associate with most commonly, as I discuss them offline as well. Sharing of iPods is also easy, as I loaned mine to a friend of mine for up to a month at a time in the past. It is also hypothetically possible that if it was a sibling of Access Denied they could just pick up the iPod and use it when he left it unattended for a bit, quitting their disruptive behavior a few minutes later when they got bored or Access Denied extricated the iPod from their possession. Socking disruptively like this is too far outside Access Denied's character for me to not believe this is a coincidence of unfortunate proportions. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For me the mention of SandyGeorgia in this edit would seem to give the "kid brother" point away. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the allusion to SandyGeorgia would not be coming from a brother. In addition, Access Denied frequently complains about small text and recently increased the text size to 140% in his monobook.css. With his sock account, he complains that "the wikipedia font is so TINY is it almostzImpoSSIBLT2READ". Also, Access Denied seems to be the type of person that follows web evolution (or whatever you call it), explaining his sock's reference to the W3C. Goodvac (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must say I find your theory quite compelling: that AD was trying to imitate TFM, either to get TFM in trouble (less likely) or just plain troll (more likely). I can't say I'm surprised - I don't fully accept the "otherwise good character" statements in this thread. AD was on a downward spiral from the moment his premature RfA closed (refer: posts on TFM's and YellowMonkey's talk pages and involvement in the latter's RfC and RFaR). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oh geez, I am suddenly reminded of the Robdurbar incident that occurred a while back. Let's not further speculate on the matter and close down this thread; this entire discussion is already giving the trolls new ammo and more reason to come back, and we should not be doing that. The explanation from AD will come when it will come, so there is no reason to open up a new discussion about it. In the meantime, let the block stay in its place, as perhaps a preventative measure just in case it really is him. Highly unlikely, but not impossible. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When an established editor has betrayed the trust given to them by the community, of course there will be a thread to discuss the behavior. I'm not sure how many people have AD's talk on their watchlist, but I'm sure there isn't much. There is no guarantee that AD will ever give an explanation, but at least here we can centralize things a bit. Lastly, DNFTT is not a reason to close down a discussion of this type; this was a good-hand-bad-hand case, not a case of a user who has done nothing but troll. I don't really see how you could say DNFTT applies here.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

At the time of writing this, AD's talk page is watched by 58 users, so that's a plenty amount for a non-administrator. HeyMid (contribs) 15:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we still can't say for absolute certainty, judging from the dispute above, that whether or not the BROTHER clause does apply to AD, and by extension we lack knowledge of whether or not "an established editor has betrayed the trust given to them by the community" is true. But I am pretty sure that people (me for one) will be watchlisting his talkpage for a response. And the DNFTT case may go both ways; this user, be it AD or not, has trolled with the Wpeditmanbob2 account, and that's a definite no-no, especially when such person responds with stuff like this to ANI. But really, I feel we should move on. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm kind of distressed to infer that Ipods send info identifying the specific device as part of http queries, unless we're talking about a regular browser cookie that AD forget to clear. I'm glad I don't have an Ipod. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

UA's(user agents, Firefox for example, is a user agent) are usually unique to the device the browser is used on.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Browsers have a "useragent" which identifies the browser, and I would assume that a iPod's browser is distinct from ones like Internet Explorer. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User agents usually don't uniquely identify the specific device. They normally identify the OS and browser version, but not the machine serial number or anything like that. So if you use Firefox under Windows, the UA would be something like "Firefox 3.6.1 Windows Vista SP2". If you had two separate computers both set up like that, the UA string wouldn't be enough to tell them apart. That's why there is controversy over flash cookies and the very existence of Processor Serial Numbers, for example. It could be that the Ipod Touch sends unique info, and that might be handy for sock detection purposes, but it's not welcome news from a general privacy perspective. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OT but if you are concerned about privacy, be aware it's been argued the amount of info your browser gives away including installed plugins, fonts etc can sometimes form a unique (albeit changing over time) fingerprint in some/many? cases [8] [9] [10] Nil Einne (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why would he be abusing multiple accounts since he knows what's right from wrong. I didn't think he would do this until I saw his contributions. He helped me how to install Igloo back in October when I had rollback. He even decided to retire but then he changed it to an indefinite wikibreak. Sometimes people say that they retired but they faked it by still editing. WAYNESLAM 15:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

He mentioned that his grades were falling badly, so I wonder if this is his method of enforcing a wikibreak. I hope it doesn't become common. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

L.O.L., I know. There are other, better ways to enforce a wikibreak, besides making yourself look foolish, such as a script that you set to the wikibreak's end time, and then it will automatically log you out every time you try to log in, until the wikibreak's end time arrives. :-D [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be really careful about jumping to the conclusion that an account named for an editor was actually created by that editor. There have been sometimes-mysterious trolls (certainly more than one) who have created sock accounts with names similar to other users who are already blocked, just to try to get them into further trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would agree, but in this case, [11]. 28bytes (talk) 16:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, that not good, Kemo Sabe. I'd like to hear his explanation for that, beyond the fact that he obviously messed up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm very disappointed about what AD had just done, I always saw AD as a good contributor. I could have ever thought that AD would have done something like this. This was uncalled for, and i'm curiously awaiting for AD's explanation on these shenanigans. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• Up the block to indef Maybe he's just not on Wikipedia at the moment. Nevertheless, a response from him is required before he can be allowed to resume editing. N419BH 21:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• There are two scenarios that I can see:

1. It was Access Denied. If that is the case, what is the point in spamming his talkpage with "I am very disappointed in you, mister" messages, when, as a long-time contributor to Wikipedia, he clearly knows his way around and what the rules are in this place? He knows his right from his wrong, and if he wants to do wrong, we should not encourage him. Right now, by having created controversy and stirring up the ANI noticeboard, he serves as an example to other trolls as a very successful one.
2. It wasn't Access Denied. If that is the case, then he will be very annoyed if/when he comes back to see misguided messages directed at him on his talkpage, when it was not him who done it. As to the second editor, having an ANI discussion about Wpeditmanbob2 was what this troll exactly wanted to accomplish by impersonating a well-known editor, and, as this troll likes attention, he will continue to do so as long as more threads like this spring up about him.

In short, I can see no good that will come out of discussions such as this. Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, and if he continues this behavior and disrupts the encyclopedia, then perhaps we should move it up to indef, but the week-long block in place seems to do enough prevention for the moment. He knows how to use the unblock template, and his explanation, if/when it comes, should be sufficient to satisfy everyone in explaining his behavior. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Access Denied has now admitted here that he operated the Wpeditmanbob2 account, claiming he did so as a way to enforce a wiki-break. Gwen Gale has extended the block of Access Denied to indefinite. HeyMid (contribs) 19:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess trying to do a good thing (in this case, enforce a wikibreak) the wrong way can later come back and bite you in the butt! Too bad he did not think of better ways to enforce a wikibreak, :-( such as a user script that enforces a wikibreak. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm late to the party. This is all very bizarre, and I can only think of one scenario that would make sense: It was truly Access Denied, who is pretending to be TFM in order for the community to think he has never changed and should be banned. This may be a possible scenario, because he says here "I am indefinitely obese," a play on TFM's banner on his talk page and his username. He mentions here SandyGeorgia being "nice" to him, but Jayron32 and Gwen Gale being "mean." I was also mentioned, and all four of us were involved in the TFM situation. This may also be an attempt for the community to look suspiciously at SandyGeorgia, as the sock attaches himself to her. Access Denied could have also had his account hacked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with The Fat Man

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

---

I haven't been around much the last few weeks, but I can't for the life of me decipher why TFM is mentioned here, nor what I have to do with any of this. But then, I also don't know why TFM is still blocked for something that was long done with before the insane reblock happened, except that the monkeys are most surely running the asylum now. So, can anyone explain why TFM is mentioned here as "involved" just because AD is trying to post like him? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We should try an experiment: All the admins should retire for a week. With complete anarchy, which is apparently what you want, you could see who the real "monkeys" are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

1) TFM was mentioned; 2) you were mentioned; 3) the reason for his block was given in the block log; and 4) we aren't sure AD was deliberately trying that. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say that I don't know either why TFM was mentioned here in the same breath as AD and his associated socks, as TFM and AD are both geographically very distant indeed; almost as far apart as possible within the US, really. People are really starting to see FatMan socks at every turn - why, I don't know, given that he's not had much propensity for socking. In short, TFM is  Unrelated to AD - Alison ^❤ 06:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, TeleCon, for filling me in, but the TFM block still makes no sense to me ... he was blocked for something he had already been cleared for, and then remained blocked for protesting it, in the most discouraging event I've yet seen on Wiki, not a good sign for the future of Wiki. Baseball Bugs, how is it that in only a few years, you have become WAY by FAR the highest single contributor to ANI? Could you possibly go forth and build the encyclopedia, or something? You're not even an admin, yet you weigh in here far more than anyone else in the entire history of the Wiki, almost double the next single highest contributor, who is actually an admin, and three and four times as many edits as a lot of helpful admins. I'm getting the impression you're creating a sizable portion of the ANI drama. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have over 5,000 items on my watch list, so I have plenty to keep me occupied, and watching those items has led to a lot of vandal-hunting. I don't intentionally create any drama, but I do raise questions that I don't think have been asked and/or which I don't know the answers to. Meanwhile, every time I've seen your name it's got to do with defending some kind of editor misbehavior. I recommend that you focus on wikipedia's value to the public rather than on protecting bad-attitude pals of yours, and focus on your own flaws rather than what you perceive to be mine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were paying closer attention to the content building side of Wiki, you'd have seen me around more often: YMMV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

???? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Barring further info, it looks to me (as Mkativerata wrote above) "AD was trying to imitate TFM, either to get TFM in trouble (less likely) or just plain troll (more likely)." It looks like deliberate imitation of TFM trolling by AD. Rd232 ^talk 08:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's looking to me as though AD was spoofing as a TFM sock, perhaps only to draw heed away from himself, perhaps to stir up more woe for TFM, or both, or more. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a complaint about that user's ID when they first arrived here, and maybe that should have been a red flag. Not to defend SandyGeorgiaOnMyMind's continual and inexplicable defense of Fat/BErD... but if AccessDenied is at least as guilty of socking as Fat/BErD, whose activities were rather less stealthy, how does AccessDenied qualify for a get-out-of-jail-free-on-Christmas card? Shouldn't that user, as well as its socks, be on ice indefinitely, at least until or if an attempt at an explanation comes forth? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This thread has gone on to this length mostly because he hasn't made a peep since the blocks. I don't think he'll be able to quietly begin editing again, he'll be asked to deal with this first. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, could you please either explain your allegations of TFM socking, or understand the difference between using alternate accounts appropriately and socking? This continual misstatement and malignment of TFM, and fixation on him, is wearing thin. Where did he use an alternate account inappropriately as a sock? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about Fat/BErD personally, but his behavior speaks for itself. I think it's you that's fixated on him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you didn't explain your allegations. Oh well, carry on as usual. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

When I look at BErD's activities, I see a guy who plays cat-and-mouse with those who question him, and who lied about giving up his "previous account". If that's your idea of a good editor, you need to expand your search a bit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But speaking of Fat/BErD, is this Atlanta-based IP sock actually him, or is it someone trying to impeach him further?12.130.119.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

For gosh sakes, please lower the fixation. It's Christmas-- people get on planes, many airlines go through or are based in Atlanta, and who do you think has a crystal ball, and what is the harm in that edit? Please, cease the drama mongering about The Fat Man; there are more important things to do on what's left of the Wiki than to overfocus on one editor who brought lots of good cheer to lots of folks who no longer want to conribute here because of the way The Fat Man was treated, and prefer one good content builder to dozens of ANI drama mongers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you think socking is just fine? Surprise, surprise. You're the one who's fixated. And spare your lectures about the way Fat/BErD was treated. He got what he gave, and if his block drove away some malcontents, that's a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

IP sock or pretend-sock is now blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

the Atlanta-based IP above is  Unrelated to TFM. Are we done now? - Alison ^❤ 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I immediately raised the possibility it was an impostor. Far as I'm concerned, you could box up this entire sub-section and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it's on an airplane's wifi, as the IP claims, then checkuser is pretty much useless anyway... Talk page semi'd. T. Canens (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I request that you review WP:SILVERLOCK and reverse that action immediately. There are no policy grounds for semi-protecting that page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Leave it semi-protected. The user is blocked. There's no reason for IP's to be editing the page. And there's no rule against protecting a page that's been subject to trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I give it a month until TFM is unblocked. Not that it's any skin off my arse. Looking at his userpage one would have no clue he's currently blocked indefinitely and has used socks for trolling. Whatevs, though. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Those who tried to post the normal banners were shouted down by his pals. Hence the current ambiguous status. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Baseball Bugs

On admin advice, I'm done with Fat/BErD. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The (mis)characterizations by Baseball Bugs of The Fat Man, colleagues who edited with him on BLPs and Featured Articles, his mischaracterization of Alison's CU post above on both The Fat Man's talk page and others, and his increasing fixation on The Fat Man are becoming a problem. Bugs is taking more time from productive editors with this fixation on removing inoffensive posts than TFM ever did: could we not encourage Baseball Bugs to move along to something more productive? He certainly doesn't seem to understand the nature of either CU or our socking policy, and the drama is going to continue until he is encourage to back off, me thinks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I have no fixation about Fat/BErD. Socking by blocked users is not allowed. Fat/BErD chose to get himself indef'd, and chose to sock. He and his anarchist pals are the ones with the fixation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Then perhaps you can explain your constant interference here, in a thread which had nothing to do with you? And your personalization of issues to people who are or have long been (like myself) in contact with TFM, and have worked with him? Or your misunderstanding of CU and mischaracterization of Alison's conclusions? Seriously, BB, you are ANI's leading poster, and you should understand CU by now. Please, with all due respect, move along and let others less uninvolved deal with the non-issues over TFM-- the issue now is your interference and faulty conclusions and logic, not him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC) If you find me so "boring",[12] why do you obsess over me so? :) In any case, I'll take Alison's judgment over Fat/BErD's nonsense anytime. As far as "move along" is concerned... I'll stop posting here if you will. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC) By the way, here's the start of another Fat/BErD impostor's verbiage.[13] Reported to AIV, of course, as impostoring and socking are both against the rules, whether the anarchists like it or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC) All Sock-masters & their socks deserve indef-blocks, allways. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I have asked an admin to look at this and tell me if I've gone too far. If he thinks I have, I'll drop the subject. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC) I have reopened the thread that you closed prematurely. First, you asked the other most involved admin; second, Alison apparently needs to clarify to you how CU works; and finally, I see several of you continuing there to make attacks upon The Fat Man and his other Wiki colleagues. I did not start a section asking, with all due respect, that you and your colleagues stop this drama just for you to close this out without input of others you are misunderstanding and misquoting. Now, not only you, but also HalfShadow and Eagles247 really need to stop maligning other productive Wiki editors and referring to anyone who disagrees with you as trolls or bastards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC) So when Fat Man maligns us, it's funny, but when someone "maligns" him, it's not funny? How funny is that! :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC) P.S. The reasons I asked that admin are two: (1) He had just declined a sock's unblock request, so I knew he was active; and (2) He was in favor of blocking Fat Boy, so I figured if he himself told me to back off, it had some credibility. :) Now, if you want to continue choosing to flog the dead fat pigeon over the subject of what he chose to do, that's up to you. I shall try to back off now. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Is this Fat'person' somebody who's blocked & is currently evading his block? GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Yes, he's blocked; and yes, according to him and his pals, he's evading his block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC) The socks must be tracked down & blocked too. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Certainly. The admins are aware of the situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 and reference style changes

Brief summary User:Bender235 was advised in two ANI threads [14] [15] to stop making minor stylistic changes to references, but refuses to desist. Now he is spamming article talk pages about the same stylistic changes (contribs). I have notified the user about this thread on his talk page.

Longer description A recent ANI thread about User:Bender235 closed with this summary (link) :

It is clear that multiple editors have objected to the mass-conversion, either by reverting, or by asking Bender235 to stop. Bender235 is reminded that, even though he may not have broken a specific rule, he did cause a degree of controversy, and is therfor advised stop making changes to {{reflist}} in articles. — Edokter • Talk • 22:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

In a slightly earlier ANI thread, Bender235 was advised [16]

... For now, please stop making such changes in bulk, as there's a fair chance the Proposal will make it moot. Rd232 talk 10:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 has interpreted this to mean that he can still make the edits if he spams all the talk pages of the articles (talk page edits; search for "reference") He has not stopped making the edits in question, despite the clear language of the ANI threads.

Starting the same conversation on dozens of articles is completely counterproductive. Moreover, Bender235 is aware that his edits go against this Arbcom finding:

"Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change. This applies to many editors making a few edits each, as well as a few editors making many edits." [17]

At this point, it is starting to look like a firm editing restriction, backed up by possible blocks, will be necessary. The pattern of IDIDNTHEARTHAT is very clear. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think at this point we need to make it an explicit editing restriction: Bender is prohibited from making changes to the style of existing references in any articles. For most editors this would be draconian, but Bender235 has shown the lack of ability to make proper judgements regarding this. As a result, he should be forbidden from making any such changes. If he cannot be trusted to make good choices, then we should remove the option. --Jayron32 22:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Erm, there is a conflation of issues here: the previous ANI thread was about changing references/ to {{reflist}}. That will soon be moot, since the proposal to change the CSS at Wikipedia:VPR#styling_.3Creferences_.2F.3E_like_Reflist appears likely to be closed (at some point) as consensus for, and then that's moot. That still leaves the column formatting issue, which is also under discussion at VPR, less conclusively. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with posting such column-formatting style suggestions on talk pages, thought it would be preferable to get a style guideline that simply approved it so it could just be done. At any rate, if we want to agree that editors shouldn't make such proposals on lots of talk pages, fine, but for now I don't see he's doing anything wrong with that. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Both ANI threads reflect the same underlying problematic behavior, which is making mass stylistic changes to articles. The fact that bender235 makes more than one type of stylistic change only reinforces the pattern. The problem with making the same suggestion on numerous talk pages is that it makes discussion very difficult, by forcing editors to reply over and over to the same question. This is the point of the Arbcom finding I quoted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"...by forcing editors to reply over and over to the same question"

That is wrong. For example, I asked whether I should implement {{Reflist|colwidth=45em}} here. Now if someone would've replied: "no, please don't do that, because on WP:MADONNA we've always used {{Reflist|2}} and would like to continue to do that", I wouldn't have changed anything on this article or any related. But as a matter of fact, I was asked to do the exact opposite. —bender235 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. I was adviced not to change the reference list style w/out testing the local consensus. So I did test the local consensus, and asked if anyone objected the change. In most cases, nobody object, and in some cases people even encouraged me to do the change.
I really don't know what you want me to do. If I act per WP:BRD, it's wrong because I allegedly "impose" my prefered style on articles ignoring the local consensus. Now if I turn BRD around and start the discussion first, I'm "spamming the talk pages". What the hell I'm supposed to do? —bender235 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's completely clear from the quotes above what you are supposed to do: stop making these stylistic changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So in your opinion, no one should be allowed to ever make these kind of changes to articles, even when it has been discussed on talk pages a priori? Then your opinion is wrong. —bender235 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say "no one", "ever". Jayron32 has explained, above, the problem that this thread is about: "Bender235 has shown the lack of ability to make proper judgements regarding this". You are aware that there is no consensus for your changes; that the MOS explicitly discourages them; and two consecutive ANI threads asked you to stop. Continuing to make the same edits under those circumstances is patently inappropriate, and escalating them by also spamming talk pages verges on violating WP:POINT. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So this "rule" is only supposed to apply to me? Because of your Wikihounding that led to two ANI, one of which I actually posted?

"You are aware that there is no consensus for your changes"

No, I am not. That was why I was asking on the talk pages in the first place. To find out what is consensus. And people replied, and said: "yes, colwidth looks nice, please change". —bender235 (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the "I didn't hear that" aspect again. How many people need to tell you there isn't consensus for the changes? Two ANI threads asking you to stop is more than enough. It appears you're just filibustering at this point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to memore like you've made up your mind about this and aren't sufficiently assuming good faith or listening to Bender trying to figure out how best to handle this. Rd232 ^talk 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it seems like you still haven't gotten the point. The notion that "there is no consensus" may be correct globally. However, I was specificly asking on each article, whether local consensus was pro or con. So your assertion that I was ignoring consensus is just nonsense. —bender235 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Assume for the sake of argument that I go to every talk page you leave a note on, and point out that I disagree. What then? You know that various editors disagree with the changes, not just me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, since you told me numerous times here and here that I have no right to decide on the reference style of articles I haven't contributed to before, that "rule" would apply to you here as well. Which means your objection does not count, unless you have contributed to the specific article.

Obviously that "rule" conflicts with everything from WP:OWN to WP:BOLD, but you made it up, and you repeatedly uttered the fact that I have breached that "rule". —bender235 (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that anyone can object is a key reason why it's silly to make style changes as you have been. When there are disagreements, our firm rule is to keep the established style, and there is no limitation on who can object. In practice people don't object if an article is changed by its frequent editors in the course of heavy editing, but they do object to widespread changes by editors who have never edited the articles before. This is well known to people who follow the MOS or WP:CITE. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:DRNC? I guess not. —bender235 (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that essay about content edits. But random stylistic changes (e.g. ENGVER, reference formatting) are not the same – these should be avoided, and reverted when they are made. We have a longstanding consensus, in the MOS and in arbitration cases, that editors should not change between optional styles in articles, and that making such changes is, in general, disruptive rather than productive. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You agree with the essay on content edits? WP:DRNC doesn't even apply to those edits, because how can there be an a priori consensus about a content change or addition? That would be absurd. —bender235 (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is a prior posting on the talk page, with some reasonable time allowed for possible responses and consensus respected, I really don't see the problem. The whole tenor of the previous discussions was not forcing style changes, by fait accompli editing, and if Bender has stopped doing that (I haven't checked), then there's no real problem, is there? It might reasonably be decided that we should change policy (or possibly interpret existing policy) to declare that proposing this on lots of talk pages should be prohibited, but it seems a perfectly good faith action, and mentioning WP:POINT in this context is really not appropriate. Now if someone wants to point to a policy basis for disallowing this, or to propose creating one (and request Bender to stop pending the outcome of that discussion), fine, otherwise, this thread doesn't really seem to have anywhere to go. Rd232 ^talk 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it's silly to require people to go around dozens of talk pages making the same comment: "I object, and therefore per WP:MOS the policy is that we keep the established style". This is what the arbcom case is getting at: it's not appropriate to go around making so many edits in a way that exhausts the ability of those you know disagree with the edits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually I only see one solution for this dispute: WP:CITE has to have a clear recommendation on whether columns are allowed, or disallowed. Because if there's a recommendation to have them, everyone should be allowed to implement them. And if there's no recommendation, no one should be allowed to, and the feature as a whole might be deleted. Which brings us to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Final proposal. —bender235 (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how hard this is to understand. Stop making any changes to reflist formats until the VPPR proposal concludes with consensus in your favor. It's not rocket science. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not how I understood it. I thought I was urged to not make "mass changes" w/out finding out the local consensus. So I tried to find out the local consensus. But okay, I'll stop doing it until WP:VPR has come to a conclusion, on way or the other. —bender235 (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Columns are allowed" or even "Columns are recommended" is not the same as "Columns are required". Something that is allowed, but not required, is called "optional". Per CBM, MOS, wiki practice, and numerous arb precedents are that if something optional is done a particular way in some article, leave it alone unless there is consensus to change it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the main point that needs to be explained to Bender235 is that, through the discussion that was undertaken at Village Pump:Proposals, the coding for both types of referencing is going to be changed so that they are identical. Therefore, no changes between the two styles should ever be made again anywhere on Wikipedia unless Reflist is needed to add specific dimensions (which is a fairly rare occurrence). Therefore, Bender needs to stop changing these referencing styles permanently, since they will be the same exact thing. Silverseren^C 04:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (semi-trolling) But think of his edit counter! How dare one make a single change to CSS that denies a dedicated editor the unique opportunity to make tens of thousands if not millions of edits?! Tijfo098 (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

JFYI: This was never about replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}}, therefore it is not affected by this proposal.

All I did was inquiring the local consensus on several talk pages, which CBM called "spamming". —bender235 (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Back on the 14th, Bender asked me what other gnomic work he can do if he can't do this.[18] I didn't answer, as I was not sure how to answer. Anyone here have suggestions? To me, the most obvious thing would be to look for spelling and grammar mistakes in articles, which affect wikipedia's credibility to the reading public, far more than any technical stuff about column widths. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Other suggestions could include WP:WIKIFY, which involves adding wikilinks and section headers, CAT:UNCAT, which besides being a bit of an oxymoron, is involved in categorizing articles, indeed, anything at {{Active Wiki Fixup Projects}} could use some help. --Jayron32 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AFC, WP:NPP, WP:CVU, he could write his own articles...he could improve existing articles...he could look through images for false claims of ownership or fair use...really, there's so much more than moving references around (and for that matter, he could format internal citations to add paramaters missing, like author and page title). I hear there are still several thousand WP:BLP's that need references... Seriously Bender, use the left mouse button instead of your keyboard for a while and click around, you'll find something. I think you're genuinely trying to help here, you're just doing something that isn't particularly helpful. Look around, you'll find all sorts of gnomish work that needs to be done. N419BH 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I did all that and more over the past 6½ years. Besides creating and expanding articles from time to time, I've been fixing typos, adding/fixing infoboxes, fixing broken citations, implementing citation templates, and restructuring appendices. And as a minor part of it, in about 1% of the articles I edited, I replaced {{Reflist|2}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} where I considered it useful. And just because someone didn't like {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, he reverted it everywhere saying there was "no consensus" to use it. And after all, this is the third ANI regarding this dispute.

Actually I didn't ask Baseball Bugs what to do, but how to do it. Because if Wikipedia rules where actually like User:CBM claims, which was that I have no rights to modify the style of an article I haven't contributed significant content to, I couldn't do anything of the things mentioned above (except for typofixing, maybe). Because restructuring the appendix inevitably changes the style. Fixing an infobox inevitably changes the style. Implementing citation templates inevitably changes the style. If Wikipedia rules were actually prohibiting me from doing these kind of edits, then there is nothing left. —bender235 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What you asked me was:

"So, what gnomic work can I do from now on w/out risking a block? Obviously ref style changes are a no-no, and so are citation cleanups. How can I do those minor improvement from now on?"

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "how can I do those" if I'm supposed to (a) establish a status of "major contributor" (to a specific article) before making minor edits, and (b) discuss every minor edit on the article's talk page before actually implementing it. I always thought that (a) no one, no matter how much he contributed, owns an article or has the final say, and (b) consensus is established by bold moves. Like WP:CONSENSUS puts it: "In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article, and sometimes making such an edit will resolve a dispute. Use clear edit summaries that explain the purpose of the edit; If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns." But now, for some reason, this policy has been turned up-side-down. —bender235 (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy is different for style changes, that's all. So for example, yes, if a page has an established reference style that's reasonable, you shouldn't change it to citation templates. In effect, if you want to look at it that way, there is a partial exception to WP:OWN in that the first person to establish a citation style (or a variation of English, come to that) gets to WP:OWN that aspect of the article, barring a strong reason to change those style aspects. And also, "consensus is established by bold moves"? No, consensus is established in various ways; for some things, boldness is not appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 07:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

See, there's the problem. Changing from "colour" to "color" might be merely a style change, but implementing a citation template is more, because it also produces meta tags and a "Z3988" context object in HTML. Likewise, implementing {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} is more, because it makes Wikipedia articles accessible platform independent. —bender235 (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the question you're really asking is, "What can I do on Wikipedia without ever risking a warning/block?" And the answer is "nothing." Because there's always opportunity for misunderstandings, misinterpretations and outright mistakes. The key is to listen when multiple folks say "You're doing it wrong," and try to establish a consensus before moving forward. WP:BOLD is fine, but remember that it's Bold-Revert-Discuss. People have been upset because your technique has been "Bold-Revert-'Keep Making The Same Changes on Multiple Articles Anyway". Just keep gnoming, but be willing to step back a bit when your changes are questioned. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I always acted on WP:BRD. And in some cases, there were discussions after my edit was reverted. But in most cases, nobody reverted, and nobody disagreed with my edit. —bender235 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Except for, y'know, the majority of people in the ANI threads about you. That counts too. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of Scope at Talk:Libertarianism

Hi,

As a result of continuous edit warring, Talk:Libertarianism has a restriction on discussions of article scope until February 2011. The restriction allows for collapsing article scope discussions.

Two editors (User:North8000, User:Born2cycle) have uncollapsed a scope discussion (Talk:Libertarianism#the_use_of_the_word_libertarian, diff1 diff2).

I would appreciate it if they were very gently reminded of the scope limitation by an outside administrator; and, if an outside administrator would collapse the topic. Both North8000 and Born2cycle are aware of the restriction against scope discussions through long term participation in the article; and, the discussion itself contains the suggestion to read the "warning at the top of this page," as a previously uninvolved editor launched the discussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

dismiss no reason to collapse reasonable discussion in talk. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• The only behavior requiring admin attention here is the collapsing of reasonable and pertinent ongoing discussion about article content involving half a dozen different editors by User:Fifelfoo and User:BigK HeX [19] [20]. No one needs to be reminded about the scope limitation. Article scope was not even being discussed in the discussion in question here. No article edit warring is going on. The repeated collapsing of productive and appropriate discussion is disruptive and uncivil (disrespectful to those involved), and I welcome an uninvolved admin to evaluate the situation. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Fifelfoo, perhaps you or BigK can explain why you think the discussion you collapsed was about article scope, or was expressing disagreement with the consensus decision that the scope of the article should be the general/broad interpretation of "libertarianism". You can't just declare any discussion as being about scope just so that justifies collapsing it. It should also be noted that the discussion was started by a previously uninvolved editor who probably had no idea about the restriction, not that anything they or anyone else said was in violation. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(added later) You are right, more than you realize. The "restriction" that you are saying is inapplicable actually doesn't even exist. It was written by one of the participants in a dispute, not by an admin, not by a closer, not by any official WP action. North8000 13:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate. While Fifel wrote the initial restriction, shortly after the third RFC on the same topic, it was completely rewritten by admin Ucucha, who doesn't seem to have otherwise participated in the discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Eduen's initial post. Darkstar's combative, and scope revisiting, "notice when you type in "libertarian" in google, the lp party and the wp article appear, but no socialist or anarchist links. my favorite retort will come from the usual suspects…". Fifelfoo (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This could take 5,000 words, but here's the gist of it. IMHO Fiferloo is wrong three times over. First, there is no such restriction. Second, nor should there be, this is germane discussion on development of an important article which seems to have gone dead. . Third, this current discussion (use of the word) is on a very different topic than the previous discussion (where we resolved scope) that Fiferloo is mis-launching from. The only mis-behavior deletion/hiding of talk page content. I have no hard feelings toward fellow editor Fiferloo, and sorry that the briefness of my statement makes it sound a little rough. Sincerely, North8000 12:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On the first of the three points, Fiferloo may have been misled by the wording that someone put in the template. The "prohibition" on talk in the template is not legit. It was written by one of the participants in a dispute, not by an admin, not by a closer, and not by any official WP action. Sincerely North8000 13:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, with the legitimacy of the notice at the top of Talk:Libertarianism in question -- the notice which supposedly justifies the collapsing of the discussion (and many others) in question -- I suggest it be removed unless someone can provide evidence of its legitimacy. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I already posted a diff showing that it was rewritten by an uninvolved admin, so it's legitimate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Per my comment below I think that that point was secondary to the discussion here. I didn't mean that I checked out who wrote it to see if they were an admin. I meant that it did not arise from the (closer or admin of the) RFC process process. I agreed with the results of the RFC, even though it had some issues. Peace came when I asked folks who thought the opposite to "give peace a chance", and that I would temporarily oppose continued discussion while we made a try at moving forward. Nothing about terminating their rights to reopen the discussion. Either way, the current discussion is on a different topic. North8000 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that I rewrote the restriction—to improve its style, not to change its meaning in any way—and the unrelated fact that I happen to be an admin should have any bearing on the legitimacy of the restriction. Ucucha 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We all got mentally worn out and writers cramp after that last bout. Long story short, we had a 3/4 consensus to go with the RFC result (rather than re-opening it) with a portion of the 3/4 (muslef included) conditional on making some progress with the article. The talk section in question is NOT about reopening that issue. So, in this case, that text is causing confusiton, and leading to violation of talk page guidlines.....deleting/hiding of normal talk material. Also, editing on the article has gone to the other extreme.....completely dead. North8000 17:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. It was hard to find due to a lack of edit summary, but it turns it was non-admin and involved editor User:Fifelfoo who placed the notice at the top of the page originally on October 1st! [21]. Then the wording was changed by another non-admin involved editor on October 10th [22]. Here is what it currently says:

General warning regarding disruption: 1 October 2010 03:28 UTC through 1 February 2011 03:28 UTC –

1. An administrator has fully protected this article until February 1, 2011. ...
2. Due to months of disruptions by discussions about the breadth of libertarian ideologies discussed in this article, the community of editors has clearly and repeatedly discussed this topic and reached a consensus position, and continuous attempts to dispute this consensus disrupt the encyclopedia. If such discussion occurs despite warnings, editors should feel free to take the matter to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or to collapse the discussion. The purpose of this general warning is to prevent disruption, not to prevent editorial opinion. Discussions on due and undue weight for subtopics of the article, backed by reliable sources, are fine. After the sanction expires, editorial opinion on topic and coverage, backed up by policy and reliable sources, will be considered as normal.

My main objection is to the highlighted wording, and how that has been applied indiscriminately to any disliked discussion by a few editors. Of course, true disruption can and should be taken here. But encouraging editors to collapse ongoing relevant discussion about article content (and scope for that matter) is without basis. I really want an uninvolved administrator to weigh in on this, but what I really would like is for those words to be deleted from the notice, and editors warned to cease collapsing (or deleting) discussions that are not in violation of WP policy or guidelines (like WP:NOTAFORUM, for example). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And this mis-fire was an example. This was a good, positive, germane discussion on a topic DIFFERENT from the previous question that the RFC and everything was about. Sincerely, North8000 20:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some problems with placing a warning at the top of the talk page yourself, and then acting as if it is a binding policy placed by an uninvolved admin. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 21:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Except we now have precisely the same revisiting of scope ongoing on the talk page which is disruptive ([23] [24] [25]). And that when such disruptive community behaviour was rife collapsing discussions prevented people running directly to RFC/U over WP:IDHT in editors who are otherwise (from my experience on wikipedia) rational. A variety of kinds of editors have a compulsive problem over Libertarianism and collapsing discussions on the topic worked because it prevented the community of involved editors from picking at their scab. Placing the warning in October, and having repeatedly enforced it myself prior to now, has resulted in two and a half months without continuous daily talk page disruption. If removing the disruption actually improved the encyclopaedia is something to evaluate in February. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The diffs you provide are not examples of discussions about article scope. If you really believe they are, please quote the specific words that you think makes them be about article scope, and explain why. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• The first two diffs I supplied were of uncollapsing.

1. In diff [26] IP 61.… revisits scope explicitly, "The word "libertarian" is almost unanimously considered an ideology which promotes total individualism, both socially and economically."
2. In diff [27] Carolmooredc describes the process leading to the current scope as other users have discussed removing scoped content in entirity, "Hmmm, it seems to me there were a couple of RfCs and a couple of rejected name change moves that showed a clear consensus to not try to delete all material on this topic."
3. In diff [28] Eduen defends the current scope's inclusions, "It is possible that all this might surprise one or more USA citizens or residents present here but in the rest of the world this is something rather trivial actually and the International Libertarian Solidarity organizations all are active and propagandizing in those countries today about class war and anticapitalism."

• The reading is straight forward, but thanks for asking for me to clarify it to you. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I hope you don't mind I changed some bullets to numbers for ease of reference.
    1. How is discussion about what the word "libertarian" is usually used to mean a discussion of the scope of the article?
    2. I didn't understand the relevance of Carol's comment to what was being discussed. Anyway, it was discussing some recent history on the talk apge; it was not disputing any consensus which is what the notice prohibits.
    3. Eduen was not even specifically referring to actual article content, or scope, but talking about usage of the term "libertarian" in the world, presumably because it might be useful for the article (he provided many links). Again, there was no kind of dispute here with any kind of consensus.
  • I'm genuinely baffled as to why you object at all to any of this. Your collapsing and ANI filing is far more disruptive than any of the discussions you've collapsed today, none of which have been disruptive at all, except in how you've reacted to it and all that reaction has initiated, including this sentence. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of consensus: While I am unsure of the status of this kind of complaint at this point, I do want to make clear that there is some basis for a consensus to avoid discussion of the scope of the article at least until the Full protection imposed from October 1 to February 1 is over. Unfortunately, recent talk page WP:SOAPBOX makes it clear that the constant disruptions that led to protecting the article in October probably will start up with a vengeance in February. :-(
I saved this list of evidence since I was sure this disruption would start again soon enough:

• This August 27 RfC rejecting just making it about Right wing libertarianism,
• This September 3 successful RfC for removing a tag saying that the article lacked a “single coherent topic” (because it did not have the desired single POV,
• This September 9 rejected Requested move to "Libertarianism (Forms of)".
• This September 9 rejected Requested move to "Libertarianism (Word)".
• This September 18 rejected proposal to revert to the 2005 version which does not include material deletionists do not like does not go to broader community; currently 5 for and 5 against.
• Proposal: remove all references to any ideology never referred to as just "libertarianism" without qualification in English WP:RS, another rejected RfC.

CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That User:Darkstar1st be restricted from editing Talk:Libertarianism for 23 hours

Being that:

1. User:Darkstar1st is clearly aware of restriction on discussion scope at Talk:Libertarianism due to its disruptive nature as they are a long term contributor
2. That Darkstar1st created a section diff to specifically discuss changing article scope. This can be read in plain language:
   1. "Removing left and right from the article";
      1. Ie: changing the scope of the article by removing currently scoped in content, this is different to other arguments about due weight
   2. "the average user is searching for the same definition they seek on google, which is the modern understanding of libertarian."
      1. Ie: changing the scope of the article by matching a personal definition Darkstar1st holds, and believes that the average user holds by removing currently scoped content
3. This is an example of extreme WP:IDHT, and WP:SOAPBOX and,
4. As collapsing article sections per the warning supported (as indicated above) by an uninvolved admin is not stopping the constant revisting of scope, therefore:

I suggest a minimal editing restriction against Darkstar1st editing Talk:Libertarianism for 23 hours. Such a minimal editing restriction would act as a signal against the behaviour, and, indicate that creating discussions to revisit scope is unacceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The way we resolve conflicts and develop consensus at Wikipedia is through discussion on talk pages, precisely the kind of discussion that Fifelfoo continues to collapse despite this open ANI and our awaiting some kind of resolution from an uninvolved admin. Anyone? Please?

Before anyone is restricted from editing anything, I think we need some clarity on what can and can't be discussed on the article talk page. In particular, it seems to me that a discussion about how much coverage a particular aspect of the topic should get so as to comply with WP:DUE is completely appropriate, and yet that is precisely the discussion that Fifelfoo just collapsed. I will not uncollapse only because this ANI is open, but sincerely hope an intervening admin will do so soon because this nonsense has to stop so that discussion about how to improve the article can proceed without being disrupted like this. Fifelfoo, if you don't want to discuss something, do what I and I countless other editors do... ignore the discussion. You don't own the talk page. It doesn't have to include only discussion that you're interested in or that you think has merit. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st was here when the restriction was imposed, was immediately aware of the restriction due to the presence of the warning on the talk page, and from having contributed to the above discussion. Darkstar1st suggested removing content based on a personally held definition: ie changing scope.

If you have ideas about WP:DUE, don't attach them as a follow up to a scoping discussion. Your contribution to that particular collapsed discussion was about WP:DUE and would (and still would be) be best presented independently of Darkstar1st's attempt to discuss scoping.

As you would be aware, the reason why the article has a limit on scoping discussions is because they were found to have been fundamentally disruptive to article improvement. If you want to revisit the quality of article improvement without the scoping restriction, then feel free to read the archives spanning March through September of 2010. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, you are engaged in a kind of censorship micro-managed by someone involved in a dispute on an article talk page that is unworkable. I know of no precedent for it. I'm asking you, again, to please stop. If you have legitimate complaints about disruptive behavior in violation of WP policy and guideline, then take it up with the alleged offender and escalate as necessary if that does not work; file an ANI about it if necessary. But unilateral collapsing by an editor involved in a dispute of any discussion that that editor feels is inappropriate is what is the only behavior being discussed here that is clearly inappropriate. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

it was already well escalated over six months. Part of the escalation is freedom to collapse. The gentleness of the escalation given six months of disruption and idht may surprise you. This is as you are aware from October, the natural escalation. Fifelfoo_m (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a good first step since Darkstar1st is the most disruptive editor. And when he comes back and keeps up his various disruptive techniques, hopefully he'll be permanently banned from editing articles on libertarianism. (Note that he's basically a WP:Single purpose account mostly editing Libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States since April 2010.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

disagree i am not a single purpose account and have been in wp longer than anyone editing the article. my interests are broad, as are my edits. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no blanket prohibition about discussing scope, even the ersatz one does not say that, and the current discussion are about terminology, not scope. So Carol ad Fifeloo are wrong on this 2-3 times over, and this is starting to look THEY are warring, where no war exists. Sincerely, North8000 02:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the same old pushing of an exclusionary viewpoint (rejected by wiki community) that went on for 5 months before the article was shut down - and there's still 5 weeks before the article is opened. It's just too much deja vu all over again. Maybe we're suffering from PTSD!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

PTSD is no joke: people actually do suffer from it. A Libertarian candidate making a viable run for something like the U.S. Presidency? Now that's funny: considering the last President that wasn't either a Republican or a Democrat was a Whig elected in 1850. Go ahead: waste your vote! Doc talk 05:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol, we already decided not to exclude (specific wording per the RFC finding). And I am in your "camp" on that topic. This is a discussion about terminology, not scope or exclusion. You are seeing ghosts!  :-) Sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

And this is without even going there that there is no blanket prohibition on discussion of scope. North8000 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my chomping at the bit, once I saw that blocking recommendation. But what is needed at the very least is a warning from Admins not to start up all the WP:SOAPBOX (see Wikipedia:Soapbox#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox) about excluding or nearly all excluding or mostly excluding views not liked by some, while rarely bringing up WP:RS - and regularly dismissing scads of WP:RS presented. This smacks of a political campaign for political purposes, not an attempt to create a balanced article. I warned about future ANIs for this sort of thing and perhaps Fifelfoo jumped the gun and ran over here. But a warning, reminder is most definitively in order to make editing wikipedia a less traumatic experience. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Carol, nobody has started that, so this seems like the exact opposite of AGF. If it happens, I'll be with you,. North8000 15:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Since none of that has been going on, I don't see the reason to bring it up now. What has been going on is the censorship of discussion that is not in violation of policy, guidelines or any RFC or anything via collapsing. It's very disruptive and we need a warning from an Admin against that. It just happened again. That was reverted and discussion about content continued[29]. But then that was collapsed too[30].

Please, let's address problems actually occurring on the talk page.... the disruptive edit-warring collapsing has to stop! --Born2cycle (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

At the top of the page of the collapse template being repeatedly used on the talk page in question is the following warning:

This template should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:refactoring guideline; it should never be used to to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.

Whether the editing being collapsed is disruptive is exactly what is at issue in this ANI. Obviously it is not unambiguous disruptive editing. Therefore, use of the collapse template to end a discussion over the objections of other editors is in itself disruptive and a violation of the Wikipedia:refactoring guideline. I am leaving appropriate warnings on the user pages of those in violation. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily endorse a 23-hr block, I will comment that Darkstar1st's thread is EXACTLY the disruption that led to the decisions from numerous editors on scope. BigK HeX (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Born2cycle is part of the vocal minority involved in the initial disruptive WP:IDHT in regards to scope [see Carol's list of RfC's they failed above]. I find his latest reverts to be along those same lines: [31]. The disregard for consensus was disturbing and disruptive, and a resurrection of that behavior is unlikely to be any more productive. BigK HeX (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive collapsing to end discussion that is not unambiguously disruptive

Even though this is related to another open ANI, it's a very specific question and should be easy to answer.

Can an uninvolved Admin please clarify whether collapsing of article talk page comments that are not "unambiguously disruptive" is a violation of the WP:refactoring guideline, and, if it is, please warn User:BigK HeX and User:Fifelfoo accordingly?

Fifelfoo yesterday, and BigK today, have both repeatedly collapsed such comments for the purpose of ending discussion, while the very question of whether those comments are "disruptive" is being discussed on this page.

The template for collapsing clearly states:

This template should only be used in accordance with the Wikipedia:refactoring guideline; it should never be used to to end a discussion over the objections of other editors, except in cases of unambiguous disruptive editing.

It seems quite obvious to me that since there is objection by a number of editors, and the question of whether the comments being collapsed are disruptive is one of the unresolved issues at the other ANI, these comments are clearly not unambiguous disruptive editing.

I've already warned BigK about this[32], but he apparently disagrees with my interpretation, as he continues to collapse ongoing discussion despite the warning[33], which is why I seek clarification from an uninvolved admin. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Allright, let's untangle this

First there was a huge war (before my time) and some folks might still be viewing everything through that lens. The recent big question (and RFC subject) was inclusion/exclusion of less common variants of Libertarianism in the article. The conclusion of the RFC was to include those that are significant, based on RS's, subject to additional standards such as wp:undue. No finding on restricting discussion. North8000 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The "huge war" was certainly not "before your time". You were involved in those discussions and RfC's, such as this one: [[34]]. BigK HeX (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Wording in the Template

One of the combatants wrote in the template that nobody gets to talk about scope for six months, and put the trappings on to make it look like an official statement. I complained. An editor, who happens to be an admin, tweaked it. In their own words:

"I don't think the fact that I rewrote the restriction—to improve its style, not to change its meaning in any way—and the unrelated fact that I happen to be an admin should have any bearing on the legitimacy of the restriction. Ucucha 03:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)"

I looked and said that it's still wrong (but not as bad) but didn't do anything about it. IMHO, we (or an officially acting admin) should erase that stuff. If anything, put the actual key findings from the RFC.

Current discussions

New discussions are occurring on meanings of terminology, common tenets, etc. which are NOT NOT on the topic that was the subject of the RFC. They are friendly and informative. See for yourself. Fiferloo and BigK keep collapsing those discussions. While the illegitimate notice is certainly contributing to this, to me they seem overly hostile, and massively overreacting, and assuming bad faith with no basis in these actions. Carol has also been overreacting but not collapsing.

IMHO, Fiferlo and BigK should stop collapsing discussions, (maybe an admin check this out and tell them, if they agree) and all three should stop assuming bad faith. If, in the next few months, someone actually does start re-discussing the subject of the RFC finding, then I would back you on ending that discussion. But, so far, such has not occurred. Sincerely, North8000 17:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

With regards to your statement: "in the next few months, someone actually does start re-discussing the subject of the RFC finding, then I would back you on ending that discussion. But, so far, such has not occurred

If you're referring to supporting the RfC that closed with the Summary Statement, "'Libertarianism' should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources", then I can't see how your comment is coherent given that Darkstar1st's thread is "Removing left and right [libertarianism] from the article" BigK HeX (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Roughly 3 or 4 persistent -- even tendentious -- editors revisiting a settled topic every few days got us to this point. See:

• the first RfC rejecting the blatant POV from the vocal minority, which is the same POV that User:Darkstar1st with support from one of his fellow vocal minority is again pushing anew,
• The “lacks a single coherent topic” tag placed by the vocal minority is removed,
• Vocal minority proposes a move to "Libertarianism (Forms of)" which is rejected.
• A simultaneous proposal from the vocal minority to move the article to "Libertarianism (Word)" is rejected.
• this asanine RfC proposal from the vocal minority is rejected.

Interesting to note that almost all (except for 1 or 2) of the previously uninvolved editors who weighed in on RfC's and Move Requests nearly unanimously rejected the POV of the vocal minority.

So, while I'm all for legitimate discussion, Darkstar1st popping back up from his wikibreak after a couple of months to stir up his blatant POV is a silly attempt at more of the same WP:IDHT disruption that got us to this point. BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BigK, the newest of those diffs is from last September ! Sincerely, North8000 18:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the OLDEST one of those many RfC's is from September, too. Which brings us back to my point that constant disruption by the same editors is what got us here. I stated my position on these repetitive WP:IDHT proposals back then. BigK HeX (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What to do about an editor that tags images for deletion ...

What to do about an editor that tags images for deletion and refuses to notify the uploader, even after several requests to do so. He finds older images I uploaded that don't have the newest template, and instead of adding a template himself, or asking me to do so, he tags them for deletion and I notice them when I see the red link in the article or my watchlist. I end up just reuploding the fair-use image and adding the newest template. In a fraction of the time to go through this, he could have added the newer template, or notified me to add it or suplement the existing rationale. Instead we end up with a ritual that wastes everyone's time. Previously I had almost every image I loaded nominated for deletion by a user that I had opposed in an AFD debate. They spend hours adding a deletion tag to almost every image I added, including images of my own face on my userpage. Image deletion shouldn't be used as a punative measure or retaliation. Any comments? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What individual user are you talking about? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is User:Jsayre64.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Maybe you could save everyone the time and go through your CCI yourself and make sure that the licenses are correct rather than blaming it on the person trying to clean up the mess. Quantpole (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be lovely! Please do, Richard. You know that fair use requirements are a bit more extensive than what you've been accustomed to putting on images, and tagging for deletion is the way these are handled. I had asked just a few weeks ago at WT:NFC about creating a template to request improvement to rationale precisely because of your CCI, but I was told that a template of that sort was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_15#Template:Short-Rationale). As per that conversation, "It is the case that the person who places a non-free image should be the one to ensure that the fair use rationale is adequate, and if a rationale does not pass muster, the non-free content needs to be corrected soon or go." The "disputed fair use" deletion tag allows seven days for this correction to take place. As to notifications, as you know, I requested that your talk page not be spammed with notices in courtesy to you. I asked you previously to let me know if you would prefer individual notices, but I did not hear back from you. If you would like individual notices, I can certainly log that request at the CCI page, so that those who are taking the time to help make sure that your remaining images are compliant with policies will know that you would appreciate them after all. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the mess, Treasury Tag did by nominating what appears to be almost every image I loaded, over 400 were tagged before he gave up, including the images of my own face on my userpage, so please don't blame the victim. Remember the standard FUR template wasn't born with Wikipedia, it came along later, much later than most of the images I uploaded. Out of what is by my count over 400 images nominated for deletion I now count 8 redlinks, mostly for New York Times articles that were listed at "pre-1965 public domain without renewal" that had their copyright reapplied for, and the official notice was found. And even they could have been switched to Fairuse. There are a few that I can't figure out what they were because they were deleted before I could respond. I am still not sure why Treasury Tag's actions weren't labeled as harassment. I think I could challenge an equal number from anyone's uploads and get the same percentage deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We are all responsible for making sure that our content meets requirements. You are not a victim in this matter, regardless of what may or may not have happened with User:TreasuryTag. There were legitimate concerns with copyright and with fair use practices regarding your images, and a good many people have dedicated and are dedicating time to helping make sure that the many valid and usable images you have uploaded are properly identified and defined, while images that may not meet our policies are addressed. This is tedious but necessary work, and your proactive assistance with it would certainly be worthwhile. (By the way, I've dropped a note to User:TreasuryTag, as he is now a subject of this discussion.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite know why I've been name-dropped in this discussion other than Richard attempting to claim that since his poor copyright labelling was once reviewed and he didn't like it, he should henceforth gain complete immunity in this regard. Nonsense. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 14:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I ran into this same Issue a while back and it cycles back around from time to time thats why I stopped uplodading images. We have templates that when used arent any good, in most cases the image gets deleted before I have a chance to find the information, when I argue the point knowone seems to care other than CCI seems to be allowed to do pretty much as they want with only minimal concensus in the name of CCI. the following are suggestion I have for fixing this:

1. ) The uploader must be notified of the deletion, even if that is a group request or a link to the deletion discussion page. This is already the policy, if its not being followed then your breaking policy
2. ) The uploader must be given adequate time with the possibility of extension if needed to get the source information, with the exception of an extension this is already policy, I believe the rule is 7 days
3. ) If the templates people are using aren't good enough then we need to get rid of them and make new ones.
4. ) We need to document better what is needed. If the same mistakes are repeated from one uploader to the next then the problem lies as much with the policy written as with the uploader who doesn't know or understand it.

If we do these 4 things it will not only stop wasting peoples time (the uploader and the reviewer) we will make the image repository in WP a much better and cleaner place. --Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

IRT Moongirls comments I would also say that we are all volunteers and knowone likes thier time wasted whether because thier edits get reverted or because their images get deleted. Running bots like VMbot a while back and deleting images without notifying the user are just bad practice and lazy no matter what the justification. CCI has an important role to play however they need to follow the rules like the rest of us. The attitude of CCI trumps all and we can do what we want needs to stop. You are not only causing unneeded problems with articles and drama with editors, more importantly, you are giving the CCI process a bad reputation and it is casting the whole CCI project and processes in a negative light, thereby turning off users who might take the time to help. --Kumioko (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I remember you. Since you've not been the subject of a CCI, I was confused as to to who was deleting your images before you had the chance to find the information "in the name of CCI". I gather you're not talking about images or you at all, but rather about your request to change copyright violation policy at Village Pump. This is not the place to change policy. If you would like to propose further changes to our policies related to copyright, you may wish to open a new discussion at Village Pump.

As to the specifics of this case, the contributor has been notified of the need to watch the WP:CCI page. Every image tagged should be noted at that page; I believe they have been. He has been asked if he would prefer individual notification, but so far has not indicated that this is his desire. No image has been presumptively deleted in this case, as this is not an indefinitely blocked contributor returning under sock puppet. Every one has been duly tagged and, where necessary, listed for review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Im the guy that told you your bot was screwing up articles and got the brush off. Thats a nice attempt to change the subject and redirect fire though. That policy request was based on the fact that I have had several images recently (and more over the past several months) tagged for deletion or deleted out right and I didn't find out until I saw it was missing to an article. Ot the fact that the bot went tearing through a couple hundred articles on my watchlist causing me to revert all but 2 (and Im not even sure about those but I let them go) changes. And since your bot recently caused me and several other editors several hours of work reverting bad edits (the majority of the edits made by the bot I might add) because it wasn't programmed correctly. Back to the point of the matter though. Telling someone to watch for their name on a page isn't the policy unless you chaneged it. You need to notify them on their talk page so that they can respond unless they tell you otherwise by exception. I admit that much of what CCI does pertains to contributors we don't want or need, but that doesn't appear to be the case here and that doesn't mean CCI is exempt from policy. --Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't run a bot. Please don't confuse individuals. There may be few of us who work in the CCI area, but we're not one person. :) That you have had images deleted (not via CCI) or that you disagree with the application of policy to one CCI has no bearing whatsoever on this case. (I don't believe you got any kind of a brush off in your earlier query, but that has even less relevance to this conversation. You probably know where WP:WQA is, if you feel differently and would like to request uninvolved feedback at an appropriate forum.)

This contributor is still actively editing and is capable of voicing his own desires. He has been asked if he would prefer individual notifications. Had he at any point indicated that he would, he would have received individual notifications. No individual notifications were supplied as a courtesy to him because of his prior concerns of harassment. That said, he still has only to request individual notification to receive it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue of the bot aside continuing to dodge the issue of why CCI tags violates policy by tagging articles and images for deletion without notifying the user is the issue here. And providing the Excuse that they can watch the CCI paeg isn't an acceptable response. Your right this editor is capable and did say something and then was told "Maybe you could save everyone the time and go through your CCI yourself and make sure that the licenses are correct rather than blaming it on the person trying to clean up the mess". This is what I am talking about. Comment like that coming from members of the CCI project. The ongoing pattern of "we are CCI and have free reign to do what we think is right and if you don't like it then help out" mentality. You are bullying users and using Gustapo style tactics as a recruiting tool for your project. It amazes me that more editors aren't complaining. I realize that at times it may not seem like it but I am trying to be civil here but the comments and etiquette coming from the CCI members is making it difficult. --Kumioko (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First, CCI is not a project; it's a process board. That said, I have to wonder why you think User:Quantpole speaks for CCI. This is the administrators noticeboard, and anybody is welcome to contribute here. I'm looking back at his or contribs and I see no edits whatsoever to CCI or any individual CCI...not one, ever. And that said, he'd be more than welcome to start. Any contributor with no history of copyright problems is welcome to help out. You may be trying to be civil, but you are falling somewhat short: "You are bullying users and using Gestapo style tactics as a recruiting tool for your project." Maybe I'm the one who needs to go to WQA. :/ I have never done any such thing. As to the rest, I don't plan to argue with you. If Richard, who has known since the CCI opened that he would not receive individual notifications, would like to receive notification, he need only speak up. Your speaking up does not replace his doing so. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to interrupt this dialog, but I'm getting lost so let me chime in with a quick question. Can someone explain why notifying the uploader isn't being done in these cases? It seems at the least like a reasonable request but I assume there are good reasons for not doing so? Hobit (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Notices are not routinely provided for items tagged during a CCI because these investigations can deal with hundreds or (as in this case) even thousands of specific items. The presumption is that contributors generally do not intentionally violate policies, and there is an effort made at discretion (which sometimes fails but, fortunately, not that often). Every item tagged at CCI is logged on the CCI page, so the contributor does not need to be watching every image or every article; they only need to watch that page if they want to know what is being done with a particular image or article. Since discretion totally failed in this one already (for obvious and very good reasons), let's take Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo for example. This involves 13,542 articles. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo 1 begins the listing of each, which is marked when cleared or addressed. It is a courtesy to active contributors at CCI that we don't hit them with dozens or more templates. (Indef blocked ones, it would also be pointless.) (Eta Oh, and it certainly is a reasonable request; it may be lost, as this has gotten long, but it would have been honored if he had ever made it. I asked him here if he would prefer individual notices, but he never responded.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats good to know about it being a process board, I thought it was just a Project. I admit I don't know what the difference is but it seems like a board would have more authority. I honestly don't know who the members are since I usually see the same 3 people responding. So your saying that knowone from the CCI team has ever said something like "Feel free to volunteer to work on CCIs (we have 46 open - plenty to choose from!) and other copyright cleanup and encourage others to do so and no such drastic measures [as running a bot] would ever need to be considered" such as here and here when numorous editors stepped forward about the actions of VMbot? Which BTW didn't go through BRFA as far as I can tell but was supported by a couple of CCI editors on the CCI page that hardly anyone watches. These are just 2 examples from 1 editor but I have seen several others recently that paint the same picture. I do apologize if I seem like I am centering this towards you sepcifically as this deals with CCI's practices in general and not you as an individual. I confess that I find myself vecoming frustrated by the "its not my fault its the editor" fingerpointing and the ongoing rhetorical comments. It may not have been you as you say but it was folks from teh CCI team and the general tone is we have the power to this and you can't tell us otherwise. Back to the point of this discussion...again, is that niether I nor the user above should need to step up and say hay I want to be notified. The policy is that the user be notified. Exclusion should be by exception (or if the user is known to be gone or in large numbers such as the Darius Dhlomo incident), not by default as appears to be current practice. --Kumioko (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

First, if you're going to complain about lack of notification perhaps you should have bothered mentioning this thread to me since you keep bringing me back up in it, even though I'm not working on the CCI which is nominally in question here. Second, there are no "members" of CCI anymore than there are "members" of ANI. Third, just so I have a reference: could you point me to the exact policies that state users must be notified when their images are tagged for deletion? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know of any such policy. I think that the existance of the CCI subpage is a lot like notifying the uploader, as long as the editor is watching the page. With the Darius Dhlomo CCI, you didn't have to notify Darius Dhlomo. The subpage served that purpose. Why not the same with this CCI? Jsayre64 (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if we can clarify things here. The process board does have authority. It's in action now. This user is the subject of a CCI; he has violated our copyright policy on a number of occasions...most recently just a few days ago, although this was a text matter (about which he has also been previously notified). There are literally a thousand + (somewhere between 1780 and 1800, to be exact) of images involved here; I regard this as a "large number". I have personally reviewed and happily marked clear most of the images this user has added; many of them are excellent. A number have been deleted. What remains are largely non-free images, many of which have insufficient rationales.

Richard has known from the beginning of the CCI that he would not receive notification. He was told here: "To avoid spamming people, we do not do individual notices for issues located, but they are annotated there." That was reinforced to him here: "I've asked people not to tag your talk page to avoid cluttering it, since you know to watch the CCI." I've several times already linked to the interim edit where I asked him to let me know if he would rather his case be handled differently. His complaint against this contributor includes the allegation that he "refuses to notify the uploader, even after several requests to do so". Are there diffs to substantiate that he has requested of Jsayre that he be notified and ignored? If so, viewing them would certainly help. I see this note at the individual's talk page, where he mentions notification. It was left today at 02:10. AJsayre has not tagged any images since then, and, in fact, before this ANI report was even filed offered here to help supply FUR for these images.

In past CCIs, the notification procedure has apparently worked just fine. If Richard wants his handled differently, I see no reason to object to that, but he does need to make that clear.

(In terms of the bot, which again has nothing to do with this, it was discussed at an WP:ANI subpage, here, and its BRFA listing is here. Contributors can read for themselves whether the response you received was quite the way you recall it. I see some signs of frustration there, but certainly nothing like a Nazi comparison; Godwin's law remained uninvoked until today. ;)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm done. Your still not getting my point and I don't have the desire or the stamina to continue to debate this. Were so far off topic most readers of this discussion probably don't even know what were talking about by this point. I am confident we could continue to argue this in perpituity and still not agree or come to any meaningful resolution so its time for me to go back to what I was doing. At this point it just seems like I am being argumentative and thats not what was trying to convey. VM your absolutely right and I had actually gone to let you know a few minutes later but Moonriddengirl beat me to it.

Here is a link for 1 place where it says that you should notify the contributor Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Its a slightly different venue I grant you but the concept is the same. Here is 1 more just for good measure Wikipedia:Deletion policy--Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No one has answered as to why the people tagging for deletion cannot spend the same amount of time adding the newer tags. Whatever tag your demanding today to replace the earlier text version will be obsolete in the future. If it takes the same amount of time, why not do the right thing for the sake of the readers. All I hear are weak excuses and people saying it is the responsibility of the uploader.{{Non-free use rationale |Article= |Description= |Source= |Portion=All |Low_resolution=Yes |Purpose=To illustrate person at peak of career |Replaceability=Non replaceable, person is dead |other_information= }} --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They could spend the time and add tags / legitimate reasons, but they would have to know if it is in fact the peak of the subject's career and if the person is dead, etc. and so it doesn't take the same time. Just like at PUF where many of the files could just be retagged as copyrighted and given a FUR they are generally deleted when neither the uploader nor another interested editor takes the time to do so. The fact that someone else can go out of their way to fix your problems instead of just telling you about them doesn't mean they have to what with it being a volunteer project and all. You don't have to use newfangled tags, but a FUR does need to be complete; that rule has been around since before you started editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

They'd also have to actually agree it is a valid fair use case. In particular issues of replacability NFC#1 (being dead doesn't mean there isn't a free image available), significance - does the image truely increase understanding as required by NFC#8, and to a lesser degree perhaps NFC#2 respect for commercial opportunities. Not everyone sees those the same way, so some will believe there is no valid rationale to tag it with. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well if User:Moonriddengirl and User:Jsayre64 aren't willing to take a few extra seconds of their time to notify people of deletion, or to take a few extra seconds of their time to add the update FUR template when it is missing, or evaluate whether "To illustrate person at peak of career" is valid, I would rather have other people doing the investigation. If they can't evaluate whether "To illustrate person at peak of career" is valid to add, then they probably should not be volunteering for the job of going through my punishment audit by User:Treasury Tag. We should be measuring our success by how much we have fixed and preserved, not by how much we delete. I also think the "punitive audit" should be banned as a form of harassment. Moonriddengirl and Treasury Tag had already tagged my userpage image of my face for deletion. Treasury Tag as a form of harassment and Moonriddengirl for her own reasons. This doesn't instill confidence in me, and I am sure other editors are equally concerned. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard, that's is demonstrably untrue. Anyone can look at the edit history of your userpage image and see that I have never touched it: File:Norton-Richard Umea 2257.JPG. Please make sure that you accurately report your concerns at ANI. Speaking of which: do you have diffs to support your claim that you asked Jsayre for notification on multiple occasions and were ignored? Or are you perhaps not recalling that correctly as well?

You were told what to do if you desired notification. As to taking a few extra seconds, I assure you it took more than a few seconds to explain to you on the 18th that you still cannot copy text from previously published sources. Leaving you a pregenerated notice, that takes considerably less time. Since it is evidently your desire, I will make sure to give you the pregenerated notices in any future instances of copyright violation.

There is nothing whatsoever "punitive" about this audit. You for whatever reason have violated our copyright policies with images and, as I know now, text on multiple occasions. It is necessary to review your content to make sure that everything we still have is as it shoudl be. You have been treated with courtesy throughout the review and have done little to demonstrate your good faith in cleaning up issues that you have caused.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The only time Richard has ever gone to my talk page was the recently opened section here, and as you can see I did not ignore him. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That was the first time he asked me to notify him of problems with his images, and I haven't been working on the CCI since then, because of this discussion, obviously, and Richard being upset. Jsayre64 (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You are doing a tedious job, a valuable service to the project. Your volunteering your time has been appreciated, greatly. If and when you do decide to resume, please keep in mind that Richard has now said he would like the templates. I'll make a note of this change at the CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you feel that the investigation is a "punishment audit by User:Treasury Tag" when I'm the editor that placed the CCI request. AS MRG said above, please make sure the concerns you voice here are accurate. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been some images listed on the CCI that had a rationale with enough information, but just no template. In those cases, I can just merge that information into a rationale template... no problem. But "low res, no revenue loss, person is dead" is not quite adequate enough and, as I've told Richard before and as VernoWhitney pointed out, the uploader, and only the uploader, is the one who knows exactly how the rationale should look in the template. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User: Catherine Huebscher

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

Catherine has in the last few months made a long series of edits to Paul Robeson and related articles. With a number of editors on the page, I have tried very patiently to explain NPOV and coatracking to her, but to no avail. She continually interprets sincere efforts as hostility. She may perhaps be willing to listen to User: Malik Shabazz. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello to an administrator, we are currently dealing with the volatile subject of Paul Robeson's history. A subject who has a history riddled with misconceptions and lies put forth by the mass media/US power structure in-combination with an erasure from history due to cold war blacklisting as well as white washing of his Communist affiliations by Leftists. I'm in a Scylla and Charybdis situation as the majority of other editors currently trying to help have not done indepth research required to clear up the aforementioned misconceptions Robeson. Many want to paint in povs to "explain" his very controversial views. I now am being targeted by Itsmejudith who has already sided with two users with a history of behavioral problems on wikipedia (radh and str1977) and who have used/rationalized the usage of racist terms such as "nigger" and "Uncle Tom." Itsmejudith felt calling Robeson an "Uncle Tom" was fine because "Paul Robeson is dead." Str1977 "reworked" the article with a clear anti-Communist bias riddled with factual errors ("Carnegie Hall in the UK", "Robeson's Soviet sympathies", and other povs) then tagged the article and now has vanished. I am willing to go through sentence by sentence to clear up povs and any mistakes including my own. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.Catherine Huebscher (talk) 7:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC

I suggest you provide diffs for some of these allegations --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that Catherine Huebscher has also filed a 3RR report. I'm not sure whether the discussion needs to take place in two separate locations? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

May as well keep it here, as Ms. Hübscher's 3RR report appears to be both incorrectly constructed and incorrect, period. It's the same text as the post made above and is a plea for help more than a 3RR claim. The user appears to be on a crusade, and crusaders' careers at wikipedia tend to be short-lived. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we might be getting somewhere on the talk page of the article concerned. --Snowded ^TALK 18:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have closed the AN3 report. This looks mainly like a content issue (try an appropriate wikiproject or sourcing noticeboard?), but there may be issues that should be addressed here. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Snowded's interventions have been invaluable, and the atmosphere is more collaborative right at this minute. However, it would still be very useful to have some more people watching the article, particularly admins. Some incivility/assuming bad faith diffs follow. Most were directed at User:Str1977, who has argued his corner while maintaining correct behaviour throughout. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Another diff shows [42] Catherine removing a talk page comment of mine. The point is that Catherine is finding it very hard indeed to stick to norms of WP editing without throwing accusations in all directions. I've already lost my temper with her once. But even though she's being polite now, I'm worried that difficulties could blow up again with other editors, and could get out of hand. User: Jayjg gave her sensible advice on his talk page, but her post in reply shows that it didn't sink in as one would have hoped. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Catherine Huebscher tells a bull-faced lie: str and I are not users with a history of behavioral problems here. Str has from the first behaved absolutely impeccably in all the Robeson debates. One of C. H.'s own "behavioral problems" seems to be the often repeated, always broken, promise to behave. [43] (in which 1 diff-link I provide shows, that I am not a socketpuppet - another of C. H.'s lies).--Radh (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets cool it shall we and follow the request to list claimed POV issues so they can be discussed. Both sides have said things they should not have including you. List the issues and I agree with ItsmeJudith, a few admins placing the article on watch and moving quickly to deal with any incivility would be a good idea. --Snowded ^TALK 09:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but spreading lies about my "general Wikipedia conduct" again, after she agreed [linked above] to let bygones be bygones and being told and shown that the socketpuppet investigation was a joke, has nothing to do with to-do-lists on Paul Robeson. And I stand by every word I said about whitewashers of Stalin's Terror being unfit to edit Wikipedia. I would throw her out, she would throw me out, no problem, but telling blatant untruths about me and User:str1977 ("untruths": until she demonstrates the kind of behavioral problems he is supposed to have) is not OK.--Radh (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to say it's amusing to see an editor defending Stalin. That's not something you see every day. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen it on this article either. Whitewashers of Stalin's Terror is a little extreme a statement when several editors have pointed out that hindsight is a wonderful thing when it comes to dictators, but at the time it may be more difficult. Radh, we can't make progress if editors demand that other editors are thrown out of the project. It can happen but it requires a persistent unwillingness to try and move things forward. Your call if you want to take part. --Snowded ^TALK 13:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the most famous African-American activists and writers, like W.E.B. Du Bois, Claude MacKay, George Passmore, Richard Wright and Langston Hughes were hard-core communists for a long time. Ralph Ellison defended the Hitler-Stalin pact just like Robeson did. But half of those did not stay Stalinists to the bitter end, Robeson did. There might even be a kind of tragic grandeur in this and being a renegate is not much fun.

There is no need for us, who all have the same hindsight, I guess, to praise the Leninism of Brecht, the Stalinism of Robeson and the Naziism of Benn or Heidegger. The only way foreward on the Robeson article is to break C. H.'s monopoly there. Her hero-worshiping has long ceased to be productive. Nobody wants to delete the good aspect of her work on Robeson, but the article as it now stands and just because of her is a) a poster child for the rightwing critics of Wikipedia, b) communist bullshit.. But this is only my opinion, I am fine with the consensus is to try the to-do list approach.--Radh (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Quack

Réeduck (talk · contribs) registered on December 8, and within 10 days he was tagging sockpuppets of user:GENIUS(4th power) [44], and creating an LTA page as well [45]. If this is a new user I'll eat my hat. Someone's sock, but whose? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw some of those pop up on my watchlist. Réeduck? Genius? Dunno who it is, but yeah, it's a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. Look at the other edits, mostly to Pro Wrestling topics. It's probably ECW500 (talk · contribs). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you see, don't know, but this is so straightforwardly someone's sock, I've blocked. Guess we'll see what that stirs up. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Since when is "being a sock" a block-able offence? The information provided here is quite sparse, and while of course I'll go and check, were these edits disruptive in some way? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ever since sockpuppetry became blockable. The edits were quite disruptive, by the way, given the user pages tagged as socks of Genius weren't his socks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for the rhetorical questions. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry directs you, when suspecting a new user, to go to Sockpuppet investigations, and from there it's a few steps to find in the administrator's advice part "Unfairly blocking someone as a sockpuppet is a harm not easily undone." And in there nothing on the person's talk page relating to this thread or to the block? I just hate to see us so casual about it...
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI's will often reject a "duck" case as being sufficiently obvious. And while I've seen cases of users in which SPI's were determined to be baseless, at the moment I can't think of anyone who was actually blocked for sockpuppetry where it wasn't already obvious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's odd that an editor could be here for almost 5 1/2 years (albeit with some lengthy gaps) and not know that sockpuppetry is forbidden. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Incredible! And an admin at that. Time to look at their admin license and see if the watermark is forged. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Standards for attaining adminship have been dropping over time. If they drop much further, I might run again! :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Aaron Brenneman appears to be a long-time admin just recently returned from a two-year Wikibreak. They seem to be having some difficulty because current best practices and policies are not exactly what they were before. It might be a good idea for this admin to stop enforcment actions for a while until they've caught up on how things have evolved in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, personally, it's rather disconcerting to see an admin with a redlinked user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is not good. I had to check the list of admins to confirm he really was an admin. That shouldn't be necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of anyone who was actually blocked for sockpuppetry where it wasn't already obvious. Yeah, every Scibaby DUCK sock was legit afterall right? But yes, he's been gone for 2 years so is probably not used to the "Shoot-first-ask-questions-later" attitude that's become the norm these days. O tempora, O mores! Arakunem^Talk 20:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not believe in the "duck test", but it usually works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There is, of course, absolutely no way to quantify that statement. Also, I never said I don't believe it has its place (in fact, in this case, obvious=obvious), I just said that it is so loosely thrown about these days as to be approaching disturbing levels, as the ARBCC ruling correctly observed. Arakunem^Talk 20:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If a truly innocent party is mistakenly blocked, they can get reinstated. As for the ArbCom, maybe they should have to spend a week or two dealing with the endless vandals, trolls, socks and other malcontents that constantly assault wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As one who has done just that, as well as NPP where I've personally witnessed dozens of well-meaning users template-bombed off of the project because their first attempts were A7 (but rather than actually try to school these users, they just received increasingly threatening templates), I would assume that an innocent new user who gets Duck-Sock Blocked is more likely to just quit than protest. In fact, it was some of these user who DID protest that led to the ARBCC finding. As for what Arbcom should or should not be doing, that's sophistry in this context. Arakunem^Talk 20:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If a user does not have a natural instinct or clue for a proper way to work here, I doubt they're going to be of much use to wikipedia. In any case, I trust the admins to do their jobs fairly. The term "sophistry" is usually taken as a personal attack, and I know you wouldn't make a personal attack, so I'll assume you're just being funny. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No personal attack intended. I mentioned an Arbcom ruling, you replied with a comment regarding what they ought to be doing instead (of... arbitrating?). I could re-factor my comment to say that such an argument was plausible though incorrect, and whose presence in the nice discussion we were having would only serve to distract or mislead from the topic at hand (that being the dichotomy of DUCK vs BITE), but there's already a word for all that, so I opted for brevity over circumlocution. But now as our discussion has now become a meta-discussion-about-the-discussion, I respectfully bow out in the name of STAYONTOPIC. Rest assured I will continue to defend the well-intentioned newbies who cross CSD out of ignorance, even if I'm the last one so doing. Regards and pie, Arakunem^Talk 22:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

After doing a quick CheckUser, I can conclude that Reeduck is on an IP range that was used by some socks of User:GENIUS(4th power) in the past. However, since the IP information is long stale, that's all I can conclude. –MuZemike 20:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding actual facts to an otherwise fairly sterile discussion, noice. Thank you for that. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Aaron Brenneman, you are the one who moved a discussion about a specific situation into a general conversation when you asked "Did I miss something? Since when is "being a sock" a block-able offence?", so your snark is not appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Unknown user constant revert

Unresolved

User falling under the IP addresses of Special:Contributions/74.198.9.161 and Special:Contributions/74.198.9.234 continues to make constant reverts on topics within the Israel-Palestine arena. Given his/her is an unknown user, discussion related to the matter is nearly impossible. I am sort of new to all of this but I am not sure how to report edit warring of an individual who uses such anonymity. -asad (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Special:Contributions/74.198.9.177. The common interests show this IP may have something to do with the discussion now going on at WP:AE. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it, maybe it is the n00b in me ... could you explain a bit more? -asad (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

{{Checkuser needed}} Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, how can I help? TNXMan 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! There seem to be a few IPs edit warring, data above.

• 74.198.9.234 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.198.9.161 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 74.198.9.177 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Chesdovi (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) - [46]

Do these match up with any of the participants in this thread: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Chesdovi? It looks like somebody may be logging out in order to evade scrutiny. Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, checkusers cannot link IPs to named accounts, as per the privacy policy (local and meta). We can link named accounts to named accounts and IPs to IPs, but not named accounts to IPs. Sorry. TNXMan 19:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you a Checkuser? In my experience checkusers are happy to block named accounts that use IP socks to evade scrutiny, bans or carry on other forbidden activities. I don't mind if you keep the results of the check private, but the problem should be fixed. Jehochman ^Talk 15:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. Chesdovi is British; those IPs are Canadian. It's not impossible, but it's unlikely from my perspective. -- tariqabjotu 19:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Further, I'm fairly confident Chesdovi observes Shabbat. He began making edits on December 18 (Saturday) at 19:39 (UTC), which is past sundown in Britain, but not past sundown in most places and for the vast majority of people in Canada. He's almost certainly not in Canada, so I don't think it's him. -- tariqabjotu 20:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In the interim, it seems like this is a violation of WP policy. Edit warring between an individual is one thing, but between someone you can't even hold a discussion with about the topic? Can an someone just lock the topics if there is no precendent to ban these addresses? -asad (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

These IPs are Breeins socks [47] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who agrees these topics should be locked to new or unregistered users or that constantly offending IP should be blocked? -asad (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson and Byzantine names

Pmanderson (talk · contribs) has for several months now engaged in a personal campaign to rename several Byzantine articles into a latinized form, performing such moves while consistently ignoring WP:RM guidelines and counter-arguments. In Wikipedia, for several years, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium form has become a de facto standard in names (essentially this boils down to using a transliterated form of the Greek surnames and the less common first names, for instance Andronikos Komnenos instead of the latinized Andronicus Comnenus, but John Doukas instead of John Ducas or Ioannes Doukas). Most if not all articles on Byzantine people were moved to conform to this standard following the here and here in 2006. Although the discussion did not really produce a clear result, since then the ODB forms have become the de facto standard. I note that during that vote I voted to keep the latinized form as the title, while Pmanderson was wholly against using the ODB form.

Pmanderson is on record repeatedly (see the talk pages) below for finding the ODB standard to be "weird" or "bastardized", and less preferable to the traditional latinized form. However, when he went about moving Constantine Doukas to Constantine Ducas, he initially based this on the argument that the ODB was "a half-forgotten reference work", then, I challenged that claim, that usage was limited to Oxford University Press publications. When I disproved that, he again moved his line of attack to "it never become standard with professional Byzantinists" or that it was declining in usage (see relevant talk page, although this discussion spilled over to Pmanderson's talk page and my own). These claims were made without providing any evidence, except citing "personal experience". This is complete nonsense: after the ODB's publication in 1989, its system is increasingly used, gradually replacing the older latinized forms, and the ODB remains very much the standard reference work in the field. Case in point, when Pmanderson named a few major Byzantinist authors who according to him still used the old system, even there I found that in their more recent publications, they had converted to the ODB form.

From his own passionate comments, it is clear that on Pmanderson's part, this represents an issue he holds dear. Fair enough. The issue at hand however is not what the merits of the latinized or the ODB systems are, since this is a largely subjective issue and one that does not fall within WP's purview to decide, but the manner in which he unilaterally moves around pages in an obvious (and practically self-declared) effort to "rebel" against de facto consensus, without even bothering with a WP:RM procedure. This is especially disruptive when moves like that at Constantine Doukas would necessitate moving a few dozen other related articles as well for consistency. The breach of move guidelines and of common courtesy is even more flagrant when he moved Nikephoros Gregoras to Nicephorus Gregoras even while the discussion on John Doukas was ongoing, and when I reverted, he moved it again (page history). Later he moved Maximos Planoudes to Maximus Planudes, prompting another short discussion here and here. This time, as Wareh (talk · contribs) demonstrated the latinized form to be more usual by far in published sources, I let it go. A similar and still ongoing issue at the talk page of the Komnenos dynasty also saw Pmanderson trying to promote the latinized form (Talk:Komnenoi#Propose move). So far at least, he used Google searches to back up his position, and indeed, since older bibliography almost exclusively uses the latinized forms, he has a point.

The latest incident however, at Michael Attaleiates, is a perfect example of Pmanderson making this an issue of personal taste without regard for actual usage: Pmanderson moved the page to Michael Attaliates with the comment that "Observe that none of the sources use this spelling". However, when I pointed out that the previous title is overwhelmingly used among both older and more recent publications, Pmanderson did not even bother to refute that (and still has not acknowledged that fact in the subsequent discussion even once). Instead, he changed his approach and claimed that "Attaleiates" was somehow considerably less intelligible than "Attaliates" (all because of this one "e"), even though, of course, according to him, "Attaliates" is immediately recognizable as "from Attalia" even if you don't know Greek (and even if, like 95% of the world's population, you have probably never even heard of "Attalia"). He also based his move on the WP:GREEK guideline, which he wrote. When I provided counter-arguments, even citing his own WP:GREEK guideline as allowing the use of the "ei" cluster as an alternative, he stopped even providing any arguments beyond what boils down to "I know best, it's my opinion that Attaleiates is incomprehensible and therefore my form is correct" and began ad hominem accusations: "you then began a war - on this obscure article which you have never edited before last month. Either you watchlist contains all Byzantine articles, or you are trailing me; if the first is true, a less comprehensive watchlist would dispell the implication that you seek to own all Byzantium." Aside from the fact that I had edited the article all the way back in May 2009, and naturally had it on my watchlist, this accusation comes from a person who never ever edited any of the articles in question except for moving them to his preferred title and making the relevant cosmetic changes. Apart from these moves, his contributions to other Byzantine-related articles (at least in the recent past) are also non-existent. After a non-involved user and admin (Aldux (talk · contribs)) moved the page back to "Attaleiates", Pmanderson suggested that in any future WP:RM, I be automatically excluded as "essentially unreasonable". Further arguments were again ignored/brushed off by Pmanderson as "a mishmash of misquotations". And after all that, still without a single time contradicting the evidence on usage, after the discussion had - thankfully - ebbed off, he moved it back to his own form after a few days without bothering with WP:RM formalities.

I used to respect Pmanderson, his contributions and his opinions. I hesitated long and discussed even longer to avoid coming here, but the last incident has clearly demonstrated that this issue is a personal obsession (which was more or less clear from the beginning, to judge by this), regardless of any evidence of scholarly usage or argumentation, since he simply refuses to acknowledge facts contrary to his view and constantly resorts to rhetorical fireworks to avoid an argument-for-argument discussion. I have repeatedly pointed out to him that the proper procedure for potentially contentious issues, as he knows full well, is to initiate a move discussion, and that if he wants the de facto ODB consensus overthrown, the correct thing would be to start an RfC and bring some evidence against it based on actual usage. He has ignored that and continued in the same manner, trying to overthrow established norms one article at a time. It is pure and simple WP:TRUTH-crusading, coupled with a blatant "I don't like it" attitude, and a perfect case of tendentious and disruptive editing, and it has to stop. At the very least, I would expect him to abide by WP:RM rules in the future, i.e. discuss first, move after. Constantine ✍ 23:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is another content dispute, dressed up as an ANI complaint. I have discussed until I was blue in the face; Cplakidas abandoned the discussion a week ago, and nobody else cares.

His content argument is fallacious (but irrelevant here); but if he can convince anybody else, he can do as I suggested and put the matter up for RM; I hope more briefly than he has done here. I promise here, as I promised on talk, not to oppose - but to put the case for the spelling I prefer. I will willingly yield to consensus; but so far this "consensus" consists of Cplakidas and Cplakidas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Pmanderson cares a lot about the naming of articles. I am beginning to doubt that it has much to do with any certain types of articles, he just seems to find himself embroiled in naming disputes over and over and over. It has nothing to do, near as I can tell, with any particular interest in Byzantium, given the alarming frequency with which his name gets associated with these sorts of conflicts. Its becoming something of a pattern. The behaviors you note, in every detail, match his standard modus operandi in these sorts of cases. He does this all the time. --Jayron32 23:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Jayron in that this is not new from him. A week and a half ago he and I got into an edit war over the wording of WP:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) which eventually led to him tagging the entire page as an essay and then going to WT:MOS to ask whether or not the other guideline even had consensus because he deemed it an essay. And this was because MOS-JA suggests to use the English language spelling utilized by the subject of the article in a personal or professional manner, rather than deferring to more common and inaccurate spellings. It frankly doesn't matter what the topic is. If he thinks the general practice is wrong, he'll come in and say that the practice is violating some unbendable rule that all articles have to obey.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I prefer English usage; I have also disagreed with Jayron's Jayen's strong preference that Ganges be moved to Ganga, and to Ryulong's insistence that there is something special about Japanese names, so that they shouldn't be spelled (in English) as anglophones spell them. The Ganga move request is now closed - and not moved; WP:MOSJAP no longer reflects Ryulong's isolated views. I am pleased, however, to see him support Honshu - and agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, Pmanderson:What are you talking about? I have never, not even once, commented on any move discussion regarding the Ganges. (or indeed, to my knowledge, ever even looked at the article in question) You know what's a good idea: Don't just make something up to make yourself sound better. You have a habit of getting involved in rediculous move wars, or at the least in taking discussions over naming of articles well beyond the beaten-dead-horse phase. This is a pattern. And this is not because of any conflict we have recently had. I have not been substantly been involved in ANY move discussion, not the least of which involving the Ganges. So please, if you are going to find some reason to be dismissive of my concerns, at least find something truthful. --Jayron32 00:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That was User:Jayen32 or 46 or some such, who also uses a colored sig. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • That is not my stance on the names of modern people. My stance is that if they give us a way to spell the name, we should use that, rather than some other form that has only arisen out of self published sources due to ignorance of there being the subject's preferred form. And my views are not isolated as the style guideline that you had an issue over was put in place long before this dispute occurred. And the only reason you claim it "no longer reflects [my] views" is because the page has been protected for three weeks because you saw the need to unnecessarily enforce your non-consensus views on the subject despite a standing consensus with those who actually edit articles regarding Japan.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• No opinion about the merits of this request, but this sort of issue is better suited for a WP:RFC/User. I, too, have noticed that Pmanderson is often intensely involved in rather odd naming disputes, so there may well be other people who may have similar concerns.  Sandstein  23:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) The problem is that during this latest bout of move-warring he also changed the redirect by adding a category so that the reverse move could not happen. As it is, PMAnderson's move-warring coming so closely after a recent 48 hour block is really concerning. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Wasn't Dr. K,. a party to the late FYROM dispute? If he can find consensus for his position, RM will do what he wants; if it is not consensus, so what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein (also without reference to the merits of the requset) that an RFC/U would be useful to address ongoing conduct concerns. It seems to me that an undertaking to put all moves through WP:RM would help matters here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If not voluntary, a formal edit restriction would seem to be necessary. He does seem to get himself involved in a lot of these battles. Fences&Windows 00:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. My only hesitation is that it would be quite easy for opponents to game the restriction, by moving articles away from PManderson's desired location in an attempt to shift the status quo, requiring PMAnderson to open an RM and achieve a consensus to move to get it back. But I would expect any admin closing such an RM would be alive to the gaming - WP:RMCI cautions admins to take care assuming that the present title of an article is indeed the stable status quo. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Far too much time is wasted on Wikipedia debating stuff that is of no importance to the reading public, and the specific names of articles is at the top of that list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! Having spent some time over the last couple of days trying to clear the RM backlog, it amazes me the fights that happen over titles of articles that are often completely rubbish. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 For those who commented about an RFC/U, please see also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson long-term behavior issues are something we need to look at here are his ANI threads needless to say its a disturbing number.[48] [49] [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59] His Block Log is a nightmare to examine. The RFC/U last July was closed with the summary “Pmanderson is frequently incivil towards other users. Many note that he does make quality contributions, but that his insults and WP:CIVIL violations are self-defeating” and “Pmanderson needs to modify the way in which he interacts with others.”

I hate to say it but maybe its time to think about his net benefit to the project. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is proposing a move of an article two months after that article went through a WP:RM discussion disruptive? If so, that's what User:Pmanderson just did here (previous move discussion). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Born2Cycle. For those of you who don't know the sistuation, that was this move request, which Born2Cycle, a non-admin, closed prematurely, calling !votes of 7 to 5 to 1, the 1 being a suggestion of a third alternative, "consensus" for a view he strongly advocates. I thisk the third suggestion preferable; so do several other people here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How did that move improve Wikipedia for the reading public? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

+ ::How did that move improve Wikipedia for the reading public? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• • B2C's move certainly simplified the article title; it may be expected, however, to produce a naming conflict with Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden in the foreseeable future. Moving the article again avoids this; it also makes the article consistent with Her Late Majesty's ancestors John, King of England and Henry IV of England (for why that can't be shorter, compare Henry IV. Is this worth doing? Let consensus decide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • "B2C's move certainly simplified the article title". On behalf of the entire community and our readers, thank you. As to the rest... oops, I just dropped my crystal ball. Seriously, what are the odds that the Swedish princess will not only become the ceremonial queen, but the primary use of "Queen Victoria"? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
• Statement. My contributions include one and a half FAs; they also include much discussion of our naming policy, including phrasing much of it in ways which are actually quoted. I have generally preferred to have our article titles be English and useful to the reader; as a result, I have been called anti-Greek, anti-Turkish, anti-Polish, and anti-German; I see that I am now being called anti-Indian and anti-Japanese. Recently, the voices for this or that POV have discovered that they can get their way by dressing up content disputes as civility disputes; If ANI chooses to reward this tactic, you will see more of it (and since the various causes here are inveterately opposed to each other, the drama wiil not be ended by submitting to the complaints).Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see an example where renaming an article has had anything to do with it becoming a Featured Article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Not renaming an article has been one of the factors involved in keeping an article from being featured. (For the general principle, would you feature Kim Jong-il under the title Beloved Leader?) This actually came up about Kraków; I'm sure there are other examples. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The common name for Queen Victoria is "Queen Victoria". Not that the rename was a big deal. It just doesn't accomplish anything useful for the reading public. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Most renames make the reader's time here a little simpler or a little more difficult; that's worth considering. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
          • And moving an article from the clean, simple and natural Queen Victoria to the unnatural and cumbersome (not to mention not nearly as well supported in reliable sources) Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom makes the reader's time here a little simpler, or a little more difficult? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
            • • • • Simpler, as explained up this thread; but that belons at the move request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As far as I'm aware, you're not being called anti-anything. You're just being called unecessarily combative when it comes to article titling.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Glad to hear it; it can be difficult to tell through the profanity. Certainly Ryulong (who as others besides me observe, is attempting to impose a guideline with which nobody else agrees) has reason to prefer that nobody combatted him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But I see that I am merely accused of failing to understand the special treatment that the Japanese require. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
      • In order of diffs: What profanity in the first link? Jpatokal is the only other person who bothered to intervene in our dispute. And it is just as it seems you are when it comes to Byzantine articles in this thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Link repaired. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Okay, so one f-bomb makes it difficult to tell how I feel concerning your editing practices?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
            • More than that; it makes it generally clear what sort of editors are most likely to complain about me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. While this ANI about PMA being unnecessarily combative in disputes is active, he rewords the section heading that another editor (me) created, in violation of WP:REFACTOR, and, just above, flings an insult at anyone who is "likely to complain about him". The audacity is unbelievable, and, of course, unnecessarily combative. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Believable. I would have refactored that section heading too. That was a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" section heading. Hesperian 02:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I created it purposefully to grab attention so as to encourage involvement. Perhaps it's not the best title, but it makes the point I'm trying to make, and violates no policy or guideline. I would be open to a suggestion to reword it, and that might even be good advice, but would you really edit it yourself? I've never seen you do anything like that. Remember, this is not article space but talk space and my signature, not yours or PMAs, falls under it, so the wording is my responsibility, not anyone elses. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, fair enough, you're right, I wouldn't really have edited it myself. I would have seen that as not on. Instead I would have raged impotently against it. But I don't recommend that course to others.... Hesperian 02:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So "Should WP:NCROY conform better with WP:TITLE/WP:COMMONNAME? " which begs the question we've been discussing for months, was a purposeful use of a debating tactic fully worthy of a high-school team to gain attention for the author. Was I right to frustrate his vanity? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, behold this wording: "Was I right to frustrate his vanity?" So, the purpose of PMA's actions was, he openly admits, specifically to frustrate (not to mention that blatant get-under-his-skin jab with "vanity"). That's unnecessarily combative, pure and simple. That's the problem in a nutshell. This is not acceptable and cannot be tolerated. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

wikt:frustrate: "2. To hinder." Hesperian 05:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have disagreed with PMA many times on naming issues, but I have never had any problems with his mode of disagreement, because, frankly, I would rather disagree with someone who knows exactly what they think and argues for their position with honesty, rigor and incisiveness, than disagree with someone who has only a vague gut feeling and no rationale to support it, and therefore has to resort to various muddleheaded and fallacious arguments in order to get what they want. From what I can tell, PMA's tolerance for this kind of bullshit is even lower than mine. If you're going to argue with him, expect to be held to standards. If you trot out a load of fallacious garbage, he'll smash you down. But if you put forward a position of merit in an intellectually honest manner, you'll receive an intellectually honest critique in return. I don't see that as 'combative'. Hesperian 02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the above is a good example of what I'm saying. PMA is called combative because he refactors a section heading that begs the question under discussion. As I said, PMA's tolerance for that kind of intellectual dishonesty/laziness is very low. He argues with rigor, and demands rigor from others. I don't see that as a bad thing, and I don't see it as 'combative'. (Permit me also to clarify that my comments about about 'muddleheaded and fallacious arguments' were not addressed at B2c or anyone in particular.) Hesperian 02:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I raised the topic at WT:NCROY. It was not under discussion until I raised it, and I chose to frame as I did. I suggest the person raising the topic gets to frame it... no? If it's improperly/unfairly framed, that can be part of the discussion. I'm not the only one who holds the position that names like "Queen Victoria" comform to WP:AT better than following the prescribed convention at WP:NCROY. This was persuasively argued by User:DrKiernan at Talk:Queen Anne; an excerpt[60]:

My choices are "Queen Victoria" first (most common name, meets 3 WP:AT criteria), "Victoria, Queen of the United Kingdom" second (second most common name, meets 2 WP:AT criteria), and "Victoria of the United Kingdom" third (least common name, meets 1 WP:AT criterium). DrKiernan (talk) 08:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, as near as I can tell, PMA is often way too quick to assume the other's argument is "this kind of bullshit", often when it isn't. And as soon as that occurs, he gets combative. You, Hesperian, are unusually articulate and thoughtful, and stand out among the best editors in my opinion. It is no surprise, therefore, that PMA has not had the kinds of misunderstandings with you that he typically has had with, say, editors not quite as capable as you. It probably doesn't hurt that you're an admin.

I too have had my disagreements with him, but never felt the need to file an ANI. I do see his behavior with others and sometimes with me (including in this refactoring incident) as being problematic, and I've tried to help him understand how to improve in these areas. That's the only reason I participate in the ANI discussions when others file them.

Above, I wrote that "I created it purposefully to grab attention so as to encourage involvement". By it I was clearly referring to the title that we were discussing, but PMA chose to take that statement out of context and interpret it as if I was saying I created that to grab attention for myself. He did it above ("...to gain attention for the author") and he did it at WT:NCROY in a section he named "Vanity edit": "The above effort to gain attention..." [61]. Now, what point is there to any of that other than to be combative? I don't know if he honestly misunderstood or he intentionally misrepresented what I said, but either way it's clearly combative and uncivil behavior, which makes it unacceptable. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm intrigued by this comment: You, Hesperian, are unusually articulate and thoughtful, and stand out among the best editors in my opinion. It is no surprise, therefore, that PMA has not had the kinds of misunderstandings with you that he typically has had with, say, editors not quite as capable as you. (Having skimmed Hesperian's comments, I seem to agree with her/him in general.) So what we're saying is, we need to make WP a "safe place" for people who don't have an intellectual leg to stand on? As a former teacher, I try to be supportive of enthusiastic editors who lack skills, but I have no patience for POV-pushers and crusaders and don't see why I should, despite my recent efforts at decorous hypocrisy. It's painfully obvious that those who have content disputes with PMA look over his history and realize that decorum tribunals are a good tactic against him. Therefore, he looks as if he's worse than he is, because he gets called in for behaviors that would pass unnoticed from other editors. (I could point to diffs, but that would be unfair to the editors who made the remarks. It's also perplexing but beside the point that PMA is willing to shed a martyr's amount of blood over whether it's Marseille or Marseilles.) Rules are rules: but PMA should not in fact be held to higher standards than anyone else, as was implied here. That's unjust and unduly controlling. So here's my question: what has PMA ever done that damages the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? Are we here to produce a useful and reliable encyclopedia, or to create a virtual monastic order where our behind-the-scenes behavior matters more than what ends up in articles? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

One more point, and question for PMA. Here is a recent quote of Jimbo Wales: [62]

I suppose what we all agree upon is pretty simple: editors shouldn't make snarky comments to other editors, and shouldn't use links to essays to be snarky.

Pmanderson... do you agree with Jimbo that editors shouldn't make snarky -- snide and sarcastic; usually out of irritation -- comments to (or, presumably, about) other editors? Why or why not? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to close this?

Is there something I'm missing here? What admin action is being requested? It seems that most of the commentary here either belongs on article talk pages or an RfC/U. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The admin action requested here is some sort of admonition to use the damn WP:RM procedure instead of performing the moves first and then challenging the editors to come up with reasons (which are always ignored by PMA) to move back. And that if he continues in this manner on an issue where he has been for some time aware that a significant opposing opinion exists, he faces some sanction. Constantine ✍ 08:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Cplakidas' remedy lies in his own hands; if he goes to RM himself, I promise not to block with a bold oppose, but to state my reasons as a comment. If he has consensus, fine; I'll abide by it.

Cplakidas washed his hands of the article in question a week and more ago; this offer has been standing since his objection, over a day ago. He declines to go to RM, but demands admin intervention. Does this mean that he doesn't think he has consensus? If so, why intervene? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

He definitely did not wash his hands from the article. He put forward compelling arguments in favour of the ODB spelling which you completely ignored and he told you so on the talkpage of the Michael Attaleiates article. Your response was to move the article title to your preferred version and you disabled the redirect by making an additional edit at the ODB version so that only an admin could move it back. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The larger issue is PMA's continued use of snarkiness and incivility when referring to others and their opinions. He often does it in totally unprovoked situations, as he did again today, and was called on it by another user. [63]. He also indicates here how he sees nothing wrong with talking about his fellow editors in such an opprobrious language. He's been blocked for incivility in the past, yet he continues. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

While I get it that Pmanderson's rough manners have created some resentment here we should try to remember why this ANI section was opened. This was for a series of problems concerning Byzantine-related articles and what in my very modest opinion seems a blatant violation of WP:MOVE; also an uncompromising attitude, that I feel makes discussion often difficult. Pmanderson is an amazing editor that I respect and admire greatly, but I feel his behaviour in this circumstance (Michael Attaliates) has been pretty frustrating, and it does seem to come in a sort of pattern; frankly, I tend to agree with Konstantine that he should respect WP:RM, as this would permit a much more serene interaction.Aldux (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At a minimum this unjustified page move should be reversed but the Michael Attaleiates redirect needs to be deleted first to make the move back possible. To leave it at the present title would be equivalent to rewarding move-warring on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis and would serve to encourage more behaviour of this type in the future. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat from anon at Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Minor legal threat from 64.131.190.231 (talk · contribs) [64]: "For a guy who is a Hedge Fund Manager and a best selling Author, He can sue the hell out of guys like John Nagle for making statements such as "Taleb blew up several funds" or "Taleb inflates his returns". Such accusations on this forum can cost him (Taleb) business.The way legalities works in the US (and specially in UK and India and other countries),this gentleman-Nagle- if not careful can spend the rest of life paying legal bills if Taleb is half as headstrong as he comes across to be and decides to pursue legal charges. It appears that Mr Nagle does have all the time for that but money could be a different matter. Ironically The well wishers are robust (cant lose much except credibility or their Wiki editorship) as Taleb would say. The slanderers are very concave (can lose the shirt off their back). Thanks ~JD"

It's from an anon, but a sock check against the parties mentioned in [65] might be worthwhile. (It's surprising how wound up Taleb's team gets over even mild criticism. The worst thing I've said about him is that the financial success of his hedge funds is questionable since he talks about the returns in the best years, but hasn't released audited numbers for the life of the funds. Similar comments have been published elsewhere.) --John Nagle (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Without investigating this matter, and definitely not defending legal threats, this could also involve a BLP violation. Just a thought. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Mhiji mass nominating unused templates

This is less of a complaint and more of a notification. This user seems to be hunting down unused templates - something trivially easy to do. I feel this behavior to be a waste of time since unused templates are in fact in use if people review page histories. Also unused templates are often referenced as a resource for people who edit templates regularly - at least I do. It is no big deal of course and it isn't really disruptive, just something you guys may consider reviewing. -- Cat ^chi? 07:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We need focused work like to cut down with backlogs, etc (although this topic wouldn't be my first recommendation for the job). I think what's important to note here is that TfD needs a few more eyes than usual. Many of these are being relisted due to no participation. ThemFromSpace 10:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with white cat, although many of these deletions make sense, others seems senseless. Okip 22:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the nominations seem to be drive-bys. Templates have been nominated only to have the nomination withdrawn after an editor has explained the purpose of the template. Had Mhiji done just a little investigation first, he might have seen that the nominations were unnecessary, but this is the problem with this editor; He shoots first without asking questions and doesn't check the results of his edits. He got a bee in his bonnet about capitalisation of TV series names and edited {{Infobox television season}} to italicise titles but didn't bother to check the results so articles became fully italicised.[66] Instead of "List of Foo episodes (season x)" you got "List of Foo episodes (season x)". When I pointed out the problem to him, rather than rethink his approach he just reverted my reversion and de-italicised names in articles, which wasn't the ideal approach. It was later fixed properly by another editor making hundreds of his edits redundant. Meanwhile he started mass moving TV season articles from "List of Foo episodes (season x)" to "Foo (season x)" to "fix" the problem, citing WP:NC-TV as justification after he'd misinterpreted that convention. This upset many editors resulting in WT:TV-NC#Massive page moves on season articles by Mhiji. That discussion really got nowhere and stalled around November 18. After some time Mhiji decided on his own "consensus" and started mass moving articles again about five days ago, which re-ignited the anger and the discussion, as well as a discussion on his talk page. None of the moves he made were made with any discussion or consensus and yet those pages he couldn't move, he listed at requested moves as uncontroversial when they were anything but. While discussion at WT:NC-TV goes on he has, for the moment, stopped moving pages and has now set his sights on templates. When he finishes with those, either of his own volition or being told not to continue, I have no doubt he'll move on to something else. He has done similar to this in the past, such as when he decided to modify {{Infobox hospital}}.[67] He failed to check the effects of his edits there and, as a result, the hospital's website appeared twice instead of once. He's too busy "fixing" things to see whether his fixes have broken anything. This is an editor who doesn't seem to want to collaborate. He just does his own thing despite the opinions of others. He'll even resort to changing the rules so they support his opinion.[68] As another editor pointed out, he'll even resort to trying to create a Fait accompli if that helps his case.[69] --AussieLegend (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the user is chewing more than he could swallow at the moment. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? Templates are just text. Unless they violate copyright or are offensive deleting them has no real net benefit to the site. Deleting them wastes hard drive space as deletion logs (and the RfD itself) wastes twice as much as space. Deletion just hides it from public view. I would argue that having deprecated templates around is good practice since it tells people the right way to do it. -- Cat ^chi? 11:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning about former Wikileaks.org domain from spamhaus...

Noted this on an IRC channel - http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=665

seems genuine, Could some administrators take appropriate action or redirect this discussion?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• You'll probably have to explain what a malefactor-hunting organization outwith Wikipedia labelling another organization outwith Wikipedia as a malefactor has to do with the English Wikipedia, let alone with administrators on the English Wikipedia, first. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 1000 or so links to it. Do these need to be updated now?--Misarxist 15:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we can leave it for the moment. http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=wikileaks.info --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But on the other hand, the mirror list at www.wikileaks.fi still doesn't link to it. Maybe updating wouldn't be a bad thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I just tried an update run, but the first few I found were deadlinks anyway. I fixed a couple where I could verify the new location, but a straight search-and-replace won't work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Sunflowergal34 - evaiding block

see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Wikipedia_Consulting_vs._Actual_Paid_Editing.3F

The user admits "We've had so many accounts banned as socks or meatpuppets" - the editor represents a company that has been taking payment for creating articles on wikipedia. As another editor points out "Also, why has no one blocked you for evading the blocks on your other accounts? User:Delicious carbuncle" - it's not clear. please consider this.

(as an aside the user now seems to be blaming wikipedia as a whole because WP:COI doesn't fit with his business plan. As far as I can tell they are just trolling on the Village pump now.)83.100.225.242 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that he's trying to do the right thing now, but is getting frustrated at the contradictory information he's getting. I don't think any admin action is required at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My issue is that the editors new posts almost entirely relate to what their company can or cannot do. That seems to be in contradiction to WP:COI (stated in bold in the first paragraph) Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. To me it doesn't suggest a fresh start at all. I'm also concerned that the aim of the editor's posts on the village pump is basically to get tacit permission to train other editors to break WP:COI etc 'by proxy', and now the editor has gone on the defensive as they have been told that that isn't ok. I'm not seeing an editor that is going to help.83.100.225.242 (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking wouldn't be correct here. He is attempting to converse with the community but not disrupt. He might be angry but that isn't a reason to block. We have known who he is since he made the confession and intentionally left the current account alone without pursuing blocks. If he uses the chance improperly and begins to disrupt...that would be a different story.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Shearography Edit War

It has broken out to a edit war on the Shearography page

I can explain the background of the edit war: I created the first version of shearography "Desmoquattro" back in 26 of March 2009. It took some time before another manufacturer of shearography discovered it and completely messed it up just to get some pictures of the own equipment there WITHOUT paying any respect to formatting etc wich suffered a lot:

• please see revision 19:52, 6 June 2010) made by user Shearo.

I re-edited the page (10:01, 14 June 2010 Desmoquattro) to make it look reasonable good again with formatting and everything and also made a compromise that both of our equipments are on display.

• This edit was messed up again from user Shearo (06:42, 30 June 2010 Shearo) without any respect to format, just to bring up pictures of the own producs.

I reseted it again to a clean version. But once again it was destroyed by (15:37, 29 July 2010 Shearo) In Octber 2010, it reached a new level when user shearo (or he/she behind a IP) started to change the hypertext on the external links so "Dantec Dynamics" could not be clicked on for more information. This is in my opinion sever and after this the "war" started. This sever destruction of the hyperlink is done SYSTEMATICALLY every edit... I have tried to keep the page clean and not use it as some marketing tool, and not destroying for any one else editing it for developing it.

• Hope that we can find a solution here and stop such destructive edits done from user Shearo (or the anonomyss IP he/she is using)

I have done some copy edits and will watch-list the article. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel needed at Michelle Malkin

Could someone check out the last few revisions of Michelle Malkin and RevDel as necessary under criteria 2? (smear, violation of BLP policy) The "facts" given by the edits are either fabricated or some kind of misguided erroneous original research - the "source" given apparently refers to some other person of the same name, as the Michelle Malkin who is the article subject is not an attorney. Kelly ^hi! 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A mistake is not a smear. I think we're going far, far overboard with the revision deletion lately. As long as it is reverted...and IMO it is clearly about a different Ms. Malkin altogether...then all is good. Tarc (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. No revdel needed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But unfortunately it was just scrubbed by JohnCD anyways. :/ Tarc (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...but done anyway. :-( I'm going to restore the diff text, but leave the edit summaries deleted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 3)I have revision-deleted. It takes some research to be sure that this is a different person. It seems to me to come under Other defamation/personal information issues, and even if no one looked at the deleted history the edit summaries were still defamatory. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like John's actions were undone by Sarek. Kelly ^hi! 18:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, I am going to ask that you reverse yourself. In my opinion, doing so without discussion falls under the principle of don't revert BLP enforcement without discussion. NW (Talk) 18:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This was a marginal enough case that I take no offence at being reverted, though I think the edit summaries should remain hidden. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm willing to do that, but note that Tarc and I had both come to the conclusion that it wasn't covered under the RevDel criteria here before/while JohnCD deleted them, so it wasn't completely without discussion. Should we leave it for now while the next section hammers out where the line should be drawn? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarek, it is more the principle that I am worried about. In the future, could you not do such a thing without a fair deal more discussion? NW (Talk) 18:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably. I'm just a bit gunshy on the topic at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Being gunshy about using it yourself should not prompt you to undo others' usage. I would encourage a wider consensus than two editors in agreement before undoing one admin's actions on a BLP basis. Considering the balance of harms, I'd encourage a wider discussion rather than a quick restoration of such material. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RevDel and BLP vios

Just for clarification, what is the threshold for removing/hiding revisions for BLPs under criteria 2? It seemed to me like a bogus assertion of criminal activity would meet that. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RD2 covers "slurs, smears" but explicitly "not mere factual statements." Are accusations which are false statements of fact also excluded? If so, I think the words "even if false" should be added to the policy. JohnCD (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a false statement of fact, when defamatory, would fall under the definition of "smear". Kelly ^hi! 19:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the threshold should be if actual harm is done to the subject if the revisions remain visible in history. Since the real Malkin is not a lawyer, an article about someone with the same name being disbarred added to her article is more nonsensical than harmful IMO. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As John said above, that's not immediately obvious. I had to some checking around to find out whether she was a lawyer, and in which city she lived. Kelly ^hi! 19:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The "not mere factual statements" part of the policy seems clearly aimed at factual statements which are verified by reliable sources - otherwise it seems a bit meaningless. So I'd say deleting this content (not just the edit summary) is supported by RevDel and BLP policy, and should be reinstated. In addition, I'll take the opportunity to advertise a suggestion I made at Wikipedia_talk:Revision_deletion#RD_request_example_library. Rd232 ^talk 22:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Since consensus seems to be that these edits are damaging, not just mistaken, I've redeleted those revisions. I'm still not convinced this is the correct answer, though, so I welcome further opinions (though I won't be restoring if consensus changes). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Fandom Wank and User:Andrewowen2000

This WP:SPA account has continued to add a G4 speedy deletion tag to this page despite it once being removed by another editor and twice by me. G4 clearly doesn't apply as the page is not "substantially identical" and an attempt has been made to meet the original reason for deletion by the addition of more links. Even if it is a G4 candidate per our deletion policy if there's disagreement over a speedy deletion it should be taken to a discussion. I have pointed this out to the editor in question but they continue to add the G4 tag and I don't want to remove it again because it would be getting close to edit warring. I normally wouldn't report this to ANI this early but, as this user's only edits have been to this page (mostly adding the G4 tag) and their talk page, I smell a sock. Dpmuk (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag once Dpmuk explained the right thing to do. Yawn. Andrewowen2000 (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by user:Mirrordotwikileaksdotinfo

Resolved

here--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:RBI in this case. Nakon 18:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea who that is and why they left me a message? Bulldog123 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Most likely just trolling; I wouldn't worry about it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Likely semi-random, I have edited many articles in that area, but not (AFAIK) contentiously. I look forward to being awarded massive costs :) Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC).

Template fix requires Admin

Resolved

 – Temporary fix applied by RL0919

Can someone fix Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - currently it's saying "You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so." - should say "You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so" otherwise editors will look in the wrong place for the discussion. I'd do it myself but that template is fully protected. Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought this would be a quick fix, but apparently that text is transcluded from Template:Editnotices/You should notify any user that you discuss, which is also transcluded into Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. So it is not so easy to change one without changing the other. --RL0919 (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If you revert back 2 edits, it will go back to the previous version as a temporary fix - though the colour is different if you want to make it the same for consistency. Exxolon (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've done that for now since I don't have time at this very moment to do anything about the transcluded page. --RL0919 (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Exxolon (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

IP disruptions on Race (classification of humans)‎

POV pushing from one or several posters switching IPs and user names in the Race (classification of humans) article, an article falling under the umbrella of arb comm's sanctions in Race and intelligence. The latest IPs geolocate to Beijing, and may be related to puppeteer user:Mikemikev(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_China_Electric_Power_University&diff=prev&oldid=188359036). I think semi-protection of the article is needed to quiet things down there. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maunus has semiprotected the page for 3 months against IPs and newly established accounts, after an obvious sock of Mikemikev edited (Frostbite Alan2 (talk · contribs)); he has submitted that modification under pending changes. Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to apply the same level of protection to the talk pages of this article and the principal article. That would resolve a number of issues (cf Frostbite Alan3 (talk · contribs) - can't he watch repeats of Teletubbies?). Mathsci (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of the present levels of disruption on article talk pages.[73] Mathsci (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous - adding 35 KB to a talk page isn't discussion. I reverted him. Should this uninvolved admin protect the talk pages too? KrakatoaKatie 23:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Protecting pages to push your own pov agenda would make you the POV pusher. And another, just because someone is an anonymous editor does not make them the bad person. They just remain anonymous for privacy, but they are still law abiding peaceful citizens. 68.96.245.221 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: the IP User talk:68.96.245.221 posting above is evading two long running blocks imposed for the same problem--there may be more.(71.68.251.54 68.222.236.154)Professor marginalia (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP has now broken 3RR on Talk:Race and intelligence to restore archived dsicussion, with five reverts. The user has been warned several times about the terms of WP:ARBR&I on their user talk page. Here he restores archived material [74][75][76][77] as well as deleting another editor's comment.[78] Because of this type of disruptive editing, it is probably now advisable to semiprotect the talk pages of both articles.Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I filed an WP:AN/3RR minutes ago. I recommend semi-protection too - but if a 3RR block is the best we can do, so be it. But the IP's already switched to a new IP in the last 24hrs.[79] Professor marginalia (talk) 08:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy question

A couple of questions have arisen on what a blocked user is allowed to do on his talk page, other than making proper unblock requests. I am unable to find the right policy page. Can someone help? Thank you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING and WP:NOT are probably the closest you'll get to relevant policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the section about not using a userpage to simulate an article is the closest to what I'm looking for. It seems there is a fair amount of flexibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Most pages related to them seem to be guidelines rather than policy pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:User pages). There doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule - if a blocked user uses their talk page inappropiately it's easy to block access to it if required. Exxolon (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The flexibility can also extend to allowing article improvement on the talk page, though obviously there's also taking the piss. Not knowing what you're referring to I won't guess which it is. But no, there's no such policy as such. Good thing too. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I had a sort of policy change thought in mind, specifically involving spam accounts. Most spammers post their shill on their talk page. It seems to me that blocking the account doesn't really solve the problem, since they still have access to their talk page and can technically continue (until it gets revoked). Since, as a spam account, it'll never be unblocked anyway, why not revoke talk page access for accounts blocked as spammers? HalfShadow 21:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think spammers who blatantly spam to their talk page are normally routinely silenced. It's a bit sweeping to class all spamblocked users as irredeemable spambots. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I sorta meant the real obvious ones; the ones that generally get reported to Usernames for Admin Attention, not all spammers in general. HalfShadow 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This one, for example:[80] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The two questions I had were about a sock posting to a blocked user's page (which seems to be resolved now), and about a blocked user being told he cannot set up changes to articles on his talk page. The closest I can see on that is near the "blanking" part of that guideline, where it says that user pages are not supposed to look like articles. But it's possible there's a sanction for the specific user prohibiting him from doing so. A couple of us have asked the admin, but he seems to be offline at present. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure stuff around this used to be mentioned but can't track it down. I guess the question is what is the purpose of the block and does the talk page behaviour impede that reason. Blocks being used as a method of temporarily removing editing rights due to behavioural problems other than vandalism, may not be that effective if the person can continue more or less unimpeded by merely editing their talk page such that it's a copy and paste when the block expires i.e. their enforced "timeout" isn't as effective. OTOH if the block is because of vandalism encouraging them to create positive contribution (standard offer?) may actually be an effective reinforcement of the reason for the block. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand the motive for the policy, for block are meaningless if not enforced, but in my opinion, the policy is unenforceable against anyone determined enough to make and use socks, and thus causes yet more complicated trouble; it is paradoxically only effective against those with relative good will towards the encyclopedia. I have no replacement to suggest that would effect the purpose, and can therefore only suggest that we refrain from using the utmost possible rigor in enforcing it. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"refrain from using... rigor?" Huh? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is very much context sensitive, who the person is, the reason for the block, the length of the block etc. If it's a lengthy block then yes they may believe they have little to lose by socking etc. A shortish block perhaps not so. On the other side if it's a case of war of attrition - keep at it until one party gets bored, I guess there is a question of if the community views the behaviour as disruptive enough that they'll happily chase down the socks, revert, reset block lengths etc. I suspect your comments is really more towards the banned user rather than the short term block, I'd also suspect that there are a large number of banned users who have returned in one guise or another but due to changing their behaviour etc there is no obvious connection and we have no real problem with them now. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

ive always felt that chasing down stocks, revert, reset block lenghts etc. was all unecessary in terms of sockpuppeteeringtry. there is functionaryl no diference between two individual spambots operatin independently and one individual operating 2 seprate accounts. we wouldnt treat either of them differently irregardless whether or not they were 1 person or 2. a sockhunt is a waste of attempt. User:Smith Jones 01:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Offline conversations with admins about socks and so forth have led me to pretty much agree with what you're saying. Vandalism and trolling are vandalism and trolling. Sometimes socking is so obvious it jumps off the page at you - and then you have to be careful that it's not an impostor trying to get the blockee in further trouble, which has been known to happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• On the original point: I agree that it is a case-by-case type of thing. If the user is blocked for a day for edit warring, no harm is done by letting them use their talk page as a sandbox provided they don't violate any other policies by doing so. If they are long-term or indefinitely blocked and are trying to use their talk page to get others to proxy for them, that's different, and can lead to revocation of the talk page along with re-setting, extending, or hardening the block. (insert dick joke here) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Work

Resolved

 – User now on ice until the spring thaw.

Hi all. What work shall I do today? Should I do some RC patrolling? Or maybe I should go round fixing grammar and formatting? Or perhaps I should even be creative and write some new articles, or do some research so I can add new material and verify sources. Actually, should I just do vandalism/trolling? I tell you what, I'll let the community decide!

Please vote below with your preferred option. Thanks! 93.97.59.17 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

My vote is that you be given a long block for making a legal threat.[81] Have a nice day. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That was a long time ago and I retracted that threat! :( 93.97.59.17 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no statute of limitations for legal threats on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

He didn't retract. His last edit before today, a month ago, was the legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok well I definitely retract it now. Btw, the "vandalism/trolling" option was kinda a joke, just in case you didn't realise. I do genuinely want to be constructive, and just want opinions on what you think I'd be better off doing. :) 93.97.59.17 (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Given that you lied about retracting, you're not off to a good start. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't trust ya, 93.97.59.17 IP. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

user:Kuguar03

Resolved

 – This should never have been brought to ANI, but one can say, Kuguar03 was not personally attacked. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It all started at this Afd. User:Kuguar03 nominated this article for deletion. User:Piast93 voted to keep it, and added a little advice to Kuguar03 about maybe not nominating articles for deletion so quickly, as it may discourage new users. Kuguar03 immediately accused Piast93 of personal attackshere. When User:Netalarm tried to calm the situation, Kuguar03 accused Netalarm here of joining in a smearing campaign against Kuguar03. That’s when I tried to defuse the situation, but then Kuguar03 began demanding here what he did wrong. User:ZooPro and I tried to explain that there were no attacks made, and no one thought any less of Kuguar because of his Afd, but he kept asking what he did wrong, and ended up demanding “a huge apology” for wasting his time. Netalarm, Piast93, ZooPro, and I all tried to calm him down, but it seems Kuguar03 won’t stop accusing people of attacking him. The Arbiter^Talk 00:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. If that's an "attack" or a "smear" then I've been executed and drenched in mud many times over; any thicker skin for sale somewhere? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. First it's unbelievable that you'd rather go to ANI than admit you were wrong, but then you misrepresent what happened in such a ridiculous way? Here I thought you were just foolishly joining in the pile on without really trying to understand the issue, but it seems you have some deeper issue that I'm unaware of.

All I've ever wanted is to know what I did wrong, or acknowledgment that I didn't do anything wrong. Is that so much to ask? Kuguar03 (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not really see any personal attacks at that AfD either. Kuguar, it may very well be better even for your own sake to not let little stuff like that insult you so easily. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

AGAIN, as I've pointed out many, many times the only issue here is what "mistake" I made by nominating this article for deletion, as stated here, here, here, and here. That's not trying to "defuse the situation", it's escalating it. If I made a mistake, tell me what it is. If I didn't, then I didn't. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And for the record, I gave an in-depth explanation of my reasons for nominating the article here. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can all see, he just refuses to let it go. The Arbiter^Talk 01:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can all see, he refuses to answer a simple question. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not really see where you did something really wrong. Although it is nice to have new users create articles for us, I do not think we should 'keep' articles just because a newbee created it. When an article is poorly sourced and/or there is doubt that the subject is notable enough, we should look for reliable sources that give the facts and establish notability. If we can not establish notability, then it may well be worth deleting. The other editor may have been just giving his own opinion. It does not look like he was trying to put you down. At this point, I would say just move on. You will waste a lot more time trying to get a result to your satisfaction out of an other user making that comment, than you would just moving on and improving the encyclopedia. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2)Kuguar03, I don't recall that I've interacted with anyone of the editors with whom you're upset, and I don't think I've ever run across you, so I'm completely uninvolved. I read every word of the AfD and the subsequent conversations you initiated, and I have to tell you that you were not personally attacked. I can show you lots of actual personal attacks, against me and against every admin here, but this is not one of them. Piast93's comment was a constructive criticism - people seek criticism of their contributions every day at Wikipedia:Editor review. Nobody has said anything personal about you - it was a simple suggestion to keep in the back of your mind as you edit. You have to calm down about criticism of your editing or you're not going to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia at all. - KrakatoaKatie 01:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is there so much emphasis on the personal attacks? Is that even relevant to the discussion? I'd have walked away from this ages ago if it weren't for the constant accusations that I did something wrong. That's the only issue as far as I can tell. Kuguar03 (talk) 01:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

You're doing something wrong right now, that's for sure; this dog is dead. Leave it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Who, me? The Arbiter is the one who brought this to ANI. If anything he should be censured for wasting everyone's time. If he won't acknowledge he was wrong there's not much to talk about here. Kuguar03 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read my second comment above (the one with the blue edit conflict tag)? That should have gone somewhere in telling you what you may or may not have done wrong. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this. Why is there so much emphasis on the personal attacks? Kuguar, in your third message on Piast93's talk page, in the section you yourself titled Try to avoid personal attacks, you said, "Criticizing me for constructively participating in the building of wikipedia is a personal attack". We're trying to tell you, no, it is not. He did not personally attack you. If you are going to take things like that so personally, if you don't want your work criticized - including your AfD nominations, comments, uploads, or any other aspect of your contributions - don't edit here. Let these people alone now. KrakatoaKatie 02:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with KrakatoaKatie, No personal attack was committed and I feel it seemed to go from something very very simple to ending up on ANI, like I said to you before Kuguar03 I did not consider anything you or anyone else did wrong I do think there may have been some miscommunication that has somewhat been resolved here. No one holds any ill towards you and will treat you like any other editor. I welcome your contributions to the project and hope that this mis-understanding has not blackened your view. Please try to remember we are humans just like you who are sitting in front of a computer trying to make the world a better place by building a free encyclopedia. ZooPro 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment from an uninvolved editor. I don't think User:Kuguar03 really did anything wrong in nominating the article, but I also don't think User:Piast93 was guilty of bad faith or made any personal attack in offering some advice. User:Kuguar03's pursuit of this has gone way too far into dead horse territory -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging that I did nothing wrong, ZooPro. I'm curious what caused you to reverse you previous position, but I don't see any point in continuing this conversation. I did nothing wrong by nominating an article for deletion after careful consideration, and repeatedly criticizing me for doing so is an attack and not constructive. Some editors disagree with that, fine, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion here. The only issue is, and has always been, whether or not it's a mistake to nominate an article for deletion. I don't believe it is, and as I understand it, wikipedia policy is on my side. I don't know why Arbiter would rather escalate (and totally misrepresent) issues than admitting to being wrong, but if he hasn't done so by now he probably never will. I don't know what outcome he expected, but he now owes lots of other people apologies for wasting their time. But as long as none of the editors involved come after me again I don't see any point in pursuing this matter further. Kuguar03 (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

How many times is it going to have to be repeated to you? Criticism is not a personal attack. It is not their 'opinion' as you state above, it is defined that way in policy. As katie said, if you can't handle critique, you would probably have better luck elsewhere than wikipedia.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Holy crap, talk about beating dead horses! Let me say once more before finally walking away: The only issue here is whether it's wrong to nominate an article for deletion or not. That's it. That's all. There is no other issue here. Constantly talking about personal attacks is adding nothing to the discussion. Constantly misrepresenting what I said is adding nothing to the discussion. Constantly misrepresenting the issue is adding nothing to the discussion. Yours, KrakatoaKatie's, and other editors' comments are completely irrelevant to the issue here. If you think they are, you need to go back and look at what actually happened, because they are not, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Arbiter, Piast93, and Netalarm repeatedly told me I made a mistake by nominating an article for deletion. I disagree. I was hoping to get some explanation of their view to try and understand better where they were coming from, but none is forthcoming. That's all that's going on here. That's it. There is nothing else. If you don't have anything to add to that discussion you're adding nothing to the discussion.

Now if anyone wants to have a constructive discussion, you know where to find me: Diligently working with other editors to build an encyclopedia. It's baffling to me why so many people would oppose that. Kuguar03 (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, how about I repeat most of my second post in this thread, where I try to answer that?: "I do not really see where you did something really wrong. Although it is nice to have new users create articles for us, I do not think we should 'keep' articles just because a newbee created it. When an article is poorly sourced and/or there is doubt that the subject is notable enough, we should look for reliable sources that give the facts and establish notability. If we can not establish notability, then it may well be worth deleting."

And, in addition to that repeat: There is nothing wrong with nominating an article for deletion, as long as it does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia (such as it not being notable enough).

Does that answer your question? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 10:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Just because you say something, doesn't make it automatically true.. also, you don't get to decide whose comments are relevant to this discussion; firstly to my above point, the rightness/wrongness of the AfD is not the only issue here, the other issue is your misunderstanding of wp's WP:NPA policy. You can't go claiming someone is attacking you every time you're criticized as it's disruptive editing and draws away from improving the encyclopedia.

Secondly, there is nothing our comments are misrepresenting about yours; you clearly think you were attacked because someone disagreed with your nomination; you say that exact thing in several posts above. It may be the case that you think you were attacked; that isn't what's up for dispute in this issue, what is up for dispute is under policy, those are not attacks, and continuing to claim such is in itself an attack, because it is baseless accusation. Calling you stupid would be an attack, saying you were wrong for noming an article.. no.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 11:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And just to remind you, this thread was not about whether you were right to nominate the article for deletion, but about your unjustified allegations of personal attacks after you had been given constructive suggestion. If you re-read the thread you'll see that no contributor to the thread felt that you had been subjected to personal attacks. So the situation is simple: You were justified in raising the AfD, and you weren't subjected to personal attacks. End of thread? - David Biddulph (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Come on folks, I suggest we all just back away from the man with the stick now - let him have the last word if he wants -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about last words; this is about an ongoing behavioral issue that needs to be corrected, continuously claiming others have been issuing insults is nothing but disruptive when they in reality have done no such thing.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 11:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, he says he's stopped now, and I personally see no benefit in continuing this - so that's the last from me on the subject too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review a block I am about to make

TL;DR User warned to talk more and revert less, kept reverting first and talking after.

---

I'll try to present this in an objective manner:

• There has been some contentious editting on Political prisoner (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.
• My involvement commences at Talk:Political_prisoner#Recent_contentious_editing
• Several very new editors were making good-faith attempts to add new material, providing sources, etc.
• There was insufficient discussion on the talk page, with both sides choosing mostly to revert.
• I warned two users not to revert the addition of sourced material without first using the talk page, and not to re-revert.

  Bidgee (talk · contribs): warning, warning removed, more explicit warning.

  Stepopen (talk · contribs): warning.

As (in my opinion) there was a stark contrast between the standards being set for the new user's edits and the existing standard on the page, I then opened discussion on the other material on that page. See Talk:Political_prisoner#Other_entries_in_the_list.

• Cecilex (talk · contribs) attempts to use the talk page, while also re-adding the material.
• User:Bidgee twice reverts, and does not first use the talk page as warned was a requirement:

  00:32, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403621844 by Cecilex (talk) Per the reasons set out on the talk page about the sources also new sources a opinion pieces and blog)

  00:52, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Other entries in the list)

  00:46, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection ‎ (Requesting full protection of Political prisoner. (TW))

  00:43, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Political prisoner ‎ (Undid revision 403623305 by Cecilex (talk) Per prev reason, see talk page. Also do not readd.)

  00:39, 22 December 2010 (diff | hist) Talk:Political prisoner ‎ (→Back to discussion of the sources and inclusion criteria)

Once I've posted this, I'll be blocking User:Bidgee for twenty-four hours to prevent further disruption to the page. I would have preferred a more gentle approach, but he's proven remarkably resistant to clam feedback. I'm not fussy about having my adminstrative actions reversed so anyone with the bit is welcome undo this block, with the caveat that I'd prefer they comment in this thread and wait a few minutes for comments/consensus first. But even if they don't, I'm not going to get my knickers in too much of a twist.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No opinion on the block yet, I haven't gone through everything in fine detail. But given that no-one else was trying to edit the article in other aspects, would full protection not have been an alternative option? If the aim is to get people on both sides off the article and onto the talk page, full protection could be a more calibrated solution than a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not agree with the way this was handled. I don't understand why this admin opposed the request to protect the page with the rather odd argument that as it was a content dispute we shouldn't protect the page,(what else is full protection for?) [82] and instead chose to block but one edit warrior. Both users edit warred, they should both be blocked, or neither of them should be. Using the talk page at the same time as one is edit warring does not excuse it in any way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• My thoughts: the ideal behaviour would have been for Bidgee to revert once, but not again. But a block isn't necessarily warranted for failing to adhere to ideal behaviour. There are other important factors to bear in mind. First, Bidgee was unquestionably correct: the sources don't support Manning's description as a political prisoner. In fact, Quigley is right to remove many more entries than Manning. Being correct isn't an excuse to edit-war, but it should be a factor in whether a block is an appropriate solution. Secondly, it was the other side that broke the BRD cycle, by insisting on re-inserting contentious material after it had been reverted and while a discussion was taking place. Third, there were better options: full protection would have stopped the edit war and forced everyone onto the talk page. Here, full protection is a viable option because this dispute is the only editing activity happening on the page. Blocking one party means that party can't even continue to engage in discussion on the talk page. Fourth, he hasn't broken 3RR (of course, that's not determinative - edit warring can happen regardless of 3RR - but he hasn't even come close). Accordingly, I'd suggest a lift of the block and a lockdown of the article for about a week. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• WP:BRD applies. The change proposer must get a consensus for his/her change. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unblocking. I'm unblocking Bidgee, because (a) this has now been open for well over an hour and the block has been opposed by up to three editors (I take Beeblebrox and, perhaps, GoodDay to be opposed to the one-way block) and supported by none; (b) it's a short block so only a short discussion period for the purposes of unblocking is warranted; and (c) the blocking admin kindly indicated it would be ok for any admin to unblock after a short period for comments. I'll also full-protect the article for a week with the caveat that the unblock is not an endorsement of Bidgee's actions.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that everyone. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Aaron, you seem to have involved yourself in the content on talk beginning December 17, so that would preclude you from using the tools. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I saw Aaron's involvement on the talk page as weighing in, in an administrative capacity, to stop edit-warring, rather than getting involved in the content dispute (although it is fine line and Aaron went further than I would have). That's something admins should be encouraged to do. I've found a few times that a few stern messages on a talk page from an admin who reserves the right to use their tools in the dispute can cool things down before the need to dish out blocks arises.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the involvement was clearly editorial. Aaron hasn't been an active admin for some time, so no one had reason to believe he was there as an admin and not as an editor, always a fine line in the best of cases. Arguing on RfPP against page protection during a content dispute, then blocking the regular editor who requested the protection, but not blocking the occasional editor causing the trouble—while being involved in expressing an opinion about content on talk—these are all the kinds of things best avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman actions as an Administrator are questionable. He is clearly an involved editor, even if he never edited the article, as they are heavily involved in the talk page discussion. Aaron Brenneman also seems to have little understanding of the policies and guidelines in place, as an Administrator they should be able to understand them (doesn't have to know it off by heart).

Aaron Brenneman as an involved editor should not threaten to misuse their tools, I also question the amount of time it took them to block me which was just over one hour and twenty minutes after the undo when it was clear I wasn't going to do another revert (infact I had limited myself to those two undo/reverts) not yet breached the 3RR which is another reason why I had asked for protection. It has me confused as to why he has refused the protection of the article while there is a dispute in progress. He's latest comment on the talk page is also questionable and clearly has failed to assume good faith towards me.

I would have thought that past history he as to deal with would have given him an idea when to block editors. I'm sadly considering at taking this to WP:RFC/ADMIN since he has failed to apologise for the unwarranted block and has continued to act in bad faith (see above link about ABF). I also believe that block should be annotated since no once will ever look at the diff link and will be yet another block that people will try and use against me (and they have in the past). Bidgee (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman has followed the wrong path. It's good to tell regular editors to not BITE newcomers, but such advice should be tempered when the newcomer is an WP:SPA making a political point by adding Bradley Manning as a political prisoner while citing two sources which merely describe the person as a prisoner (Manning's circumstances are disgraceful, but Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs). See this discussion where Courcelles said "For you to have threatened these users with a block for enforcing BLP standards is quite inexplicable." That was four days before the block under discussion here. Bidgee's first revert ('sources do not state that he is a "political prisoner"') was precisely correct, and Bidgee did not violate WP:3RR. Johnuniq (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The court system will decide what laws, if any, this Manning guy broke; wikipedia won't decide it, but only report it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the block was an error; the unilateral block and the refusal to use page protection are at the least out of keeping with current practice. I think, however, this should not be perceived as a threat to misuse his tools...since I highly doubt that he considered it might be misuse, what with his complete opennness about the situation and his recommendation that Bidgee seek feedback from other administrators if he disagreed. (cf. here.) "threat to misuse" carries connotations of intent to knowingly take improper action. The level of involvement here is borderline; the input at the talk page of the article does not seem strictly editorial to me, but it would have been a good idea to make clear that he was speaking in his capacity as an administrator. I've recently discovered that when people don't understand that you're wearing your admin hat, they can view your behavior in quite a different light than it is intended. I don't think there's any abuse of tools, but I'd encourage Aaron to immerse himself a bit more in the current culture of Wikipedia to make sure that his tool use is in line with current policy and practice. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is not the way I perceived it, they should have sought an opinion as their warning was out of line for an Admin who is involved in the dispute. Why block an hour after I undid the edit on the article when it was clear that I wasn't disrupting Wikipedia or the article and had not reached the 3RR (and just to clarify that I wouldn't had done any further reverts which is why I took the step of requesting protection)? As an Admin on Commons I would have, if involved, gotten a third party Admin and also protect the article as well as warn those involved (if not involved in the dispute) that they will be blocked if they continue after the protection has ended. Being heavy handed like Aaron Brenneman was, is completely out of line. I'll also quote he's comment on the political prisoner talk page "that editor was blocked shortly to stop the disruption, and the discussion was clear that their behaviour was "not ideal."", disruption? how was I disrupting the article at that time (when I was well away from a computer), I'm sorry but I don't feel it was in error with a comment such as that which was well an truly after I was unblocked.

Now I have a block log in which I shouldn't have. It was ok in the early days of Wiki but now it effects anything I do. Bidgee (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, since more or less every block in your log was lifted or otherwise noted as not having bearing, I don't think it's much of a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I have had the first block used against me, even though it was noted in the block log, on more then one occasion. Bidgee (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A short block like that, which happened almost three years ago, means very little today. That's donkeys' years on a website. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I haven't had the block used against me in the past year (partly due to not being as active on Wiki) but the point is the last one will be, especially those who don't bother to look at the link or plainly just want to use anything such a blocks [of any length (an editor showed me a recent example)]. People also use the block logs in RfA even though you really don't have anything to answer for. Bidgee (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Bidgee is quite correct and you are wrong Gwen; many editors just look at the length of a block log, nothing else. Do you recall blocking me for using the word "sycophantic" for instance? That was two entries, one for your stupid block and another for your reluctant unblock. Yet your own record of making similarly poor blocks remains unblemished. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As we both know, Malleus, I didn't block you for using the word "sycophantic." I blocked you for a long and wearisome pattern of incivility. If you would like to talk about your block log further, please start another thread somewhere, or you're welcome to bring it up on my talk page. That said, I do agree with both of you that there sometimes is carelessness in reading block logs. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Intel 8086

Hi, admins. I wish for an administrator to keep an eye on this page. See the history here. There's an anon IP and a logged-in user who are editing back and forth with sternly-worded edit summaries. I can't find a specific policy that's been breached - I simply request that an admin keep an eye on this page. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

At a quick glance, I woulkd say the most likely problem would be edit warring. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Feast on my Soul

Feast on my Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A user who apparently thinks he's stumbled across a variant on Facebook. No harm that I've seen, just weirdness. Maybe an expert could take a glance at its contribs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see any red flags, though it is a bit odd for someone to come onto Wikipedia and not make any edits at all to start with. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Ricky Simms

I noticed User:Ricky Simms editing Ricky Simms which is an obvious COI. Also, all his contributions seem to be to promote his own business. As some of these pages (e.g. Usain Bolt) should be quite heavily watched, I was reluctant to revert it all, so I'm bringing it here for your discretion. --Muhandes (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

He only made two edits - I removed the multiple links to the companies web site and got rid of some promotional language. Not sure he is notable though, needs someone who works on Athletics BLPs to get involved. --Snowded ^TALK 12:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's at most half the issue, he added himself to 50ish other articles. There's also the issue of determining if this is a promotion only account or a legitimate addition of information. --Muhandes (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The addition of an external link to a large number of pages virtually simultaneously is spamming (and these were added into the text as well as the EL sections, along with a namedrop). I've rolled back all the edits I could easily get at and I'll leave some additional advice on Ricky Simms's userpage. EyeSerene^talk 13:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Off wiki canvasing

Not sure if this is the right place but here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STNNNG an off wiki artciel has been linked to that blatantly asks people to come and vote to keep the page http://www.avclub.com/twincities/articles/music-notes-internet-to-determine-how-notable-stnn,48816/. I don't know who is responsible (so cannot inform them of this), nor what could actualy be done. but it does mean that the AFD could be undermined.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The coverage appears sufficient for a keep, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. If anyone wants to tag it with the external canvassing template, that couldn't hurt. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added {{Not a ballot}}. This sometimes happens with band articles, doesn't often sway the outcome either way, though, since "votes" from SPA editors and anons aren't likely to get much heed. As SOV says, looks like it'll be kept anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Long history of copyright violations by User:Logger9

User:Logger9 has the habit of writing long, unencyclopedic essays, compiled from outdated research literature, which has led to long, infertile debates in the past. Recently it has been discovered that much of his writing consists just of copying or superficially reformulating entire paragraphs. He has been warned several times about copyright violations, but he continues as before. For more information, please see my recent note Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Logger9 -- Marie Poise (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)